Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: MaterLaeta on October 09, 2010, 10:38:13 PM
-
I just happened across a book titled "Survival til Seventeen" which appears to be an autobiography of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
I have heard his name in passing here & on FE. I was wondering if someone could give me a relible source on who he was, what he taught & what the Boston heresy case was all about.
I know this is all involved in EENS which has been one of the most hotly contested topics on most boards. No one seems to agree on interpretation of EENS. How can I find a reliable source of what the church really teaches?
-
There is a book one can purchase at addall-- After Boston Heresy Case by G Potter. There is a good summation of prev events and much more.
-
Fr. Feeney denied the doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Blood.
From one of his books:
http://www.aryanunion.org/other/bread/bread7.html
Bread of Life, Chapter 7:
Quote:
Q. What. does "Baptism of Desire" mean?
A. It means the belief in the necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation, and a full intent to receive it.
Q. Can "Baptism of Desire" save you?
A. Never.
Q. Could "Baptism of Desire" save you if you really believed it could?
A. It could not.
Q. Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification?
A. It could.
Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of "Baptism of Desire," and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never.
A justified man according to Fr. Feeney who died without water Baptism could not be saved.
What the Church teaches:
http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html
-
From the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was not included in the link:
Page 124-125
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
-
The main point is that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. In certain circuмstances it is possible for someone who has reached the age of reason to receive the effects of Baptism without having received the Sacrament of Baptism.
-
What about an infant that was miscarried? If she was stillborn at 20 weeks, with no sign of life?
I had intended to baptize her when she was born, like all of ther siblings?
-
Take a look at this thread:
Consolation to those who suffered a miscarriage
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Consolation-to-those-who-suffered-a-miscarriage
-
Another confusing tangent of BoD is-- what about the people in this world( in the deepest parts of Amazon, Africa and elsewhere today) who have no idea that there even is such a thing as the Roman Church-- much less a conception or her Doctrines or even less of the necessity to adhere to them?
Not being a priest or theologian, the important thing to me re : the Fr Feeney case is that the docuмents used to allegedly ex-communicate or summon him to Rome are fraudulent. An action such as this could be understood coming from the v2 anti-church but not The Vatican of Pius XII(XIII). Acc to Ms Martinez, Pacelli was quite the close, personal student of Rampolla-- and this-- from her--at least I believe.
I have tried to troll for a discussion of this book numerous times but the silence is deefening.
-
Another confusing tangent of BoD is-- what about the people in this world( in the deepest parts of Amazon, Africa and elsewhere today) who have no idea that there even is such a thing as the Roman Church-- much less a conception or her Doctrines or even less of the necessity to adhere to them?
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer14.htm#11
Answers to Difficulties
1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).
It's reasonable to think that this would also apply to pagans.
Not being a priest or theologian, the important thing to me re : the Fr Feeney case is that the docuмents used to allegedly ex-communicate or summon him to Rome are fraudulent.
About his excommunication I've only read this:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=1&catname=2
I have tried to troll for a discussion of this book numerous times but the silence is deefening.
If you have a link to the book online or if you could quote from it that would be helpful, but I have no plans to purchase something like that.
-
It's reasonable to think that this would also apply to pagans.
If they don't happen to receive this interior light or the arrival of a preacher then its on account of their sins.
2 Corinthians 4:3-4 And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.
-
The truth!
-
About his excommunication I've only read this:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=1&catname=2
I have tried to troll for a discussion of this book numerous times but the silence is deefening.
If you have a link to the book online or if you could quote from it that would be helpful, but I have no plans to purchase something like that. [/quote]
The book is worth reading as a jurist-- one must evaluate all sides of an issue b4 rendering a verdict.
Re: The SGG opinion that the ex-communication of Fr Feeney was valid--I would consider the source.
-
I like Fr. Leonard Feeney very much, and I think it is horrid the way he is vilified. In fact, the ONLY thing the sedes, SSPX, and the novus ordo people are united on is their intense dislike of Fr. Feeney.
He was right on about much and saw where it all was heading. One of the best things he ever wrote was a little squib in his magazine "The Point" about, what he called, "pious frauds".
On the other hand, it is my opinion that he was manipulated by certain members of his St. Benedict's Center. Why he listened to them, I do not know. He should have gone to Holy Cross College when he was transferred, and he should have gone to the Vatican when they called for him.
That and $2.95 will get you a gallon of gasoline.
-
The main point is that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. In certain circuмstances it is possible for someone who has reached the age of reason to receive the effects of Baptism without having received the Sacrament of Baptism.
if water baptism is "absolutely necessary for salvation", then how could one not getting wet receive any effects of baptism...2 contradictory statements.....you either are baptised or are not......
-
I like Fr. Leonard Feeney very much, and I think it is horrid the way he is vilified. In fact, the ONLY thing the sedes, SSPX, and the novus ordo people are united on is their intense dislike of Fr. Feeney.
He was right on about much and saw where it all was heading. One of the best things he ever wrote was a little squib in his magazine "The Point" about, what he called, "pious frauds".
On the other hand, it is my opinion that he was manipulated by certain members of his St. Benedict's Center. Why he listened to them, I do not know. He should have gone to Holy Cross College when he was transferred, and he should have gone to the Vatican when they called for him.
That and $2.95 will get you a gallon of gasoline.
It is not only SSPX, 'Sedes' and NO that vilify Fr Feeney but Hobson at TCW also seems to dislike him. I am a Sirite as well but hold Fr Feeney in high esteem.
The paper allegedly calling Fr Feeney to Rome is as fraudulent as that which claims to ex-communicate or censor him. If he recognised the v2 and the anti-popes, this is excusable yrs ago when things were not clear imo
-
I agree with you, Roscoe. Always we have to remember that there was no internet back then. Fr. Feeney was already a sickly man in the sixties. News filtered down to the useful idiots in the pews at a slow rate. If you didn't know the people who were informed about things, you didn't know what was going on.
Chicanery was always alive and well in the Church. Apparently it was thriving in Boston in general and the Jesuits in particular.
I have never been able to figure out why he is so disliked, almost universally it seems. But it is laughable that Fr. Leonard Feeney is the only thing that the members of the church - across the board from the left to the right - agree on.
One thing that I have noticed about people that hold what is termed an "extreme" view on one or many things is that they usually try to balance that out with being liberal in other areas. This could also be a possibility regarding Fr. Feeney's and the SBC's thoughts on VII/TLM.
God rest his soul.
-
The main point is that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. In certain circuмstances it is possible for someone who has reached the age of reason to receive the effects of Baptism without having received the Sacrament of Baptism.
if water baptism is "absolutely necessary for salvation", then how could one not getting wet receive any effects of baptism...2 contradictory statements.....you either are baptised or are not......
Belloc, I'm not saying Baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation but the effects.
From the Code of Canon law, canon 737 states: "Baptism, the door and foundation of the sacraments, is necessary for salvation for all in re (actuality) or in desire".
-
The main point is that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. In certain circuмstances it is possible for someone who has reached the age of reason to receive the effects of Baptism without having received the Sacrament of Baptism.
if water baptism is "absolutely necessary for salvation", then how could one not getting wet receive any effects of baptism...2 contradictory statements.....you either are baptised or are not......
I'd like to second that. If there is an exception to a rule then the rule is NOT "absolute". You can say it is almost absolutely necessary, but you cannot say it is absolutely necesary.
The problem the Cushingites have to deal with is that the Council of Trent and several other ex-cathedra statement say that it is absolutely necessary.
-
And the Gospel of John:
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Commentary
[5] "Unless a man be born again"... By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19.
from http://drbo.org/chapter/50003.htm
I accept fully what the Holy Church teaches.
I'm just not sure what that is!
-
I accept fully what the Holy Church teaches.
I'm just not sure what that is!
What the Church teaches:
http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html
The link mentions Canon 1239.2, but not 737.1:
"Baptism, the door and foundation of the sacraments, is necessary for salvation for all in re (actuality) or in desire".
From the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was not included in the link:
Page 124-125
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Commentary of Cornelius A Lapide
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/3john.htm
Lastly, born of water ought here to be understood either in actual fact, or by desire. For he who repents of his sins, and desires to be baptized, but either from want of water, or lack of a minister, is not able to receive it, is born again through (ex) the desire and wish for baptism. So the Council of Trent fully explains this passage (Sess. 7, Can. 4).
-
The link mentions Canon 1239.2, but not 737.1:
"Baptism, the door and foundation of the sacraments, is necessary for salvation for all in re (actuality) or in desire".
Commentary on Canon 737.1
http://www.archive.org/stream/acommentaryonthe00charuoft#page/32/mode/2up
Baptism is called the gate to, and the foundation of, the other Sacraments, because without it no other Sacrament can be validly received. The Church has ever taught that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, either really or by desire 1 and that consequently no other sacrament can be validly received without it. Thus ordination would be invalid and imprint no indelible character if the ordinandus had not been baptized.2 This necessity of Baptism is called necessitas medii, necessity of means, because without it salvation cannot be obtained. The reason for this absolute necessity8 lies in the words of Our Lord, John III, 5. Either in re or in voto signifies that the baptismus fluminis or flaminis or sanguinis is sufficient.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again, properly speaking there is no such thing as a unbaptized saint.
All who have received Baptism by blood or desire have truly received the effects of Baptism.
-
Why would Christ, who set an example for us by being baptized by water himself, leave so much room for confusion over something as important as salvation, by allowing all kinds of baptisms to enter the picture, and create all kinds of confusion?
It seems that all these different baptisms - water, blood, desire - just create confusion and conflict.
-
Why would Christ, who set an example for us by being baptized by water himself, leave so much room for confusion over something as important as salvation, by allowing all kinds of baptisms to enter the picture, and create all kinds of confusion?
It seems that all these different baptisms - water, blood, desire - just create confusion and conflict.
There is no confusion the Church has spoken, and Baptism of blood and desire are de fide teachings.
-
To back up my post:
http://www.sedevacantist.com/baptism.html
I feel sure that Fr. Feeney has written, and preached much good, but unless you accept all the de fide teachings of the Church you are outside the Church.
-
Why would Christ, who set an example for us by being baptized by water himself, leave so much room for confusion over something as important as salvation, by allowing all kinds of baptisms to enter the picture, and create all kinds of confusion?
It seems that all these different baptisms - water, blood, desire - just create confusion and conflict.
he set the example, but knows the heart and mind, hence knows what those that cannot get to water think and know..it is really not that confusing......
also, Christ did not have to be water baptized...
-
The link mentions Canon 1239.2, but not 737.1:
"Baptism, the door and foundation of the sacraments, is necessary for salvation for all in re (actuality) or in desire".
Commentary on Canon 737.1
http://www.archive.org/stream/acommentaryonthe00charuoft#page/32/mode/2up
Baptism is called the gate to, and the foundation of, the other Sacraments, because without it no other Sacrament can be validly received. The Church has ever taught that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, either really or by desire 1 and that consequently no other sacrament can be validly received without it. Thus ordination would be invalid and imprint no indelible character if the ordinandus had not been baptized.[/color]2 This necessity of Baptism is called necessitas medii, necessity of means, because without it salvation cannot be obtained. The reason for this absolute necessity8 lies in the words of Our Lord, John III, 5. Either in re or in voto signifies that the baptismus fluminis or flaminis or sanguinis is sufficient.
Compare that with one of your quotes in the link you provided earlier:
4. Pope Innocent III
Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned. (Denzinger 388)
How did a "Priest" die w/o baptism?
-
The way I understand this is the priest was not aware that he was not baptised, but because he persevered in the faith fully at his best, he received baptism of desire, (God knows his own) received the same effects as if he was watered baptised, although not the sacrament of baptism. The effects however were upon his soul therefore any sacrament he received was valid.
-
Baptism of blood and desire are de fide teachings.
Don't know if that is correct. IF they were, Fr. Leonard Feeney would have known that, wouldn't he?
Perhaps one of our arm chair theologians can comment.
-
Belloc,
Christ did not have to be baptized. Yet he was - with water - and He set an example for the rest of us.
-
Baptism of blood and desire are de fide teachings.
Don't know if that is correct. IF they were, Fr. Leonard Feeney would have known that, wouldn't he?
Perhaps one of our arm chair theologians can comment.
Many priest, nuns even Bishops know what is de fide but they seem to have a better answer, they refuse to follow Church teaching. Just look at all those who follow Vatican II, it is also de fide to believe in the first commandment. Thou shalt not have strange gods before ME! yet, look at the VII popes how they glorify the false gods. Fr. Feeney shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. He is just another who is starting his own church and taking souls with him, only God knows where.
-
Belloc,
Christ did not have to be baptized. Yet he was - with water - and He set an example for the rest of us.
The sacrament was not yet instituted when St. John baptised Jesus that day, it was explained to me.
Can someone here explain this better, I only remember that part of which I posted. I will try to research it for my own sake.
-
Belloc,
Christ did not have to be baptized. Yet he was - with water - and He set an example for the rest of us.
The sacrament was not yet instituted when St. John baptised Jesus that day, it was explained to me.
Can someone here explain this better, I only remember that part of which I posted. I will try to research it for my own sake.
I can give you the "Catholic Answers" answer from my years (Lord knows how I did it!!) of listening to the show. Whether it is correct or not, I do not know.
Circuмcision was the "baptism" of the old law. Since the Church did not begin until Pentecost, the need for water Baptism was not "officially" required until then. Which is why when people use the good thief as an example of someone entering heaven w/o water baptism, it is not a valid example since the Church had not been officially "born" yet, and the good thief joined the others in the "limbo of the just" until Our Lord ascended into Heaven.
-
Baptism of blood and desire are de fide teachings.
Don't know if that is correct. IF they were, Fr. Leonard Feeney would have known that, wouldn't he?
Perhaps one of our arm chair theologians can comment.
Many priest, nuns even Bishops know what is de fide but they seem to have a better answer, they refuse to follow Church teaching. Just look at all those who follow Vatican II, it is also de fide to believe in the first commandment. Thou shalt not have strange gods before ME! yet, look at the VII popes how they glorify the false gods. Fr. Feeney shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. He is just another who is starting his own church and taking souls with him, only God knows where.
You make a few good points here, but it is inconceivable to me that a man would spend almost 15 years studying to be a Jesuit and not know that BOD/BOB are de fide teachings. Why then did he ignore those de fide teachings and zero in on the "No salvation outside the Church" dogma as being forgotten and ignored by others, when he was doing the very same thing regarding BOD/BOB?
-
Belloc,
Christ did not have to be baptized. Yet he was - with water - and He set an example for the rest of us.
The sacrament was not yet instituted when St. John baptised Jesus that day, it was explained to me.
Can someone here explain this better, I only remember that part of which I posted. I will try to research it for my own sake.
I can give you the "Catholic Answers" answer from my years (Lord knows how I did it!!) of listening to the show. Whether it is correct or not, I do not know.
Circuмcision was the "baptism" of the old law. Since the Church did not begin until Pentecost, the need for water Baptism was not "officially" required until then. Which is why when people use the good thief as an example of someone entering heaven w/o water baptism, it is not a valid example since the Church had not been officially "born" yet, and the good thief joined the others in the "limbo of the just" until Our Lord ascended into Heaven.
Yes, thanks so much! Now I remember that exactly!
As for Fr. Feeney, I can't answer why he wanted to ignore that teaching, but I know it is de fide. Why he didn't know that, only God knows. That doesn't mean you and I have to make the same mistake he made.
These people for some reason, like to put God in a box or limit him. He instituted the sacrament, and only He can bend the rules, you do believe that, don't you. He gave us a teaching Church, and it is common sense that if someone loves God, as you and I do, but for some reason, they were not baptised, they should go to Hell???
What if you reading here weren't baptised? Yet, you love God and are doing your best to save your soul; unaware that you were really not baptised. "They" just told you that you were. Do you think God will send you to Hell when you die? I don't!
Gee, I am thinking now, maybe we should all go and be conditionally baptised, just in case. (Trying to make a point!)
-
Baptism of blood and desire are de fide teachings.
Don't know if that is correct. IF they were, Fr. Leonard Feeney would have known that, wouldn't he?
Perhaps one of our arm chair theologians can comment.
Many priest, nuns even Bishops know what is de fide but they seem to have a better answer, they refuse to follow Church teaching. Just look at all those who follow Vatican II, it is also de fide to believe in the first commandment. Thou shalt not have strange gods before ME! yet, look at the VII popes how they glorify the false gods. Fr. Feeney shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. He is just another who is starting his own church and taking souls with him, only God knows where.
You make a few good points here, but it is inconceivable to me that a man would spend almost 15 years studying to be a Jesuit and not know that BOD/BOB are de fide teachings. Why then did he ignore those de fide teachings and zero in on the "No salvation outside the Church" dogma as being forgotten and ignored by others, when he was doing the very same thing regarding BOD/BOB?
people are faulty and tend to get blidners at times....also, Feeney was not infallible....but human and faulty...like us all....
-
As for Fr. Feeney, I can't answer why he wanted to ignore that teaching, but I know it is de fide. Why he didn't know that, only God knows. That doesn't mean you and I have to make the same mistake he made.
These people for some reason, like to put God in a box or limit him. He instituted the sacrament, and only He can bend the rules, you do believe that, don't you. He gave us a teaching Church, and it is common sense that if someone loves God, as you and I do, but for some reason, they were not baptised, they should go to Hell???
No, I find it hard to believe that only Catholics can go to Heaven. Although as a child I readily believed it since that is what I was taught. I vividly remember the day I found out that not everyone in the world was Catholic. I must have been around seven years old. I was shocked.
However, I think that saying that God is not limited to either His Church or Sacraments is a dangerous place to go since it appears to be a slippery slope to me. And, if that is so, why bother instituting a Church and Sacraments at all? Who are the rules and regulations for? Catholics only and everyone else gets an "invincible ignorance" pass? Something about that doesn't seem just to me.
Also, the dogma "outside the Church ...." is pretty cut and dry. It has now been so watered down that it is rendered meaningless.
-
The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
http://www.christorchaos.com/TheUnBaptizedSaintsDeceptionbyFatherStepanich.htm
-
The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
http://www.christorchaos.com/TheUnBaptizedSaintsDeceptionbyFatherStepanich.htm
Then why did he (Fr. Feeney) do it? Fr. Feeney seemed to be doing fine until he became entangled with two key SBC members who always were able to talk him out of doing the right thing - at least this is the impression that I got from reading several books and articles about him.
-
I'm willing to bet that some liberal "Catholics" were truly saying that there is salvation outside the Church, and in arguing this point they brought up the doctrines of Baptism of blood and desire, and Fr. Feeney was scandalized by this.
However, as Fr. Stepanich says:
The salvation of those baptized by way of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood comes about immediately, at death. Such souls or brought by God into His Church at death, and they enter into Heaven, not “outside the church,” but “inside the Church.” There are no “unbaptized” or “outside Church” souls in Heaven, nor were “unbaptized” or “outside the Church” Saints among the Saints of God.
-
There are no “unbaptized” or “outside Church” souls in Heaven...
And before anyone objects because you'll bring up the souls who died before the New Law you need to understand that he's saying that there is no soul in Heaven who did not receive the same effects.
The three varying terms, Baptism of Water, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood, do not represent three different baptisms. What those terms do represent are three different circuмstances or situations in which God brings about consoles one and the same effect of the one and only Sacrament of Baptism.
That one and the same effect in all three cases is the cleansing of the soul from the stain of original sin, and the infusion of sanctifying grace into the soul. And that is the essence of the Sacrament of Baptism.
The results of that action of God in the soul, is that the newly baptized soul is raised from its previously natural state or condition to a supernatural state, while the further result is that such a soul is brought by God into His Church, so that it is no longer “outside the church, where there is no salvation.” Finally, a newly baptized soul finds the way open for entry into Heaven.
-
I'm willing to bet that some liberal "Catholics" were truly saying that there is salvation outside the Church, and in arguing this point they brought up the doctrines of Baptism of blood and desire, and Fr. Feeney was scandalized by this.
However, as Fr. Stepanich says:
The salvation of those baptized by way of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood comes about immediately, at death. Such souls or brought by God into His Church at death, and they enter into Heaven, not “outside the church,” but “inside the Church.” There are no “unbaptized” or “outside Church” souls in Heaven, nor were “unbaptized” or “outside the Church” Saints among the Saints of God.
Haven't you ever read his biography? Those "liberal Catholics" who were saying some wild things were his fellow Jesuits and they were being taught to students at Jesuit colleges in and around the Boston area.
-
It's no wonder we got Vatican II, the numbers looked good, but many did not know the faith properly.
I threw out My Catholic Faith catechism because it stated explicitly that there is salvation outside the Church.
-
It's no wonder we got Vatican II, the numbers looked good, but many did not know the faith properly.
I threw out My Catholic Faith catechism because it stated explicitly that there is salvation outside the Church.
Was MCF trying to say there is salvation outside membership in the Church? This is what the Baltimore Catechism seems to be saying. I think it's worded poorly, but certainly not heretical.
-
I don't remember, it's been like (edit:) nearly 2 years since I threw it out.
-
I just found a link to it online, but the catechism has been edited on this point:
http://www.willingshepherds.org/My%20Catholic%20faith/My%20Catholic%20Info.htm#Salvation%20and%20the%20Catholic%20Church
-
If it had stated originally like what this RMO person has put, I don't think I would have thrown it out.
-
I threw out My Catholic Faith catechism because it stated explicitly that there is salvation outside the Church.
What is it that the Church teaches then?
I will tell you what I was taught pre-Vatican II. There are only Catholics in Heaven. I am sure that the good Dominican Sisters meant by this that regardless of what you were here in this vale of tears, there are only Catholics in Heaven. I, however, took her literally.
I was taught that you had to be baptized to be saved. That those who were not baptized and died without mortal sin on their souls, went to limbo.
Someone either intending to convert to Catholicism or already taking classes to convert would be saved if he and/or she died before they were baptized and officially entered the Church.
No much hope was held out to us for those who weren't Catholic though, which is why there was such a campaign to convert people (Maryknoll, and other missionary orders). I distinctly remember having a fund in school to ransom "Pagan Babies".
-
What is the best Catechism then? I have found some questionable things in my Baltimore Catechism (Fr. Connell Edition).
-
I will tell you what I was taught pre-Vatican II. There are only Catholics in Heaven.
Technically that is true. Besides the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation all other doctrines can be believed implicitly.
Although a person may believe false doctrines, if they are in a state of invincible ignorance then they aren't truly heretics, but material heretics are not members of the Church, but membership in the Church is not absolutely necessary, what is, is that a person die within the Catholic Church, belonging to the soul of the Church in re, and the body of the Church in desire, but this desire can be implicit.
That's a long sentence :smirk:
-
What is the best Catechism then? I have found some questionable things in my Baltimore Catechism (Fr. Connell Edition).
That is the one I use the most, besides my Catechism of the Council of Trent.
-
The only catechism I give to family members is the Penny Catechism. I can't force them to read it, but I pray they do.
-
What is the best Catechism then? I have found some questionable things in my Baltimore Catechism (Fr. Connell Edition).
That is the one I use the most, besides my Catechism of the Council of Trent.
My Catechism of the Council of Trent went to the dumpster thanks to my family, and I can't afford to buy another. I do miss it.
-
If you don't mind reading off the computer,
http://www.archive.org/details/catechismofcoun00cathuoft
To the left you have different formats, I usually just download the PDF when getting books off here. It's much easier on the eyes than reading a html format.
-
By the way, you can find a lot of free books off that site. Instead of paying $100 for all of Fr. Faber's books from TAN I just downloaded them from there, although I've been reading other things lately. They're not in copyright.
-
Thanks, but the internet is quite hard on my aging eyes. It is also, for some reason, hard for me to comprehend what I am reading when I read things on the internet. Our printer isn't working either so I can't print anything out.
When Our Lord sees fit to send us a financial bonus, there are not a few books on my "to buy" list - including that dear Fr. Faber (his books went the way of the dumpster too).
-
Alexandria - a source for downloading the Trent Catechism (300+ pages):
http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf
-
To Myrna --
How do you know that BOB and BOD are de fide? Some one told you? Who? You read it? Where?
-
I was taught in a Catholic school, years before Vatican II.
Plus you can read it in almost any catechism book you pick up, even today.
-
Unless I am mistaken, Myrna has also been taught that the Fr Popes of GWS were( are) anti-popes-- this is incorrect.
-
Unless I am mistaken, Myrna has also been taught that the Fr Popes of GWS were( are) anti-popes-- this is incorrect.
Several things to consider
1) There can only be one true pope at any time.
2) There were 3 claimants in the GWS
3) There are two possibilities, first none of the claimants were true popes, or only one of the three was a true pope
4) Considering the latter part of #3, the other two popes were then necessarily antipopes.
-
The above is incorrect. First of all the time when there were 3 claimants to the chair of of Peter is only the very last stage of GWS. Before that there was a period of 32 yrs where there was both a FR and It Pope claiming to be true Pope.
Acc to Prof Pastor( and this has been posted numerous times)-- because the schism was only political in nature( no heresy, blasphemy or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs), at the time of settlement one was left free to call either the Fr or It Pope as True Pope and this stands today.
This is a major stumbling block to those who cannot conceive that the v2 'popes' are anti-popes. So there is a time in history when it could be said that there were technically 2 Popes at the same time.
If anyone thinks that the FR Popes of GWS were( are) anti-popes, please post a source besides the mistake in Fr Radecki's book.
-
Acc to Prof Pastor( and this has been posted numerous times)-- because the schism was only political in nature( no heresy, blasphemy or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs), at the time of settlement one was left free to call either the Fr or It Pope as True Pope and this stands today.
You're mixing two things together.
1) Whether a person was free to call either pope A or B without schism being imputed to them.
2) Whether in point of fact pope A or B was truly pope.
So there is a time in history when it could be said that there were technically 2 Popes at the same time.
There could never be more than one true pope at the time. Either all were not true popes, or only one was a true pope.
-
Pls post a source besides the mistake in Fr Radecki's book that claims the FR popes of GWS were( are) anti-popes.
One more time-- Acc to Prof Pastor-- as part of settlement of GWS, one was left free to call either the Fr or It claimant the True Pope. Technically then it can be said that there was a time in history that there were two Popes.
-
Roscoe
Is this the Pastor who wrote the in-depth history of the popes?
-
Pls post a source besides the mistake in Fr Radecki's book that claims the FR popes of GWS were( are) anti-popes.
One more time-- Acc to Prof Pastor-- as part of settlement of GWS, one was left free to call either the Fr or It claimant the True Pope. Technically then it can be said that there was a time in history that there were two Popes.
My crux with this issue is that you believe it's possible that the Chair of Peter (that's SINGULAR) can have two persons sitting on it.
That's equivalent to saying that the Church can have TWO heads, like some sort of hydra.
-
The GWS was unique-- If anyone has a prob with this, take it up with Prof Pastor-- not me. I am sorry that the specific vol and pg # cannot be recalled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Pastor
Scroll down for vols avail on line. I would suggest a perusal of the TOC of each vol for a prospectus on what the reader is interested in rather than tackling the whole 40 vol set.
With the exception of Fr Radecki's mistake, I highly doubt that a source can be cited claiming that the FR GWS popes are( were) in fact anti-popes.
Again-- this misconception is a major stumbling block to those who cannot see the v2 anti-popes.
-
Edit: The Crux of the issue
-
The GWS was unique-- If anyone has a prob with this, take it up with Prof Pastor-- not me. I am sorry that the specific vol and pg # cannot be recalled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Pastor
Scroll down for vols avail on line. I would suggest a perusal of the TOC of each vol for a prospectus on what the reader is interested in rather than tackling the whole 40 vol set.
Someday I hope to own all of the volumes. How I would love to read those books!
Thanks for the link, Roscoe.
-
Technically then it can be said that there was a time in history that there were two Popes.
Did Pastor state this or is this your deduction from the fact that schism was not imputed to a person who believed either pope A or B was in fact pope?
-
My recollection is that von Pastor says specifically-- one was left free to call either the FR or It Pope the True Pope as a condition of settlement of GWS-- and this because there was no heresy or blasphemy involved.
If Alexandra is interested in the hard copies, a number of vols can be found at addall.
-
It should be understood also re: GWS-- no one could figure out who the validly elected Pope was( aside from the lack of any heresy or blasphemy). This is why the compromise was reached at settlement of schism.
-
Actually there was one Pope of GWS who was in heresy but he recanted b4 settlement-- Pope John.
-
Thanks for the links you posted on page 1 of this thread, 123. It would seem that this Baptism of Desire is limited exclusively then to only those catechumens or others who explicitly, specifically, desired Baptism of Water. Am I right? These would just be a few exceptions, then. Father Feeney must have been alarmed that these exceptions were being expanded to include all kinds of people, including those in the vague categories of "well, he would have desired baptism had he known that he needed to be baptized" and "he was searching for something but he didn't know it was baptism but he certainly had the desire" and so forth, and Father fought against that.
Still, it's hard to believe, as others here have stated, that F. Feeney didn't know the difference between the very limited possibilities for BOD as spelled out in the docuмents above, and the broad definition as being applied to modernists.
Were egotism and ambition really his only motives for rebelling as he did?
-
Thanks for the links you posted on page 1 of this thread, 123. It would seem that this Baptism of Desire is limited exclusively then to only those catechumens or others who explicitly, specifically, desired Baptism of Water. Am I right?
Actually:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=324
The doctrinal portion of the Holy Office letter ends with the declaration that, in the light of what the docuмent itself has taught, “it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical ‘From the Housetops,’ fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.” The issue of From the Housetops to which the letter refers contained only one article, written by Mr. Raymond Karam of the St. Benedict Center group, and entitled “Reply to a Liberal.”
The most important error contained in that article was a denial of the possibility of salvation for any man who had only an implicit desire to enter the Catholic Church. There was likewise bad teaching on the requisites for justification, as distinguished from the requisites for salvation. The first of these faults has been indicated in a previous issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review.12
My understanding is this: since the Sacrament of Baptism is the gate through which we become members of the Church, a desire to become part of the Church of Christ is one and the same desire for Baptism.
A person who does not know that its necessary to belong to the Church, but who wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God implicitly desires to enter the Church.
-
Jude, in the very first link I provided
http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html
which lists the sources of Church teaching for these doctrines, the word "implicit" is stated many times.
One more source from St. Thomas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4069.htm#article4
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; (. . .)
-
Does anyone else this forum believe that it is impossible that the Chair of Peter can be occupied by more than one person at the same time?
-
edit: anyone else on this
-
Only one pope at a time!
-
To Myrna --
How do you know that BOB and BOD are de fide? Some one told you? Who? You read it? Where?
According to Dr. Ludwig Ott, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, he states that it's proximate to the faith and not de fide. There are other theologians of the same mind - and again, there are others who say otherwise (such as St. Alphonsus Ligouri). I think it's safe to say that because of the disparity of opinion that sententia fidei proxima is the most objective opinion.
-
To Myrna --
How do you know that BOB and BOD are de fide? Some one told you? Who? You read it? Where?
According to Dr. Ludwig Ott, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, he states that it's proximate to the faith and not de fide. There are other theologians of the same mind - and again, there are others who say otherwise (such as St. Alphonsus Ligouri). I think it's safe to say that because of the disparity of opinion that sententia fidei proxima is the most objective opinion.
Like Limbo? That is what I always thought. I know there are various degrees of certainty, and I didn't think that BOD/BOB had made it to the top.
-
Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
Concerning Baptism
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
*******
I have Ott here and will check that out as well, but later, have an appointment now.
-
It can't be de fide[/b] if there are varying opinions about it. You post Liguori, he posts Ludwig Ott, someone else something else...if it was de fide, they would all agree.
Is there a final word on this somewhere?
-
He mentioned Liguori along with Ott.
Alexandria you have a free will and if you choose not to believe a de fide teaching, along with "goose" so be it. You will never shake my faith.
The teaching is in every single catechism book I have ever read, and none say it is a theory. I was taught in a Catholic school in Chicago, where the old nuns were sent to die because the newer Modern nuns were there setting the stage for Vatican II. They never said baptism of desire was a nice thought, but told us it was a de fide teaching.
Follow Feeney and his ilk, your choice.
You will always be in my prayers.
-
He mentioned Liguori along with Ott.
Alexandria you have a free will and if you choose not to believe a de fide teaching, along with "goose" so be it. You will never shake my faith.
The teaching is in every single catechism book I have ever read, and none say it is a theory. I was taught in a Catholic school in Chicago, where the old nuns were sent to die because the newer Modern nuns were there setting the stage for Vatican II. They never said baptism of desire was a nice thought, but told us it was a de fide teaching.
Follow Feeney and his ilk, your choice.
You will always be in my prayers.
Myrna, you certainly do jump to conclusions rather quickly!
It is obvious that you are not patient with a searching soul. You will forgive me if I do not take your final word for anything since, and please correct me if I am wrong, you are not an authority on anything. Is there no room in your mind to consider the possibility that you do not know everything?
-
To further clarify, you seem to be of the opinion that I reject BOD/BOB. I do not. I am merely uncertain as to the degree of certitude in which they are viewed.
-
I did some research and this article sums it all up nicely:
2. Different categories assigned by theologians? Some correspondents believe that ALL theologians would assign the same theological “categories” (“notes,” “qualifications,” etc.) to baptism of desire and baptism of blood if a Catholic were truly obliged to accept the teachings.
This is false.
Collectively, all the theologians cited agree that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are “in conformity with the truth presented in the Sources of Revelation and the Universal Magisterium” — otherwise, they would not teach the doctrines.
Individually, the theologians may indeed assign different categories to the doctrines —theologically certain, Catholic doctrine, de fide, etc. But any of these categories still place the teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood among those teachings Catholics must believe and adhere to. (See I.A-C.)
The specific category assigned is important for another reason. Each has a corresponding theological censure which indicates your degree of error if you deny the doctrines — whether your denial constitutes theological error, error in Catholic doctrine, or heresy.
[/b]
and this:
Further, no matter what category theologians have assigned to these teachings — theologically certain, Catholic doctrine or de fide — rejecting them has the same consequences in the moral order: you commit a mortal sin against the faith.
And finally, you must reject the notion promoted in pro-Feeney circles that such teachings may be ignored because a Catholic’s obligation “is restricted to only those matters that the infallible judgment of the Church has proposed to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith” — for that is a principle the Church condemned in the Syllabus of Errors. (Dz 1722.)
[/b]
This is from an article by Fr. Cekada ( :shocked: :scared2:).
I did not know that it didn't matter what category theologians have assigned to this belief.
You see, Myrna, that is all I was trying to find out.
(The above came from www.traditionalmass.org)
-
How is this reconciled:
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[clxxxv]
[/b]
-
How is this reconciled:
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[clxxxv]
[/b]
Remember that it is not absolutely necessary for salvation to be a member of the Church, but within it, and it is possible to be within the Church without being a member. United to the body of the Church in desire, and the soul of the Church in actuality.
-
How is this reconciled:
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[clxxxv]
[/b]
Remember that it is not absolutely necessary for salvation to be a member of the Church, but within it, and it is possible to be within the Church without being a member. United to the body of the Church in desire, and the soul of the Church in actuality.
Where did you ever get such a notion? Is this like the "anonymous christian"?
-
How is this reconciled:
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[clxxxv]
[/b]
It is my understanding that the Pope was speaking to schismatics.
No, Alexandria I don't know everything, but I know that Bod/Bob are de fide.
-
Where did you ever get such a notion? Is this like the "anonymous christian"?
Alexandria, this has nothing to do with Karl Rahner's theories.
To get a clear understanding of this it would be best to study these articles:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Membership-in-the-Church-2
The Sacrament of Baptism, when received, makes a person a member of the Church. Baptism of Desire and Blood do not make a person a member of the Church, but a soul who has received the effects of Baptism is in the state of sanctifying grace, therefore properly belonging to the soul of the Church.
Since a person can be saved through Baptism of Desire or Blood it is absolutely evident that actual membership in the Church is not required for salvation, the desire suffices.
-
Simply put, membership in the Church is necessary for salvation, but not absolutely so.
-
Where did you ever get such a notion? Is this like the "anonymous christian"?
Alexandria, this has nothing to do with Karl Rahner's theories.
To get a clear understanding of this it would be best to study these articles:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Membership-in-the-Church-2
The Sacrament of Baptism, when received, makes a person a member of the Church. Baptism of Desire and Blood do not make a person a member of the Church, but a soul who has received the effects of Baptism is in the state of sanctifying grace, therefore properly belonging to the soul of the Church.
Since a person can be saved through Baptism of Desire or Blood it is absolutely evident that actual membership in the Church is not required for salvation, the desire suffices.
Now I know why the church fell apart so rapidly in the sixties.
Baptism of Desire: I was taught that this occurred ONLY if a person had the intention to become a Catholic and died before attaining his/her desire.
Baptism Blood: Again, the person was on his/her way to becoming a Catholic, and was martyred for the Faith before attaining the realization.
I was taught this before the council.
-
Who was Pope Boniface VIII talking to in this dogma:
"We declare, say, define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of EVERY human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."[/b]
-
Alexandria, a person who wishes to conform their will to the the will of God implicitly desires to become a Catholic, do you understand this?
-
Just like I said to Jude:
since the Sacrament of Baptism is the gate through which we become members of the Church, a desire to become part of the Church of Christ is one and the same desire for Baptism.
-
Let me see if I understand you.
You are saying that you do not have to be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ (which is, according to Pius XII, the Catholic Church) to be saved. That you can be a member without not only not knowing that you are a member, but also without knowing that you even desire to be a Catholic.
-
I am saying that it absolutely necessary for a person to die within the Church to be saved, and I am also saying that it is possible to be within the Church without being a member.
-
I am saying that it absolutely necessary for a person to die within the Church to be saved, and I am also saying that it is possible to be within the Church without being a member.
By a desire to be a member without having an awareness that you have the desire?
-
Yes, did you not read my post to Jude?
An implicit desire suffices.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=12853&min=60#p14
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=12853&min=60#p15
-
And read further in the letter quoted:
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith:
-
Yes, I did read your post. And that to me is the end.
Do you agree with these two statements: "Many people who are totally ignorant of Christ and His Church can be saved because their ignorance excuses them and confers on them baptism of desire."
"A person can have baptism of desire, even if he is ignorant of the baptism of water, even if he refuses to be baptized by water."
-
What of the protestant who walks in imitation of Christ but rejects the Doctrine and Dogma of the Church ?
Can they be saved without embracing it ?
-
Do you agree with these two statements: "Many people who are totally ignorant of Christ and His Church can be saved because their ignorance excuses them and confers on them baptism of desire."
No I don't agree with that, their ignorance is not a means of having Baptism of Desire. Invincible ignorance merely excuses one of any guilt.
"A person can have baptism of desire, even if he is ignorant of the baptism of water, even if he refuses to be baptized by water."
I agree with the first point, but the second point is iffy. I don't think there would ever be a case like that. Catechesis is always suppose to precede the receiving of the Sacrament of Baptism.
-
What of the protestant who walks in imitation of Christ but rejects the Doctrine and Dogma of the Church ?
Can they be saved without embracing it ?
No, such a person would not be saved.
Now, if that person was in the state of invincible ignorance then strictly speaking he isn't a true heretic. I say this: if it were possible that such a person's ignorance could be removed they would surely become a Catholic. It is possible for such a person, being in such a state, to have supernatural faith.
-
Do you agree with these two statements: "Many people who are totally ignorant of Christ and His Church can be saved because their ignorance excuses them and confers on them baptism of desire."
No I don't agree with that, their ignorance is not a means of having Baptism of Desire. Invincible ignorance merely excuses one of any guilt.
"A person can have baptism of desire, even if he is ignorant of the baptism of water, even if he refuses to be baptized by water."
I agree with the first point, but the second point is iffy. I don't think there would ever be a case like that. Catechesis is always suppose to precede the receiving of the Sacrament of Baptism.
I admit that I am not an intellectual. I also admit that I can be quite dense. But for the life of me I have no idea what it is you think or believe. You have twisted my mind like a pretzel that is beyond straightening out at this point.
If it is all the same to you, I will stick with what the Dominican Sisters of Newburgh taught me fifty years ago and leave all of this "evolving of dogma and doctrine" to others.
To think like you is to make a mockery of St. Francis Xavier, the North American Martyrs and others who suffered unspeakable tortures and sufferings to bring people to the Faith. Too bad no one ever told St. Isaac Jogues, who was foolish enough to even come back here after he managed to escape once, about implicit desires which make someone Catholic without their even knowing it.
-
To say that this is "evolving of dogma and doctrine" is to accuse me of believing in Modernism.
-
These doctrines do nothing to invalidate the necessity of missionary activity.
Neither Baptism of Desire or Blood can be had without the theological virtues: supernatural faith, hope, and charity.
-
Does the fact that God Himself can, through the interior light of grace, instruct a person in the truths of religion negate the necessity for missionaries?
As stated already, supernatural faith is absolutely necessary, but this faith cannot be acquired through natural reason alone; instruction must come from somewhere.
The fact that a person may learn of the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation by other means than a preacher does not mean that missionary activity is therefore unnecessary.
-
"A person can have baptism of desire (. . .) even if he refuses to be baptized by water."
I want to say something else. Why in the world would someone refuse to receive the Sacrament of Baptism? If it's out of contempt for the sacrament itself then I'd say if he were to die after he refused then he'd be damned.
-
If people do not have to be Catholic, or baptized with water, to get into Heaven, then why did missionaries once travel far and wide to try to convert the pagans. Why bother? Following this argument, it would be better to stay home because presenting pagans with the truth would place a great burden on their soul if they chose to reject the truth.
Myrna, the writings of a saint are not de fide and they do not equal the words of a Pope speaking on faith and morals. Besides, I don't have the original writings of St. Alphonsus and you probably don't either. Anything printed now could very easily be tampered with. Maybe he thought you didn't need baptism with water, or maybe he did think baptism with water was necessary to get to Heaven. We really don't know, and he isn't around to ask.
One thing to think about is why would a just, loving God consign an innocent infant to limbo for all eternity, because he or she wasn't baptized with water, but let someone well beyond the age of reason enter Heaven? This never made sense to me.
-
How is this reconciled:
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[clxxxv]
[/b]
It is my understanding that the Pope was speaking to schismatics.
No, Alexandria I don't know everything, but I know that Bod/Bob are de fide.
But other than "the nuns told me so in the 1950's" and "its in catechisms" you have no other reason to say that it's de fide.
-
One thing to think about is why would a just, loving God consign an innocent infant to limbo for all eternity, because he or she wasn't baptized with water, but let someone well beyond the age of reason enter Heaven? This never made sense to me.
Before I respond to the rest of what you've written, you mistakenly believe infants are innocent when in fact they're born in original sin.
-
Do you agree with these two statements: "Many people who are totally ignorant of Christ and His Church can be saved because their ignorance excuses them and confers on them baptism of desire."
No I don't agree with that, their ignorance is not a means of having Baptism of Desire. Invincible ignorance merely excuses one of any guilt.
"A person can have baptism of desire, even if he is ignorant of the baptism of water, even if he refuses to be baptized by water."
I agree with the first point, but the second point is iffy. I don't think there would ever be a case like that. Catechesis is always suppose to precede the receiving of the Sacrament of Baptism.
To further clarify, "Alexandria" didn't say the above. Alexandria took those quotes from a biography of Fr. Feeney. The quotes are what Jesuits were teaching in Boston College in the 1940s.
-
How do you wash away the original sin?
And, yes, relatively speaking, an infant has not reached the age of reason, and is incapable of actual sin. There is still the matter of original sin, and the need for baptism with water.
Do we know of any hypothetical people who died just before they were about to be baptized with water?
-
If people do not have to be Catholic, or baptized with water, to get into Heaven, then why did missionaries once travel far and wide to try to convert the pagans. Why bother? Following this argument, it would be better to stay home because presenting pagans with the truth would place a great burden on their soul if they chose to reject the truth.
You're creating a false dilemma.
As quoted earlier:
God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
A person with such a disposition of soul would not reject the truth when presented with it.
-
Yes, a person of good will would want to be baptized with water, as soon as they accepted the truth.
-
In the case of a Protestant or Eastern Orthodox who is in the state of invincible ignorance, such ignorance cannot be overcome by study.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm#article2
Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.
-
I don't understand what point you are trying to make with protestants and Eastern Orthodox. Many of these people, if they were born into these religions, would have been validly baptized. This would all depend upon what protestant denomination they were born into.
So, if they were validly baptized, it would then become a matter of becoming Catholic, not being baptized.
-
Alexandria has already mentioned the articles by Fr. Cekada, I'll merely post the links:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
-
I don't understand what point you are trying to make with protestants and Eastern Orthodox. Many of these people, if they were born into these religions, would have been validly baptized. This would all depend upon what protestant denomination they were born into.
So, if they were validly baptized, it would then become a matter of becoming Catholic, not being baptized.
This discussion doesn't merely revolve around the topic of Baptism, but the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church.
-
I've been quoting so far to show that it's possible to receive the Sacrament of Baptism in actuality or desire.
Now, what about a person who has received the sacrament, but is so unfortunate as to find himself in a heretical or schismatic group?
The same principles apply.
-
trad123, who are you quoting to show implicit desire of baptism, without water, is enough for salvation?
-
We're going to get into the differences between a material and a formal heretic.
-
trad123, who are you quoting to show implicit desire of baptism, without water, is enough for salvation?
Refer to these posts:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=12853&min=10#p9
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=12853&min=10#p10
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=12853&min=60&num=20#p14
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=12853&min=60&num=20#p15
-
I'll be delving into the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church.
Manual of Dogmatic Theology Volume I, Tanquerey, p. 160
All theologians teach that publicly known heretics, that is, those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession, or those who refuse the infallible teaching authority of the Church, are excluded from the body of the Church, even if their heresy is only material heresy.
Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ's Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242
b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy" (MCC 30; italics ours).
By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.
So then, material heretics do not remain members of the Church.
-
Moving on, now to show that membership in the Church is necessary, but not absolutely necessary. That a person can have Baptism in re (actuality) or desire, be lacking membership in the Church, but nevertheless be within the Church.
These articles expound on this point:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Membership-in-the-Church-2
LINKS
The Meaning of the Church's Necessity for Salvation (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecuмenism/meaning.htm)
Contemporary Questions About Membership In the Church (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecuмenism/members.htm)
Theological Proof for the Necessity of the Catholic Church (only part 1 available) (http://www.romancatholicism.org/fenton-proof1.htm#p1)
A Reply to Father Hartnett (http://www.romancatholicism.org/fenton-reply.htm)
The Holy Office Letter on the Necessity of the Church (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=324)
The Church and the Non-Catholic (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=758)
PDFs
Membership in the Church (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fenton/Membership%20in%20the%20Church.pdf)
Two Recent Explanations of the Church's Neccessity for Salvation (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fenton/Two%20Recent%20Explanations%20of%20the%20Church%27s%20Necessity%20for%20Salvation.pdf)
Mystici Corporis and the Definitions of the Church (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fenton/The%20Mystici%20Corporis%20and%20the%20Definitions%20of%20the%20Church.pdf)
The Use of the Terms Body and Soul with Reference to the Catholic Church (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fenton/The%20Use%20of%20the%20terms%20Body%20and%20Soul%20with%20Reference%20to%20the%20Catholic%20Church.pdf)
The Baptismal Character and Membership in the Church (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fenton/The%20Baptismal%20Character%20and%20Membership%20in%20the%20Catholic%20Church.pdf)
Father Journet's Concept of the Church (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fenton/Father%20Journet%27s%20Concept%20of%20the%20Church.pdf)
The Parish Census-List and Membership in the True Church (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fenton/The%20Parish%20Census-List%20and%20Membership%20in%20the%20True%20Church.pdf)
Status of St. Robert Bellarmine's Teaching About Membership (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fenton/The%20Status%20of%20St%20Robert%20Bellarmine%27s%20Teaching%20about%20Membership%20of%20Occult%20Heretics%20in%20the%20Church.pdf)
Cristian, do you know where I can get part 2 and 3 of this article:
http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=420&start=0
The user "Mike" stated he would post them, I can't find them!
-
Alexandria, I am in the same position as you, insofar as this discussion does little beyond twisting the mind into a pretzel.
Myrna, as I've noticed before, you seem to find everything about the Faith to be clear and simple. Are you aware of just how long is the time during which Modernism has been infiltrating the Church? (Way before the era when you were a girl in school.) Does it occur to you that there are catechisms and catechisms?
-
Unless I am mistaken, Myrna is associated with CMRI in some way. Her idea that FR GWS popes were( are) anti-popes is I believe from Fr Radecki and I believe he has something to do with CMRI as well. This is wrong and has been explained by Prof Pastor.
The Council that settled GWS (1) could not figure out which of the Papal Claimants( Fr or It) was legally elected (2) could not find any apostacy, (3) blasphemy or (4) heresy by the time Pope John recanted. Therefore there is NO REASON for an anti-pope to exist.
Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were. :confused1:
Fr Radecki ( and SSPX) also defies Pope Clement V's 8 time condemnation of Templars-- which has never been recinded by any Pope. What is Myrna's op re: Templars and Fr Radecki's denial of Papal Authority?
-
Unless I am mistaken, a Papal Bull represents the highest level of Infallibility. We are therefore bound by all 8 that Clement published.
-
What of the protestant who walks in imitation of Christ but rejects the Doctrine and Dogma of the Church ?
Can they be saved without embracing it ?
No, such a person would not be saved.
Now, if that person was in the state of invincible ignorance then strictly speaking he isn't a true heretic. I say this: if it were possible that such a person's ignorance could be removed they would surely become a Catholic. It is possible for such a person, being in such a state, to have supernatural faith.
Ok, thank you. That is my understanding after reading threads on the matter, and boy oh boy, do these threads get long !
I'm at the point where I can only sort it out by asking simple questions. So, I have two more if I may ask.
- A person has been an atheist all his life, and on his deathbed, repents and prays intensely for mercy, rejecting Satan, and asks a friend to go find a priest. The friend leaves, finds one, and returns. But it's too late. Can the person still be saved ? By his Desire to convert to Catholicism ?
- If the answer is yes, and assuming that priest was Fr Feeney, would Fr Feeney have believed the person could possibly have been saved by virtue of the desire to convert ?
-
- A person has been an atheist all his life, and on his deathbed, repents and prays intensely for mercy, rejecting Satan, and asks a friend to go find a priest. The friend leaves, finds one, and returns. But it's too late. Can the person still be saved ? By his Desire to convert to Catholicism ?
Supernatural faith is necessary for salvation. If he rejects Atheism and believes in God he still needs to believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.
- If the answer is yes, and assuming that priest was Fr Feeney, would Fr Feeney have believed the person could possibly have been saved by virtue of the desire to convert ?
Fr. Feeney would have undoubtedly said no.
-
- A person has been an atheist all his life, and on his deathbed, repents and prays intensely for mercy, rejecting Satan, and asks a friend to go find a priest. The friend leaves, finds one, and returns. But it's too late. Can the person still be saved ? By his Desire to convert to Catholicism ?
Supernatural faith is necessary for salvation. If he rejects Atheism and believes in God he still needs to believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.
- If the answer is yes, and assuming that priest was Fr Feeney, would Fr Feeney have believed the person could possibly have been saved by virtue of the desire to convert ?
Fr. Feeney would have undoubtedly said no.
So Fr Feeney took John 3:5 literally ? If yes, that, and the fact he was not required to retract his position, leaves the door open to take either position ?
In other words, the Church would allow one to believe the atheist may have been saved, or also allow one to believe his soul was lost ?
At this point, I'm leaning toward the thought that it's ok to be a Feeneyite.
-
So Fr Feeney took John 3:5 literally ? If yes, that, and the fact he was not required to retract his position, leaves the door open to take either position ?
That is because "Pope" Paul VI "absolved” Father Feeney from excommunication without requiring him to retract his position. The Novus Ordo is a smorgasbord of falsehood.
-
roscoe,
Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.
Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes. Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure. Wrong! That is not what I believe. I am sedevacantist, remember.
Blessings to you roscoe.
GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe. PURE AND SIMPLE!
-
So Fr Feeney took John 3:5 literally ? If yes, that, and the fact he was not required to retract his position, leaves the door open to take either position ?
That is because "Pope" Paul VI "absolved” Father Feeney from excommunication without requiring him to retract his position. The Novus Ordo is a smorgasbord of falsehood.
Ok, that makes sense.
So BoD is possible, but not in the way some use it to promote false ecuмenism ? I'm just seeing a lot of people on CA saying Buddists and Muslims can be saved. That's a bit much isn't it ?
If a Muslim rejects the Divinity of Christ, how can he be saved ?
Again just trying to solidify my own understanding. You have pretty much drug me off the path of embracing cut and dried Feeneyism.
-
GWS is an abbreviation for ?
-
So BoD is possible, but not in the way some use it to promote false ecuмenism ?
Some falsely believe that the doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Blood teach that there is in fact salvation outside the Church.
I'm just seeing a lot of people on CA saying Buddists and Muslims can be saved. That's a bit much isn't it ?
Some believe that supernatural faith is possible by merely believing
1) God exists
2) God will reward the just and punish the wicked
The more common teaching is that the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation need to be believed explicitly, everything else, an implicit belief suffices.
If a Muslim rejects the Divinity of Christ, how can he be saved ?
He can't.
-
GWS is an abbreviation for ?
Great Western Schism.
-
So BoD is possible, but not in the way some use it to promote false ecuмenism ?
Some falsely believe that the doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Blood teach that there is in fact salvation outside the Church.
I'm just seeing a lot of people on CA saying Buddists and Muslims can be saved. That's a bit much isn't it ?
Some believe that supernatural faith is possible by merely believing
1) God exists
2) God will reward the just and punish the wicked
The more common teaching is that the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation need to be believed explicitly, everything else, an implicit belief suffices.
If a Muslim rejects the Divinity of Christ, how can he be saved ?
He can't.
Ok, thank you. I think I'm ok in understanding it now. The NO is poison.
-
GWS is an abbreviation for ?
Great Western Schism.
ok
-
roscoe, Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.
Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes. Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure. Wrong! That is not what I believe. I am sedevacantist, remember.
Blessings to you roscoe.
GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe. PURE AND SIMPLE!
roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.
It is my understanding the anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.
I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.
-
In case U have not heard, No Pope or Council has declared the Fr popes of GWS to be anti-popes. I am not aware of any other way an anti-pope can be declared.
I will acknowledge that the v2 anti-popes have not been formally declared as such but......!!!!!!!!
I was hoping Myrna would also answer the Templars questions re: Fr Radecki and btw--there is no such thing as a 'sedevacantist'.
-
roscoe, I don't have a dog in this fight, but you can have fun over on wikipedia demanding citations :laugh2:
-
Why does Myrna continue to refer to Fr popes of GWS as anti-popes? and Catholic ones at that?
Anti-popes are a unique phenomenon and there are a small few exceptions but anti-popes are most often not Catholics at all.
-
Louis Card. Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (Romae, 1927), v. 1, p. 296-298.
Billot: Thesis XI. "Although the character of baptism is sufficient of itself to incorporate a man into the true Catholic Church, nevertheless it requires in adults a twofold condition for this effect. The first condition is that the social bond of unity of faith not be impeded by formal or even merely material heresy. Nevertheless, because this impediment is brought in only by that heresy which passes into open profession, it must be said that only notorious heretics are excluded from the body of the Church.
"Now, heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; material, those who labor under invincible ignorance concerning the Church herself, and choose in good faith another rule for their guide. Heresy therefore is not imputed to material heretics as sin, nor, furthermore, is there necessarily a lack of that supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all justification. For perhaps they explicitly believe the principal articles, and believe the rest not explicitly but implicitly, by the disposition of mind and the good will of adhering to all those things which would be sufficiently proposed to them as revealed by God. Furthermore, they can still belong in voto to the body of the Church, and have the other conditions required for salvation. Nevertheless, so far as pertains to the real incorporation in the visible Church of Christ presently being treated, the thesis places no distinction between formal or material heretics, understanding everything according to the notion of materal heresy just explained, which is also the only proper and genuine notion. For if by a material heretic you meant one who, professing that in matters of faith he depends on the Magisterium of the Church, but still denies something defined by the Church which he does not know has been defined, or holds an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine for the reason that he thinks that it is taught by the Church, it would in this case be absurd to posit that material heretics are outside the body of the true Church, and in addition, in this way, the legitimate meaning of the word would be completely overturned. For only then is it said that there is material sin, when the things that belong to the definition of such a sin are materially posited, but excluding reflection or deliberate volition. Now, what pertains to the definition of heresy is the departure from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium, which in this case is not present, because it is a simple error of fact concerning that which the rule dictates. And therefore, there can be no place even materially for heresy."
-
roscoe, I don't have a dog in this fight, but you can have fun over on wikipedia demanding citations :laugh2:
Oh Charles, be careful during BOB/BOD threads. I usually read them in a tennis match way, watching the posts go over the net and into the other court. There might be something lacking in this thread, but people passionate in their beliefs is not one of them. So that said, be careful about saying the words "dog in this fight", it might lead to a Mike Vick thread. :laugh2:
Disclaimer: Just trying to inject a little humor here. I'm sure Charles doesn't fight with his dog.
-
So far there is no answer from Myrna re: Fr Radecki, Templars and Clement V.
-
roscoe, maybe its because I haven't really dwelled upon that subject. After all as I said before in this thread, I don't know everything.
Is this subject on the Templars something I must know in order to save my soul?
If so, I wish someone would enlighten me about it.
roscoe, the ball is in your court. Enlighten me!
-
roscoe, Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.
Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes. Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure. Wrong! That is not what I believe. I am sedevacantist, remember.
Blessings to you roscoe.
GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe. PURE AND SIMPLE!
roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.
It is my understanding the anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.
I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.
No anti-pope is Catholic really. That's partly why they call them anti-popes. Similar thing with the term "Anti-Christ".
-
So Fr Feeney took John 3:5 literally ? If yes, that, and the fact he was not required to retract his position, leaves the door open to take either position ?
That is because "Pope" Paul VI "absolved” Father Feeney from excommunication without requiring him to retract his position. The Novus Ordo is a smorgasbord of falsehood.
Ok, that makes sense.
So BoD is possible, but not in the way some use it to promote false ecuмenism ? I'm just seeing a lot of people on CA saying Buddists and Muslims can be saved. That's a bit much isn't it ?
If a Muslim rejects the Divinity of Christ, how can he be saved ?
Again just trying to solidify my own understanding. You have pretty much drug me off the path of embracing cut and dried Feeneyism.
Don't pay any attention to the people on CA. They are modernists who wouldn't know Traditional Catholicism if it was right in front of their faces. Buddhists and Muslims can only be saved if they convert to Catholicism.
-
I will let Pope Clement V enlighten Myrna and her sarcasm
Infallible Papal Bulls condemning Templars-- and yes Myrna, the salvation of your soul is indeed at stake if you defy the Pope.
All published between Mar 1312 and Jan 1313
1-- Vox in Excelso
2-- Ad Providam
3-- Considerantes
4-- Nuper in Concilio
5-- 1 Dec 1312
6-- Licet Dudum
7-- 31 Dec 1312
8-- Licet Pridem
-
Thank you, roscoe
-
Trad123, re Billot:
Isn't a thesis a proposition which requires to be proved? Isn't what Cardinal Billot states in such no more than his judgment or opinion? Who decides if it has been demonstrated conclusively, and if/when it has attained de fide status?
Thank you.
-
All the dogmatic theology manuals I own state a thesis for each teaching, even though that teaching may undoubtedly be de fide, like the teaching that Christ is truly God, for example.
This article will explain the authority of theologians:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
-
roscoe, I don't have a dog in this fight, but you can have fun over on wikipedia demanding citations :laugh2:
Oh Charles, be careful during BOB/BOD threads. I usually read them in a tennis match way, watching the posts go over the net and into the other court. There might be something lacking in this thread, but people passionate in their beliefs is not one of them. So that said, be careful about saying the words "dog in this fight", it might lead to a Mike Vick thread. :laugh2:
Disclaimer: Just trying to inject a little humor here. I'm sure Charles doesn't fight with his dog.
Me too, the joke being, there is a definition of Sedevacantism on wiki, so "it's true, it's true ! " :laugh1:
-
So Fr Feeney took John 3:5 literally ? If yes, that, and the fact he was not required to retract his position, leaves the door open to take either position ?
That is because "Pope" Paul VI "absolved” Father Feeney from excommunication without requiring him to retract his position. The Novus Ordo is a smorgasbord of falsehood.
Ok, that makes sense.
So BoD is possible, but not in the way some use it to promote false ecuмenism ? I'm just seeing a lot of people on CA saying Buddists and Muslims can be saved. That's a bit much isn't it ?
If a Muslim rejects the Divinity of Christ, how can he be saved ?
Again just trying to solidify my own understanding. You have pretty much drug me off the path of embracing cut and dried Feeneyism.
Don't pay any attention to the people on CA. They are modernists who wouldn't know Traditional Catholicism if it was right in front of their faces. Buddhists and Muslims can only be saved if they convert to Catholicism.
Agreed. At best they are the fruit of modernism in their ignorance due to "showtime" and "stand up" homilies. Same old story. They claim the SSPX is in schism, someone quotes Hoyos, they don't reply, then make the same claim in the next thread that pops up with SSPX in the title.
They aren't worth the keystrokes.
There is a thread on EENS going on over there right now.
-
Trad123, re Billot:
Isn't a thesis a proposition which requires to be proved? Isn't what Cardinal Billot states in such no more than his judgment or opinion? Who decides if it has been demonstrated conclusively, and if/when it has attained de fide status?
Thank you.
Hi Innocenza!
“Actually a good proportion of theses set forth in the ordinary manuals of theology, as well as in the classical masterpieces of this science (theology), have been defined as of faith by the Catholic Church”
Joseph Fenton, The Concept of Sacred Theology, 1941; page 6.
This means that actually the term theses have a particular meaning and that all the theology manuals´ theses are not necessarily a matter of opinion. Usually the method followed by theologians is the enunciation of the thesis, then the author explain the meaning of the words, the theological note attached to it, who are the opponents and then he proofs it by divine revelation (Tradition and S. Scriptures), by the Magisterium of the Church and by reason, and finally it responds the objections.
To pick up one classical theological manual, that of J. Salaverri S.J. I found:
Theses 4: “Jesus promised immediately and directly to Saint Peter the Primacy of jurisdiction (supreme power)”
1) Relation of this thesis with the previous ones.
2) Notions: Here the author explains the words of the thesis.
3) Adversaries: Schismatics, Wicleff, Protestants, Gallicans, Rationalists and Modernists.
4) Teaching of the Church: from Vatican I and Leo XIII.
5) Theological note: “The thesis is de fide divina definita (defined as of divine faith) in the Council of Florence and of Vatican (DZ 694 and 1822).
6) Proof from Sacred Scriptures: which in this case is taken from Mt XVI (he proofs the text is genuine, and that the meaning of the words are those understood always by the Church, metaphor of the keys, etc)
7) Objections and Responses.
All this is almost 20 pages long! :)
See this too http://www.space.net.au/~nethow/Sede/theolnotes.htm
Cristian
-
roscoe, Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.
Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes. Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure. Wrong! That is not what I believe. I am sedevacantist, remember.
Blessings to you roscoe.
GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe. PURE AND SIMPLE!
roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.
It is my understanding the anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.
I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.
No anti-pope is Catholic really. That's partly why they call them anti-popes. Similar thing with the term "Anti-Christ".
I suppose it depends on your position, although we all share the same Faith, we differ on who, what and where.
Now a Sedevacantist does not believe that the novus ordo is The Catholic Church, therefore any man sitting in the throne can't be an anti-pope, because an anti-pope upsurps the Church and since Vatican II is not the Church therefore, they can't be anti-popes but are just men. Now if a man began saying he was pope of the Lutheran chuch, you wouldn't call him an anti-pope would you? NO! In order to be an anti-pope you would have to upsurp the True Church and we all know the Lutheran is just a man made church, as is Vatican II.
The reason I agree that the men who claim to be popes during the GWS are anti-popes; because at least they had the Faith, Catholic Faith. Even Saints came out of all the different groups, while they did not agree who was the true pope.
Well that is the way I understand all that about the pope stuff, according to my point of view, FWIW.
roscoe, I have been reading your papal bulls, very interesting stuff, thanks again. Haven't finished yet.
-
1-- There is NO SUCH THING AS A SEDEVACANTIST
2-- I agree that the NO church is not the Roman Catholic Church but it claims to be. A man claiming to be Pope who is not is an anti-pope.
2-- It is not up to Myrna to give us her 'point of view' re: the Fr GWS popes as anti-popes. As of yet No Church Authority has been cited telling us this.
3-- It is correct that the FR GWS popes were orthodox in belief. This is why( or one reason why) they were(are) NOT ANTI-POPES.
-
roscoe, Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.
Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes. Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure. Wrong! That is not what I believe. I am sedevacantist, remember.
Blessings to you roscoe.
GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe. PURE AND SIMPLE!
roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.
It is my understanding the anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.
I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.
No anti-pope is Catholic really. That's partly why they call them anti-popes. Similar thing with the term "Anti-Christ".
I suppose it depends on your position, although we all share the same Faith, we differ on who, what and where.
Now a Sedevacantist does not believe that the novus ordo is The Catholic Church, therefore any man sitting in the throne can't be an anti-pope, because an anti-pope upsurps the Church and since Vatican II is not the Church therefore, they can't be anti-popes but are just men. Now if a man began saying he was pope of the Lutheran chuch, you wouldn't call him an anti-pope would you? NO! In order to be an anti-pope you would have to upsurp the True Church and we all know the Lutheran is just a man made church, as is Vatican II.
The reason I agree that the men who claim to be popes during the GWS are anti-popes; because at least they had the Faith, Catholic Faith. Even Saints came out of all the different groups, while they did not agree who was the true pope.
Well that is the way I understand all that about the pope stuff, according to my point of view, FWIW.
roscoe, I have been reading your papal bulls, very interesting stuff, thanks again. Haven't finished yet.
I completely disagree with the conception that the anti-popes beg w/ John XXIII(23) have not usurped the Church-- that is exactly what they have done. I hope U understand ' all that about the pope stuff' a little better now.
I have not actually read the Bulls of Clement V re: Templars. :smoke-pot:
-
One way or another the anti-pope John XXIII(23) has not been legally elected. I am not aware of any Church Authority who has declared any of the FR GWS popes as illegally elected.
The MJ emoticon above was meant to be placed after the 1st paragraph-- my apologies.
-
Trad123, Cristian --
Many thanks for the guidance and information!
Peace of Christ,
Janet C.
-
roscoe, Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.
Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes. Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure. Wrong! That is not what I believe. I am sedevacantist, remember.
Blessings to you roscoe.
GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe. PURE AND SIMPLE!
roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.
It is my understanding the anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.
I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.
No anti-pope is Catholic really. That's partly why they call them anti-popes. Similar thing with the term "Anti-Christ".
I suppose it depends on your position, although we all share the same Faith, we differ on who, what and where.
Now a Sedevacantist does not believe that the novus ordo is The Catholic Church, therefore any man sitting in the throne can't be an anti-pope, because an anti-pope upsurps the Church and since Vatican II is not the Church therefore, they can't be anti-popes but are just men. Now if a man began saying he was pope of the Lutheran chuch, you wouldn't call him an anti-pope would you? NO! In order to be an anti-pope you would have to upsurp the True Church and we all know the Lutheran is just a man made church, as is Vatican II.
The reason I agree that the men who claim to be popes during the GWS are anti-popes; because at least they had the Faith, Catholic Faith. Even Saints came out of all the different groups, while they did not agree who was the true pope.
Well that is the way I understand all that about the pope stuff, according to my point of view, FWIW.
roscoe, I have been reading your papal bulls, very interesting stuff, thanks again. Haven't finished yet.
Really any Traditional Catholic, sede or not, realizes that the NO is NOT part of The Catholic Church, and is instead part of the counterfit church. Of course, I'm a bit confused here. You say that all "Popes" of the counterfit Church aren't Popes or anti-popes but are just men. Yet why do you think Benedict XVI is anti-pope? Just curious. Personally, I believe that our Popes kind of run both Churches, mostly the counterfit church. The true Catholic Church they just vistit or look upon every once in a while. That being said, if we were to have an anti-pope, he would indeed be an anti-pope and not just a man, if that makes any sense.
-
1-- There is NO SUCH THING AS A SEDEVACANTIST
2-- I agree that the NO church is not the Roman Catholic Church but it claims to be. A man claiming to be Pope who is not is an anti-pope.
2-- It is not up to Myrna to give us her 'point of view' re: the Fr GWS popes as anti-popes. As of yet No Church Authority has been cited telling us this.
3-- It is correct that the FR GWS popes were orthodox in belief. This is why( or one reason why) they were(are) NOT ANTI-POPES.
I pretty much agree with you, although while I don't think there were any anti-popes during GWS, we can't exactly go by whether or not the Church has declared them anti-popes. The Church, as far as I know, didn't even officially claim Pope Formosus an anti-pope when really he should have been declared one.
-
roscoe, Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.
Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes. Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure. Wrong! That is not what I believe. I am sedevacantist, remember.
Blessings to you roscoe.
GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe. PURE AND SIMPLE!
roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.
It is my understanding the anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.
I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.
No anti-pope is Catholic really. That's partly why they call them anti-popes. Similar thing with the term "Anti-Christ".
I suppose it depends on your position, although we all share the same Faith, we differ on who, what and where.
Now a Sedevacantist does not believe that the novus ordo is The Catholic Church, therefore any man sitting in the throne can't be an anti-pope, because an anti-pope upsurps the Church and since Vatican II is not the Church therefore, they can't be anti-popes but are just men. Now if a man began saying he was pope of the Lutheran chuch, you wouldn't call him an anti-pope would you? NO! In order to be an anti-pope you would have to upsurp the True Church and we all know the Lutheran is just a man made church, as is Vatican II.
The reason I agree that the men who claim to be popes during the GWS are anti-popes; because at least they had the Faith, Catholic Faith. Even Saints came out of all the different groups, while they did not agree who was the true pope.
Well that is the way I understand all that about the pope stuff, according to my point of view, FWIW.
roscoe, I have been reading your papal bulls, very interesting stuff, thanks again. Haven't finished yet.
Really any Traditional Catholic, sede or not, realizes that the NO is NOT part of The Catholic Church, and is instead part of the counterfit church. Of course, I'm a bit confused here. You say that all "Popes" of the counterfit Church aren't Popes or anti-popes but are just men. Yet why do you think Benedict XVI is anti-pope? Just curious. Personally, I believe that our Popes kind of run both Churches, mostly the counterfit church. The true Catholic Church they just vistit or look upon every once in a while. That being said, if we were to have an anti-pope, he would indeed be an anti-pope and not just a man, if that makes any sense.
SpiritusSanctus,
So you believe that the Vicar of Christ, Head of the Catholic Church is also the head of another Church?
-
roscoe--->2-- I agree that the NO church is not the Roman Catholic Church but it claims to be. A man claiming to be Pope who is not is an anti-pope.
Definition of an anti-pope is someone who falsely claims to be pope of the Roman Catholic Church, therefore they are not even anti-popes but NO kind of pope, according to the definition.
So roscoe, are you like Vatican II, yourself, and busy changing definitions? Just curious!
Today unfortunately there is such a thing as sedevacantist, because we are living in the great apostasy. The sheep have been scattered, and this forum proves that.
-
SpiritusS not sure if you were asking me --->
Really any Traditional Catholic, sede or not, realizes that the NO is NOT part of The Catholic Church, and is instead part of the counterfit church. Of course, I'm a bit confused here. You say that all "Popes" of the counterfit Church aren't Popes or anti-popes but are just men. Yet why do you think Benedict XVI is anti-pope? Just curious. Personally, I believe that our Popes kind of run both Churches, mostly the counterfit church. The true Catholic Church they just vistit or look upon every once in a while. That being said, if we were to have an anti-pope, he would indeed be an anti-pope and not just a man, if that makes any sense.
I don't believe that B16 is an anti-pope at all. It is true when I first registered here, everyone was referring to him as one, so without really thinking about it, I went along. However, after thinking about this I came to realize, the NO popes can't be anti-popes but just pretenders to the throne, because the NO and its new teachings are not Catholic.
-
Myrna said:
Now a Sedevacantist does not believe that the novus ordo is The Catholic Church, therefore any man sitting in the throne can't be an anti-pope, because an anti-pope upsurps the Church and since Vatican II is not the Church therefore, they can't be anti-popes but are just men. Now if a man began saying he was pope of the Lutheran chuch, you wouldn't call him an anti-pope would you? NO! In order to be an anti-pope you would have to upsurp the True Church and we all know the Lutheran is just a man made church, as is Vatican II.
[/b]
What you have written is what I have found most people who are not sedevacantists incapable of grasping. In order to discuss the sedevacantist position with them, this has to be established first. If not, the discussion gets entangled in no time at all.
-
When I re-read what I wrote, the word should be usurp, not upsurp. I am the worst with typos and spelling! :facepalm:
Also Alexandria, I have noticed, with me also, I can't grasp how many traditionalist accept their pope is pope of both truth and error. Except for that one point, we all have the same Faith, and that is what I keep telling myself.
-
When I re-read what I wrote, the word should be usurp, not upsurp. I am the worst with typos and spelling! :facepalm:
Upsurp, usurp, what's the difference? Either way, the Pope has gone missing and that's what matters most of all.
-
roscoe, Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.
Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes. Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure. Wrong! That is not what I believe. I am sedevacantist, remember.
Blessings to you roscoe.
GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe. PURE AND SIMPLE!
roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.
It is my understanding the anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.
I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.
No anti-pope is Catholic really. That's partly why they call them anti-popes. Similar thing with the term "Anti-Christ".
I suppose it depends on your position, although we all share the same Faith, we differ on who, what and where.
Now a Sedevacantist does not believe that the novus ordo is The Catholic Church, therefore any man sitting in the throne can't be an anti-pope, because an anti-pope upsurps the Church and since Vatican II is not the Church therefore, they can't be anti-popes but are just men. Now if a man began saying he was pope of the Lutheran chuch, you wouldn't call him an anti-pope would you? NO! In order to be an anti-pope you would have to upsurp the True Church and we all know the Lutheran is just a man made church, as is Vatican II.
The reason I agree that the men who claim to be popes during the GWS are anti-popes; because at least they had the Faith, Catholic Faith. Even Saints came out of all the different groups, while they did not agree who was the true pope.
Well that is the way I understand all that about the pope stuff, according to my point of view, FWIW.
roscoe, I have been reading your papal bulls, very interesting stuff, thanks again. Haven't finished yet.
Really any Traditional Catholic, sede or not, realizes that the NO is NOT part of The Catholic Church, and is instead part of the counterfit church. Of course, I'm a bit confused here. You say that all "Popes" of the counterfit Church aren't Popes or anti-popes but are just men. Yet why do you think Benedict XVI is anti-pope? Just curious. Personally, I believe that our Popes kind of run both Churches, mostly the counterfit church. The true Catholic Church they just vistit or look upon every once in a while. That being said, if we were to have an anti-pope, he would indeed be an anti-pope and not just a man, if that makes any sense.
SpiritusSanctus,
So you believe that the Vicar of Christ, Head of the Catholic Church is also the head of another Church?
Sort of. I know it's a very hard thing to understand, and I myself sometimes can't explain it very easily. One might say that the only point in which the seat of Peter was empty was during the reign of Paul VI. Not to call him an anti-pope because I can't call him one without knowing for sure, but at the time it was as if Archbishop LeFebvre was running the true Church since he was keeping it alive. Paul VI certainly didn't want it to remain intact. Benedict is trying to merge these two Churches together. So Benedict seems to be going back and forth between the two Churches.
-
SpiritusS not sure if you were asking me --->Really any Traditional Catholic, sede or not, realizes that the NO is NOT part of The Catholic Church, and is instead part of the counterfit church. Of course, I'm a bit confused here. You say that all "Popes" of the counterfit Church aren't Popes or anti-popes but are just men. Yet why do you think Benedict XVI is anti-pope? Just curious. Personally, I believe that our Popes kind of run both Churches, mostly the counterfit church. The true Catholic Church they just vistit or look upon every once in a while. That being said, if we were to have an anti-pope, he would indeed be an anti-pope and not just a man, if that makes any sense.
I don't believe that B16 is an anti-pope at all. It is true when I first registered here, everyone was referring to him as one, so without really thinking about it, I went along. However, after thinking about this I came to realize, the NO popes can't be anti-popes but just pretenders to the throne, because the NO and its new teachings are not Catholic.
In definition that would be an anti-pope. Regardless of what Church-the true or counterfit one-the Pope is running, papal elections still take place. Either a Pope is Pope or an anti-pope, there can't be any in-between.
-
How did we ever manage here before SS arrived on the scene?
:cool:
-
How did we ever manage here before SS arrived on the scene?
:cool:
:rolleyes:
-
SS is correct: if one claims to be Pope of the RC Church he is one of 2 things-- either the Pope or an anti-pope. There is no middle ground. Myrna's idea that there is something such as ' no pope at all' could apply to everyone on Earth except for the True Pope.
The concept of 'no pope at all' is as erronious as the concept of the alleged ( non-existant) ' sede vacantism'.
-
roscoe, Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.
Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes. Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure. Wrong! That is not what I believe. I am sedevacantist, remember.
Blessings to you roscoe.
GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe. PURE AND SIMPLE!
roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.
It is my understanding the anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.
I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.
No anti-pope is Catholic really. That's partly why they call them anti-popes. Similar thing with the term "Anti-Christ".
I suppose it depends on your position, although we all share the same Faith, we differ on who, what and where.
Now a Sedevacantist does not believe that the novus ordo is The Catholic Church, therefore any man sitting in the throne can't be an anti-pope, because an anti-pope upsurps the Church and since Vatican II is not the Church therefore, they can't be anti-popes but are just men. Now if a man began saying he was pope of the Lutheran chuch, you wouldn't call him an anti-pope would you? NO! In order to be an anti-pope you would have to upsurp the True Church and we all know the Lutheran is just a man made church, as is Vatican II.
The reason I agree that the men who claim to be popes during the GWS are anti-popes; because at least they had the Faith, Catholic Faith. Even Saints came out of all the different groups, while they did not agree who was the true pope.
Well that is the way I understand all that about the pope stuff, according to my point of view, FWIW.
roscoe, I have been reading your papal bulls, very interesting stuff, thanks again. Haven't finished yet.
Really any Traditional Catholic, sede or not, realizes that the NO is NOT part of The Catholic Church, and is instead part of the counterfit church. Of course, I'm a bit confused here. You say that all "Popes" of the counterfit Church aren't Popes or anti-popes but are just men. Yet why do you think Benedict XVI is anti-pope? Just curious. Personally, I believe that our Popes kind of run both Churches, mostly the counterfit church. The true Catholic Church they just vistit or look upon every once in a while. That being said, if we were to have an anti-pope, he would indeed be an anti-pope and not just a man, if that makes any sense.
SpiritusSanctus,
So you believe that the Vicar of Christ, Head of the Catholic Church is also the head of another Church?
Sort of. I know it's a very hard thing to understand, and I myself sometimes can't explain it very easily. One might say that the only point in which the seat of Peter was empty was during the reign of Paul VI. Not to call him an anti-pope because I can't call him one without knowing for sure, but at the time it was as if Archbishop LeFebvre was running the true Church since he was keeping it alive. Paul VI certainly didn't want it to remain intact. Benedict is trying to merge these two Churches together. So Benedict seems to be going back and forth between the two Churches.
Benedict is trying to merge the diabolic church and the True Church together?! Sorry, but that does not sound right to me.
-
1-- There is NO SUCH THING AS A SEDEVACANTIST
2-- I agree that the NO church is not the Roman Catholic Church but it claims to be. A man claiming to be Pope who is not is an anti-pope.
2-- It is not up to Myrna to give us her 'point of view' re: the Fr GWS popes as anti-popes. As of yet No Church Authority has been cited telling us this.
3-- It is correct that the FR GWS popes were orthodox in belief. This is why( or one reason why) they were(are) NOT ANTI-POPES.
I pretty much agree with you, although while I don't think there were any anti-popes during GWS, we can't exactly go by whether or not the Church has declared them anti-popes. The Church, as far as I know, didn't even officially claim Pope Formosus an anti-pope when really he should have been declared one.
Actually we can( most of the time) go by whether or not the Church has declared an anti-pope. Possibly I am mistaken but we are bound to recognise a formally declared anti-pope just as we are bound to recognise a formally declared saint.
Examples of formally declared anti-popes can be found on pg 405 of Prof Chadwick's History of Popes.
" ... Pius X had to GET RID OF( Chadwick is a Prot who does not use the word anti-pope) four popes from the past-- ....Boniface 6....., Boniface 7, John 16.... and Benedict 10..."
SS is correct however that there are a few cases where it is still debatable if a Pope is actually an anti-pope. These are almost all found in the house of Theophylact. This is because historical accounts of events are somewhat vague.
I do not recall the circuмstances re: Formosus offhand but he may be one of those.
-
Roscoe, what is it exactly that you believe is going on in the Church?
I am sure Fr. Leonard Feeney won't mind if we use his thread to digress for a few posts.
-
My belief is this-- Gregory XVII was True pope( for better or for worse) until he died in 1989. NO OTHER CARDINAL FROM 1958 OR EVEN 1963 CAN MAKE THE CLAIM TO BEING LEGALLY ELECTED.
I do not know exactly what has happened since then but my institution tells me that there is a True pope somewhere.
-
Are you a "home-aloner" then?
And what is it that you have read that has convinced you that Cardinal Siri was in fact elected pope in 1958?
I ask these questions sincerely, as I am sure you know (at least I hope you do :wink:).
-
My belief is this-- Gregory XVII was True pope( for better or for worse) until he died in 1989. NO OTHER CARDINAL FROM 1958 OR EVEN 1963 CAN MAKE THE CLAIM TO BEING LEGALLY ELECTED.
I do not know exactly what has happened since then but my institution tells me that there is a True pope somewhere.
The Church has said, "A doubtful pope is NO pope"
All I can say is, it is times like this when I read all this confusion, that I, a Roman Catholic, am happy that I understand the sedevacantist position, and furthermore
I doubt the SSPX teach what SS replied.
-
I do not doubt the sincerity of Alexandra at all. There are some who will refer to me as a 'home aloner' but I do not think there is such a thing as that either. In addition to being ailing, I have no idea where to find a legal mass.
If U will scour the TCW website, the evidence seems overwhelming that Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958 and probably again in 1958.
Could Myrna post a link to the Bulls of Clem V re: Templars as i would like to read them as well.
-
If U will scour the TCW website, the evidence seems overwhelming that Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958 and probably again in 1958.
Thanks, Roscoe, I'll check that website out, and I will keep you in m prayers.
-
If there were such a thing as a 'doubtful" Pope( another of Myrna's inventions) then he Could be Pope and it would not necessarily be true that he is not the pope.
-
If U will scour the TCW website, the evidence seems overwhelming that Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958 and probably again in 1958.
Thanks, Roscoe, I'll check that website out, and I will keep you in m prayers.
U are in my prayers as well Alexandra-- I appreciate your sincerity.
-
If there were such a thing as a 'doubtful" Pope( another of Myrna's inventions) then he Could be Pope and it would not necessarily be true that he is not the pope.
:scratchchin:
roscoe, tell that to the Council of Constance, a few threads back you told me how I must obey the papal bulls in order for salvation, does that not include you as well.
roscoe, you live in California, why not try Fr. Radecki's Mass, located in Newhall, Calif. While there you can chat with him about the Templars, and Pope Clement.
BTW.... I am reading those encyclicals you gave me, not sure what you mean now, when you are asking me to give you the links, since you gave them to me first. Are you sure your not :smoke-pot: NO, you wouldn't be!
-
Is the Council of Constance where the GWS was settled or was that Basle?
-
GWS was settled at Constance. This is where it is determined that one was left free to recognise either the Fr or It line of Popes as True Popes. This because( I may have posted this b4) it could not be determined who was legally elected and a compromise was reached.
As neither side was in heresy or any other form of defiance there were no further probs. Because one was left free to call either faction the Pope, Myrna continues to defy Constance and Martin V by referring to Fr GWS popes as anti-popes---and Catholic ones at that. In any case, they are not anti-popes. My understanding is that there are a couple of exceptions but the great majority of anti-popes are not Catholic at all.
I never gave Myrna any 'links' to the Bulls( I never 'gave' her or anyone else in this Forum 'encyclicals') of Clem V re; Templars. Only the NAME of the Bulls-- possibly she would benefit by :smoke-pot: Myrna has remarked above that she was reading them. It seems reasonable to assume they have been found somewhere.If a link cannot be supplied possibly a book reference. Is what U are reading in Latin, Fr or English?
-
SpiritusSanctus:
Personally, I believe that our Popes kind of run both Churches, mostly the counterfit church. The true Catholic Church they just vistit or look upon every once in a while.
RC:
So you believe that the Vicar of Christ, Head of the Catholic Church is also the head of another Church?
SpiritusSanctus:
Sort of. I know it's a very hard thing to understand, and I myself sometimes can't explain it very easily. One might say that the only point in which the seat of Peter was empty was during the reign of Paul VI. Not to call him an anti-pope because I can't call him one without knowing for sure, but at the time it was as if Archbishop LeFebvre was running the true Church since he was keeping it alive. Paul VI certainly didn't want it to remain intact. Benedict is trying to merge these two Churches together. So Benedict seems to be going back and forth between the two Churches.
RC:
Yes it sure is a hard thing to understand your position as stated thus far, but I can understand why you can't explain it very easily.
Sorry but Arcbishop Lefebvre never ran the Church, nor did he single-handedly keep it alive.
So you think there was period of sedevacante while Montini was putatively pope and trying to destroy the Church? When did Montini become a non-pope and why? Or was he never the pope?
-
If there were such a thing as a 'doubtful" Pope( another of Myrna's inventions) then he Could be Pope and it would not necessarily be true that he is not the pope.
:scratchchin:
roscoe, tell that to the Council of Constance, a few threads back you told me how I must obey the papal bulls in order for salvation, does that not include you as well.
roscoe, you live in California, why not try Fr. Radecki's Mass, located in Newhall, Calif. While there you can chat with him about the Templars, and Pope Clement.
BTW.... I am reading those encyclicals you gave me, not sure what you mean now, when you are asking me to give you the links, since you gave them to me first. Are you sure your not :smoke-pot: NO, you wouldn't be!
Dang Myrna! You scared me there for a minute. I saw the doobie smoking guy on YOUR post. Please don't do that again, you might give me a heart attack! Of course, I might have caught on quicker if I'd been wearing my glasses. :surprised:
-
If there were such a thing as a 'doubtful" Pope( another of Myrna's inventions) then he Could be Pope and it would not necessarily be true that he is not the pope.
:scratchchin:
roscoe, tell that to the Council of Constance, a few threads back you told me how I must obey the papal bulls in order for salvation, does that not include you as well.
roscoe, you live in California, why not try Fr. Radecki's Mass, located in Newhall, Calif. While there you can chat with him about the Templars, and Pope Clement.
BTW.... I am reading those encyclicals you gave me, not sure what you mean now, when you are asking me to give you the links, since you gave them to me first. Are you sure your not :smoke-pot: NO, you wouldn't be!
Dang Myrna! You scared me there for a minute. I saw the doobie smoking guy on YOUR post. Please don't do that again, you might give me a heart attack! Of course, I might have caught on quicker if I'd been wearing my glasses. :surprised:
Cheryl, maybe I should use that icon more often if it gets attention as it did for you. :laugh1:
******
roscoe --->I never gave Myrna any 'links' to the Bulls( I never 'gave' her or anyone else in this Forum 'encyclicals') of Clem V re; Templars. Only the NAME of the Bulls-
Correct! I looked the names up on google, and you can do the same. I thanked you for the inspiration as well.
I also suggested since you live in Calif. and not too far from, Fr. Radecki you visit his Church and talk to him about the Templars. http://www.queenofangelscatholicchurch.org/
I posted the Council of Constance because it is there the Church said, "A doubtful pope is no pope" and you claim it is my invention, shame on you, roscoe.
Who knows maybe you will realize someday, sedevacantism is a reality.
-
Myrna, two questions:
1. Where in the docuмent does it say that? I have it up on my board and do not have the time to read it all.
2. I see that it was written after the GWS - what would you answer to someone who would say that the docuмent's saying "A doubtful pope is no pope" does not contextually apply to our times.
-
Hard to believe popes ever wrote like this (Council of Constance), after the mamby-pamby fluff we've been fed the past 50+ years.
-
roscoe, Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.
Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes. Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure. Wrong! That is not what I believe. I am sedevacantist, remember.
Blessings to you roscoe.
GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe. PURE AND SIMPLE!
roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.
It is my understanding the anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.
I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.
No anti-pope is Catholic really. That's partly why they call them anti-popes. Similar thing with the term "Anti-Christ".
I suppose it depends on your position, although we all share the same Faith, we differ on who, what and where.
Now a Sedevacantist does not believe that the novus ordo is The Catholic Church, therefore any man sitting in the throne can't be an anti-pope, because an anti-pope upsurps the Church and since Vatican II is not the Church therefore, they can't be anti-popes but are just men. Now if a man began saying he was pope of the Lutheran chuch, you wouldn't call him an anti-pope would you? NO! In order to be an anti-pope you would have to upsurp the True Church and we all know the Lutheran is just a man made church, as is Vatican II.
The reason I agree that the men who claim to be popes during the GWS are anti-popes; because at least they had the Faith, Catholic Faith. Even Saints came out of all the different groups, while they did not agree who was the true pope.
Well that is the way I understand all that about the pope stuff, according to my point of view, FWIW.
roscoe, I have been reading your papal bulls, very interesting stuff, thanks again. Haven't finished yet.
Really any Traditional Catholic, sede or not, realizes that the NO is NOT part of The Catholic Church, and is instead part of the counterfit church. Of course, I'm a bit confused here. You say that all "Popes" of the counterfit Church aren't Popes or anti-popes but are just men. Yet why do you think Benedict XVI is anti-pope? Just curious. Personally, I believe that our Popes kind of run both Churches, mostly the counterfit church. The true Catholic Church they just vistit or look upon every once in a while. That being said, if we were to have an anti-pope, he would indeed be an anti-pope and not just a man, if that makes any sense.
SpiritusSanctus,
So you believe that the Vicar of Christ, Head of the Catholic Church is also the head of another Church?
Sort of. I know it's a very hard thing to understand, and I myself sometimes can't explain it very easily. One might say that the only point in which the seat of Peter was empty was during the reign of Paul VI. Not to call him an anti-pope because I can't call him one without knowing for sure, but at the time it was as if Archbishop LeFebvre was running the true Church since he was keeping it alive. Paul VI certainly didn't want it to remain intact. Benedict is trying to merge these two Churches together. So Benedict seems to be going back and forth between the two Churches.
Benedict is trying to merge the diabolic church and the True Church together?! Sorry, but that does not sound right to me.
Have you noticed that lately these Pontifical High Masses have been a mix of the TLM and Novus Ordo? Well, there you go. He's trying to combine the two Masses together, and since each Mass represents its own Church (TLM representing the true Church, and NO the counterfit church) then Benedict is infact trying to merge the two Churches.
-
My belief is this-- Gregory XVII was True pope( for better or for worse) until he died in 1989. NO OTHER CARDINAL FROM 1958 OR EVEN 1963 CAN MAKE THE CLAIM TO BEING LEGALLY ELECTED.
I do not know exactly what has happened since then but my institution tells me that there is a True pope somewhere.
The Church has said, "A doubtful pope is NO pope"
All I can say is, it is times like this when I read all this confusion, that I, a Roman Catholic, am happy that I understand the sedevacantist position, and furthermore
I doubt the SSPX teach what SS replied.
Ask 10 SSPX priests, atleast 9 of them will say there is either a Pope or anti-pope, no in-between. Just like a person is either for God or for the devil, no in-between.
-
RC, if you read my post again you'll see that I did not actually say ABL ran the Church, I said it was as if he did. I do know for certain that if there were two Paul VI's (which there probably were just by looking at the pictures), then the second Paul VI was indeed an anti-pope, perhaps the original one as well.
-
Myrna-- if it is correct that i never gave you links to the Bulls( not 'encyclicals') of Clement V, then why did say that I did so?-- U have not apologised. If U have found them, pls post the links so that we are all reading the same thing. Are they in French, Latin or English?
-
It must be kind of difficult to 'post' the Council of Constance but pls quote the relevant section of whatever docuмent U are referring to where it says that a 'doubtful pope is not pope at all.
Re: Fr Radecki-- I did try and contact him a number of yrs ago but he is not interested in talking to me. I think it has something to do with moi trying to bring MK Ultra and Bohemian Grove to his attention.
I am not surprised because he( along with Fr Laux and SSPX) is in defiance of the infallible Bulls( not encyclicals) of Clement V that condemn Templars-- the orig MK Ultra conspiracy.
-
Neither the Council of Constance nor any other council or Pope has declared the Fr Popes of GWS as anti-popes-- or even alleged 'catholic" anti-popes( if there even is such a thing).
-
roscoe, I apologize for posting the world "link" instead of names, feel better now?
Try reading Session 39 to see if your pope Gregory XVII does not fit the doubtful pope, (Council of Constance)
There are other Sessions there too you should read. Along with these words of wisdom.
cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559
“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
— “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
— “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . .
— “Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
— “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
Coronata — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1950
“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy.
1. What is required by divine law for this appointment . . . Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded. . . ”
“It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic — if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible.
“If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”
Marato — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1921
“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.”
Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927
“Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.”
CANON 6.6
All former disciplinary laws which were in force until now, and are neither explicitly nor implicitly contained in the Code, shall be regarded as having lost all force, unless they are found in the approved liturgical books, or they are laws derived from the natural and the positive divine law.
A. Dorsch — Institutions Theologiae Fundamentalis, 1928
“The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state . . .
“Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body . . . Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way —that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not . . .
“For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died —for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.
“These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary” (De Ecclesia 2:196-7).
Fr. Edward J. O’Reilly, S.J. — The Relations of the Church to Society, 1882
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all throughout, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope —with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”
Msgr. Charles Journet, The Church of the Incarnate Word
B. The Church During a Vacancy of the Holy See
We must not think of the church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be recondensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous.* ‘But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic Churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven .. . But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to who He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter.
*During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. “The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power.”
Msgr. Journet — The Church of the Incarnate Word
“During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap. xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power ‘of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.”
Cajetan, O. P. — De Comparatione Autoritatis Papae et Concilii
“. . . by exception and by suppletory manner this power (that of electing a pope), corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the inexistence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happens at the time of a schism.”
Billot — De Ecclesia Christi
“When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council.”
“Because ‘natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a Superior is passed to the immediate inferior, because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need.”
Vitoria — De Potestate Ecclesiae
“Even if St. Peter would have not determined anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to substitute him and appoint a successor to him... If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a Holy Father.
“Hence such an election; ‘a tota Ecclesia debet provideri et non ab aliqua partuculari Ecclesia.’ (“It should be carried by all the Church and not by any particular Church.”) And this is because “Ilia potestas est communis et spectat ad totam Ecclesiam. Ergo a tata Ecclesia debet provideri.’” (“That power is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole Church.”)
Cajetan:
“Immediately, one ought to resists in facie, a pope who is publicly destroying the Church; for example, to want to give ecclesiastical benefits for money or charge of services. And one ought to refuse, with all obedience and respect, and not to give possession of these benefits to those who bought them.”
Silvestra:
“What is there to do when the pope wishes without reason to abrogate the positive right order? To this he responds, ‘He certainly sins; one ought not to permit him to proceed thus, nor ought one to obey him in what is bad; one ought to resist him with a polite reprehension. In consequence, if he wished to deliver all the treasures of the Church and the patrimony of St. Peter to his parents; if he was left to destroy the Church or in similar works, one ought not to permit him to work in this form, having the obligation of giving him resistance. And the reason for this is, in these matters he has no right to destroy. Immediately evident of what he is doing, it is licit to resist him. Of all this it results that, if the pope, by his order or his acts, destroys the Church, one can resist and impede the execution of his commands.’”
Suarez:
“If the pope gave an order contrary to the good customs, one should not obey him; if his intent is to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it is lawful and valid to resist; if attacked by force, one shall be able to resist with force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.”
St. Robert Bellarmine:
“Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff that attacks the body, it is also licit to resist (him) who attacks the soul, or who disturbs the civil order, or, above all, he who intends to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of that which he wills. It is not licit, with everything, to judge him impose a punishment, or depose him, for these actions are accorded to one superior to the pope.”
St. Francis de Sales:
“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”
St. Robert Bellarmine:
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
St. Antoninus:
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913
“The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
Pope Innocent III:
“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged, In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”
Matthaeus Conte a Coronata — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1950
“If indeed such a situation would happen, he (the Roman Pontiff) would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”
A. Vermeersch — Epitome Iuris Canonici, 1949
“At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”
Edward F. Regatillo — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1956
“‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could he be its head.”
Look up this too, found it while I was googling the "names" you gave me. "Chinon Parchment"
CHINON PARCHMENT "CLEARS" TEMPLARS OF HERESY
BTW MK Ultra..... what in the world is that?
-
I will comment on this and on the 'Chinon Parchment"( does this docuмent supplant or recind the Bulls of Clement V?) when U post it. Pls post 'Chinon Parchement'
The 8 Bulls of Clement V condemning Templars are Infallible
U claim to have found ( and read) the bulls of Clement V re: Templars. Are they in Latin, French or English?--- pls post link
-
What is MK Ultra??-- U are MK Ultra
If U are claiming that Gregory XVII lost his office, pls post why U have reached that conclusion.
Do U accept or deny that he was legally elected in either 1958 or 1963?
Why have U referred to the Infallible Bulls of Clement V as 'encyclicals'? Could it be because Encyclicals do not carry the Infallibility of Bulls?
-
What is happening here Myrna is that Fr Radecki, Fr Laux, SSPX and yourself are in defiance of the Infallible Bulls of a True Pope. Are u going to attempt to claim that Clem V lost his office?
Forget about Marozia-- it seems as if we have the first female Pope here at Cathinfo, Or more properly anti-pope Myrna 1
-
Unless I am mistaken, Myrna has complained when the light of truth shone on Dolan and Cekada. It is therefore not surprising to see that Templars are defended
-
What is happening here Myrna is that Fr Radecki, Fr Laux, SSPX and yourself are in defiance of the Infallible Bulls of a True Pope. Are u going to attempt to claim that Clem V lost his office?
Forget about Marozia-- it seems as if we have the first female Pope here at Cathinfo, Or more properly anti-pope Myrna 1
The SSPX shouldn't be on that list of those who are in defiance.
-
Scroll down for a review of recent SSPX book claiming Templars are innocent
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com
-
roscoe, you are not worth my time anymore, you can put me on ignore because I am certainly going to put you on ignore, before I say something I have to apologize for.
-
RC, if you read my post again you'll see that I did not actually say ABL ran the Church, I said it was as if he did. I do know for certain that if there were two Paul VI's (which there probably were just by looking at the pictures), then the second Paul VI was indeed an anti-pope, perhaps the original one as well.
Why would the spooks need to put a fake in place if Montini was an anti-pope?
And since Montini was such a horrible Modernist before his "papacy" why the need for a fake?
Also you say you know for certain. How can you know for certain?
You have probably seen some material pushing the fake-Paul VI story, and you believe it to be true.
-
Anyone can read the statement of myrna above claiming to have Googled the Bulls of Clement V re Templars. She further claims to have found them and be in the process of reading them.
I have simply asked for the link to make sure that we are studying the same thing. I have never actually read the Bulls myself. I doubt they are online in English which is why i asked if it was that or another language. The link has not been provided nor has the question re: language been answered.
Also the docuмent claiming to exonerate Templars has not been posted.
Possibly myrna will recognise that her credibility is not of a high level.
Someone has prev speculated that Montini had a Dantonist change of heart and had to be taken out. This would explain the need for the double.
-
I had Myrna on IG quite some time ago but relented to the plea of Trinity. It has been quite an experience.
-
It should be noted that Trinity has been absent during this discussion. :smoke-pot:
-
Just wondering if Myrna reads (and comprehends) the texts she quotes. Given that she feels her time is so valuable, or at least it is as far as you are concerned, Roscoe.
Who cares about the ignore option, anyway?
-
Just wondering if Myrna reads (and comprehends) the texts she quotes. Given that she feels her time is so valuable, or at least it is as far as you are concerned, Roscoe.
Who cares about the ignore option, anyway?
Hi, yes, I have read them, these are my favorite because they are so simple to understand.
St. Francis de Sales:
“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”
St. Robert Bellarmine:
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
St. Antoninus:
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
BTW... innocenza, you probably disclosed what you believe, but I haven't read all the threads here. Care to post again, your beliefs on the pope issue.
-
Trinity is following---sort of. In the many years before I got on internet, I had no access to bulls and encyclicals, etc. So I've been in the habit of taking my knowledge from the Bible and life experiences. At this point I'm far too ignorant of anything else to contribute. And too far behind to catch up.
Then too, lately, Paul has had heart surgery, and anyone who knows about that, knows what a horrible experience it is. While he was in hospital, I, too, landed in hospital. We had always planned on eating out for our anniversary, but we were thinking Chinese, not hospital. LOL. God had other plans. To top it off, we had begun procedures to buy a home and move into it. So now, barely able to get around, we are in the process of moving---and you can bet it is the Church which will move us. Probably Brother Xavier and some high school boys. Consequently I will be leaving the internet Oct. 21. Moving is expensive. But carry on---I will try to follow as long as I can.
P.S. You can trust Myrna.
-
Thanks Trinity, I appreciate that right now, from this forum.
I took roscoe advice and started to google the names he gave me, and was thankful because I learned much about the Templars; I had no idea he wanted me to keep a record of what I was reading, anyway he too can google the names he gave me, he just wants to argue with me.
I asked him a civil question about MK Ultra, and he calls me one. okay, Our Lord was called worse, so, I accept it, but feel my time with him has expired, apparently he has decided I am not worth for him to be civil with, so I am moving on, and away from him.
Sorry to hear about Paul, your husband, my husband too has heart problems, but I am hoping to leave earth before him, because he is such a help to me, don't know if I can figure out problems of life, as he is such a fantastic problem solver.
Funny about the eating out in the hospital, God knows best!
I hope after you get settled in your new home, you will return to the cathinfo forum.
Blessings from above to you and yours.
-
Thanks Trinity, I appreciate that right now, from this forum.
I took roscoe advice and started to google the names he gave me, and was thankful because I learned much about the Templars; I had no idea he wanted me to keep a record of what I was reading, anyway he too can google the names he gave me, he just wants to argue with me.
I asked him a civil question about MK Ultra, and he calls me one. okay, Our Lord was called worse, so, I accept it, but feel my time with him has expired, apparently he has decided I am not worth for him to be civil with, so I am moving on, and away from him.
Sorry to hear about Paul, your husband, my husband too has heart problems, but I am hoping to leave earth before him, because he is such a help to me, don't know if I can figure out problems of life, as he is such a fantastic problem solver.
Funny about the eating out in the hospital, God knows best!
I hope after you get settled in your new home, you will return to the cathinfo forum.
Blessings from above to you and yours.
Hey Myrna, it's half time. Hope this helps. I didn't know about MK ultra and when I asked, Eamon answered.
Cheryl said:
Would someone please be kind enough to tell this simpleton what MK Ultra means?
It is a government project for mind control (Mind Kontrol...MK).
It is one of the many black ops of recent times.
It comes from the movie Conspiracy Theory, with Mel Gibson (my husband told me that).
I try to be as honest as humorous, and even after Eamon was kind enough to answer my question, I still didn't get it. I guess you had to see the movie.
Now what I don't understand, is if everyone is so worried about mind control and being watched, why do they still google everything? Even the Wall Street Journal, wrote an article about how google caches your search info and sells it. Anyone who wants to know more can go to, scroogle.org.
-
It is up to Myrna to post the links to the Bulls of Clem V she says she has found. Either the links exist as she says or they don't. Are they in English French or Latin? I would like to make sure I am reading what Myrna is so we can have an actual dialogue.
She has lied and referred to them as 'encyclicals'( some of us know that encyclicals are not as important as Bulls). What then is myrna's disposition re Templars? Is she with SSPX, FR Radecki, and Fr Laux in defiance of Papal Primacy or otherwise.
Trinity-- Some of us have suspected that U lean towards Sola Scriptura. Hopefully U are realising now that the Tradition of the Church is just as important as the Bible and as such a Catholic must needs be educated in same.
To all of those who think that Benedict XVI(16) is merely ' no pope at all' -- these words apply to almost 7 million people on Earth at this time. The clown( along with the other v2 clowns) is undoubtably( got that Myrna) an ANTI-POPE
-
Cherly-- U have it backwards. MK Ultra doesn't come from the movie Conspiracy Theory. The movie is a product( in part) of the MK Ultra program.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/illuminati_formula_mind_control.htm
-
And Myrna-- where is this 'Chinon Parchement' U have that clears Templars? Pls post this docuмent. Does it trump the Infallible Bulls of the Pope. I would like to know.
-
That was one of the very limited number of movies I had seen between the age of 12, when I stopped going, and my present 68 -- Conspiracy Theory. My neighbor who was interested in politics and the JBS had recommended it.
My review: Totally Hollywood, no substance whatever, all camerawork, action shots, cliches. 100% THUMBS DOWN!
-
The important thing about the movie Conspiracy Theory was not the alleged artistic content but the revealing( to the incredulous) of Mind Kontrolle and secret societies. Just a sequel to the Manchurian Candidate.
-
Thanks U Innocennza as the only movies besides CT that I have seen in the last 40 yrs are The Godfather and Jaws. Hollywood stinks
-
Thanks Trinity, I appreciate that right now, from this forum.
I took roscoe advice and started to google the names he gave me, and was thankful because I learned much about the Templars; I had no idea he wanted me to keep a record of what I was reading, anyway he too can google the names he gave me, he just wants to argue with me.
I asked him a civil question about MK Ultra, and he calls me one. okay, Our Lord was called worse, so, I accept it, but feel my time with him has expired, apparently he has decided I am not worth for him to be civil with, so I am moving on, and away from him.
Sorry to hear about Paul, your husband, my husband too has heart problems, but I am hoping to leave earth before him, because he is such a help to me, don't know if I can figure out problems of life, as he is such a fantastic problem solver.
Funny about the eating out in the hospital, God knows best!
I hope after you get settled in your new home, you will return to the cathinfo forum.
Blessings from above to you and yours.
Hey Myrna, it's half time. Hope this helps. I didn't know about MK ultra and when I asked, Eamon answered.
Cheryl said:
Would someone please be kind enough to tell this simpleton what MK Ultra means?
It is a government project for mind control (Mind Kontrol...MK).
It is one of the many black ops of recent times.
It comes from the movie Conspiracy Theory, with Mel Gibson (my husband told me that).
I try to be as honest as humorous, and even after Eamon was kind enough to answer my question, I still didn't get it. I guess you had to see the movie.
Now what I don't understand, is if everyone is so worried about mind control and being watched, why do they still google everything? Even the Wall Street Journal, wrote an article about how google caches your search info and sells it. Anyone who wants to know more can go to, scroogle.org.
Thanks Cheryl, after roscoe couldn't wouldn't answer me, I googled MK ULtra; mind control something I never really thought much about, yet with all the propaganda around us, I suppose we all should be careful, what we allow into our minds.
Today at Mass I cried my eyes out to God, feel much better now.
As I promised I offered the Mass for Catholic Samurai's grandmother's conversion. Thought about her and her loved ones, whoever they are. I believe firmly that when we pray for one anothers intention, that is when God most likely hears our prayers. It just makes sense to me.
Sorry you had to miss Mass, but taking care of the sick was God's will for you today. Now enjoy your football, :smile:
-
Cherly-- U have it backwards. MK Ultra doesn't come from the movie Conspiracy Theory. The movie is a product( in part) of the MK Ultra program.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/illuminati_formula_mind_control.htm
Your right Roscoe, I'm sure I have it ass backwards. But the grilling you put Myrna through (and it's not a hidden fact that Myrna and I have disagreed from time to time), makes me think that you should give yourself a new user name. How about, Grand Inquisitor of Cath Info?
If you're so worried about MK Ultra, then why do you still use Google? If you're trying to spread the word, why not tell the sheeple not to use facebook, twitter, and the now passe, my space or other social networking websites I may have overlooked? If you want to stop the MK Ultra, why not recommend for required reading, the Unibomber's Manifesto? Wasn't poor Ted an early example of MK Ultra? Just suggesting a few ideas to stem the tide of MK Ultra.
-
Myrna claims to have access to a docuмent-- the'Chinon Parchement'-- allegedly clearing the Templars. Despite requests, this( among other things) has not been produced.
As long as she( or anyone else) is defending Templars, they are is defiance of the 8 time Infallible condemnations of the order by the Pope. This is plainly heretical as we are obliged to obey the Pope-- not the other way around. The attempt to claim that the Bulls of Clement are only Encyclicals is another slippery tactic to beware of.
-
I am not aware of any connection between MK Ultra and Google. I do not think Cheryl understands MK Ultra. The last thing one would want to do in order to learn about MK Ultra is to read the Manifesto of Unabomber-- who is a victim of this perversion.
A link to Illuminati Formula has been provide for those who really are sincere in learning the ultimate evils of Mind Kontrolle.
-
Scroll down for a review of recent SSPX book claiming Templars are innocent
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com
You were talking about them deciding whether or not a Pope was true Pope. And that is what I meant.
-
RC, if you read my post again you'll see that I did not actually say ABL ran the Church, I said it was as if he did. I do know for certain that if there were two Paul VI's (which there probably were just by looking at the pictures), then the second Paul VI was indeed an anti-pope, perhaps the original one as well.
Why would the spooks need to put a fake in place if Montini was an anti-pope?
And since Montini was such a horrible Modernist before his "papacy" why the need for a fake?
Also you say you know for certain. How can you know for certain?
You have probably seen some material pushing the fake-Paul VI story, and you believe it to be true.
I don't know for certain there were two Paul VIs. I know for certain that there were two Sister Lucias, but am not entirely sure on the Paul VI issue. I said I know for certain that if there were two Paul VIs, then the second would have been an anti-pope. Why the need for a second Paul VI? Only God knows. Vatican II mostly operated behind closed doors and to this day the Vatican still does. There are rumors that the real Paul VI was "truely sorry" for what he did (whether forced to do what he did, whether he was a modernist and converted, or whether he was drugged, all of which are persistent rumors), and was killed and replaced. Or perhaps the real one died on his own and there weren't enough modernist Cardinals yet so to be sure a Traditional one didn't get in and put an end to things they found a replacement.
Blessed Sunday to everyone! God Bless.
-
He mentioned Liguori along with Ott.
Alexandria you have a free will and if you choose not to believe a de fide teaching, along with "goose" so be it. You will never shake my faith.
The teaching is in every single catechism book I have ever read, and none say it is a theory. I was taught in a Catholic school in Chicago, where the old nuns were sent to die because the newer Modern nuns were there setting the stage for Vatican II. They never said baptism of desire was a nice thought, but told us it was a de fide teaching.
Follow Feeney and his ilk, your choice.
You will always be in my prayers.
I don't deny that it could be de fide. I just put everything on the table that, short of a definite ruling by the Church, the theological status is not yet defined. At least not in it's details.
Also, you must keep in mind that catechisms contain teachings of a whole variety of different states - some dogmatic, some de fide, some proximate to the faith, some pertaining to the faith, pious opinions etc.
-
Myrna also needs to keep in mind that there is no grounds for denigrating Fr Feeney and his 'ilk' as all of the paperwork indicting and/ or summoning him is fraudulent.
We are still waiting for the 'Chinon Parchement' which --we are told-- clears Templars.
-
I hope everyone understands why the Chinon docuмent is of little or questionable authority.
If the docuмent absolved the Templars then A POPE SUBSEQUENT TO CLEMENT V WOULD HAVE RECOGNISED THIS and his 8 condemning Bulls ( yes Myrna they are infallible Bulls, not encyclicals-- nice try again) would have been cancelled at some point.
THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED
-
Is there a theologian out there who can explain to us what the consequences are of denying an Infallible Bull? Maybe Classicom knows :smoke-pot:
-
I'm not sure why you are so excited about this, El Roscoe. How many KTs do you run into on a daily basis?
:detective:
-
Have you ever heard of the v2 anti-church?
-
Roscoe, I am with you. Where is this proof that would clear the Templars? And, I think I know what happens to one who denies Papal Bulls.
Google has nothing to do with M.K. Ulta, but I would say that it is worth your while to investigate this program. Especially in light of the fact that Caribou Barbie a.k.a Sarah Palin is seriusly thinking of running to replace that other mind control puppet Obama.
-
Good to hear from U Dawn-- isn't it amazing that some think they tell the Pope what to do?
You're showing up here reminds me-- is Fr M Stepanich any relation to the Fr Stepanich from Croatia in WWII?
-
Actually the Croation priest spells his name Stepinac
-
:scratchchin:
-
I do not know Roscoe. I do not think so. Take care.
-
:scratchchin:
No need to scratch Myrna, Roscoe and Dawn have a special bond that no one else but the two of them understand. Sometimes I think The Holy Ghost has given Dawn the gift of tongues when it comes to Roscoe-speak. She does seem to be the only one who understand where he's coming from. Hey Dawn, :wave: nice to see you!
-
Thank you Cheryl. I do like Roscoe. There are just a few on this board I would not have anything to do with. It is a gift from God that I am able to get along with most everyone I meet. I love people and want to do the best that I can for them. And, of course we know that is telling them the Truths of the Catholic Faith.
I will run from persons saying they are Catholic and spouting things out of their mouth about salvation and the Mercy of God. I know this is not a popular position with some here, but I for one have grown to really have deep love for saints Like Jerome, or Vincent Ferrer or St. Francis and dear St. Dominic who were so adamant about the fewness of those saved and the importance for us to tell the complete Truth no matter how difficult for some to hear.
-
I'll add my vote for Roscoe too.
So, Roscoe, here's a "thumbs-up" from Alexandria. Unfortunately, it won't get you anywhere..... :wink: :cool:
-
Despite the Jansenist heretics that inhabit this Forum, there are a few who do not qualify as what Fr Feeney would describe as pius frauds. Viva Il Papa
-
Despite the Jansenist heretics that inhabit this Forum, there are a few who do not qualify as what Fr Feeney would describe as pius frauds. Viva Il Papa
Just to point out, 90% of people who post here are NOT heretics. I wouldn't say there are only a few here who are not.
-
I'll give a vote to Dawn. She's a nice person, great to have her back.
:cheers:
-
I'll give a vote to Dawn. She's a nice person, great to have her back.
:cheers:
For the second time today, I'll second the motion. :cheers:
-
T. There are I know this is not a popular position with some here, but I for one have grown to really have deep love for saints Like Jerome, or Vincent Ferrer or St. Francis and dear St. Dominic who were so adamant about the fewness of those saved and the importance for us to tell the complete Truth no matter how difficult for some to hear.
Have you ever had the chance to see the movie, Monsieur Vincent? Great movie, wonderful performance by the actor who played St. Vincent Ferrer. It came out in 1947.
-
I have a couple of disagreements with Dawn but they are amicable. She is a little to hard on Pius XII(XIII) and considers herself a 'sede'. It does not however get to the point where she denies Papal Primacy like some of the radical, dogmatic 'sedes' and those who think the anti-pope Benedict is somehow pope of the Catholic Church.
-
Opinions, please, on the following citation, via a friend, on what Bp. McKenna wrote to the Dimond Brothers:
"Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire. I repeat them, emphasizing what you ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: 'The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that (subjectively) a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not (objectively) good. If a Jew who rejects Our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the movement in which (objectively) he and his nation are engaged.' I could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says . . ."
-
Opinions, please, on the following citation, via a friend, on what Bp. McKenna wrote to the Dimond Brothers:
"Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire. I repeat them, emphasizing what you ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: 'The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that (subjectively) a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not (objectively) good. If a Jew who rejects Our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the movement in which (objectively) he and his nation are engaged.' I could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says . . ."
:idea: Impossible to comprehend?
-
Opinions, please, on the following citation, via a friend, on what Bp. McKenna wrote to the Dimond Brothers:
"Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire. I repeat them, emphasizing what you ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: 'The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that (subjectively) a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not (objectively) good. If a Jew who rejects Our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the movement in which (objectively) he and his nation are engaged.' I could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says . . ."
:idea: Impossible to comprehend?
So someone can have baptism of desire who does not have the desire to be baptized???
-
Twists the mind into a pretzel.
-
Opinions, please, on the following citation, via a friend, on what Bp. McKenna wrote to the Dimond Brothers:
"Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire. I repeat them, emphasizing what you ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: 'The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that (subjectively) a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not (objectively) good. If a Jew who rejects Our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the movement in which (objectively) he and his nation are engaged.' I could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says . . ."
To me, imo, the words are at least confuse.
-
Opinions, please, on the following citation, via a friend, on what Bp. McKenna wrote to the Dimond Brothers:
"Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire. I repeat them, emphasizing what you ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: 'The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that (subjectively) a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not (objectively) good. If a Jew who rejects Our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the movement in which (objectively) he and his nation are engaged.' I could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says . . ."
:idea: Impossible to comprehend?
So someone can have baptism of desire who does not have the desire to be baptized???
Without having explicit desire, conc., without having implicit desire, nego :)
In other words the desire to be baptized need not to be explicit as it was clearly taught by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis and in Suprema haec Sacra.
-
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.
-
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.
So??
-
So, if one has not received water baptism, they are not a member of the Church. One needs to be a member to be saved.
-
So, if one has not received water baptism, they are not a member of the Church. One needs to be a member to be saved.
Feeney was wrong and condemned by the Church. All canonists and theologians accept the posibility of salvation just by desire being member of the Church such in the case of Cathcuмens.
The text of Pius XII you quoted does not support what you say. It simply points out who are members of the Church, it doesn´t speak about those who desire to be member of the Church. They are 2 different things. Here is the text of Pius XII suporting the posibility of salvation for non-members:
103. As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.
This is quite clear I think!
Cristian
-
First of all, this passage from Mystici Corporis has been incorrectly translated by many to weaken the actual words of Pius XII. The phrase (ab eo statu se eripere studeant, in quo de sempiterna cuiusque propria salute securi esse non possunt) which is correctly translated as “…extricate themselves from that condition in which they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation,” has been mistranslated as “look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation.” Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p. 153.
This mistranslation gives the clear impression that non-Catholics have an outside chance at gaining salvation where they are.
-
First of all, this passage from Mystici Corporis has been incorrectly translated by many to weaken the actual words of Pius XII. The phrase (ab eo statu se eripere studeant, in quo de sempiterna cuiusque propria salute securi esse non possunt) which is correctly translated as “…extricate themselves from that condition in which they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation,” has been mistranslated as “look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation.” Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p. 153.
This mistranslation gives the clear impression that non-Catholics have an outside chance at gaining salvation where they are.
Agreed. That´s exactly what Fenton says. I directly copied and pasted the passage from the net and I should have paid more attention. My apologies.
Some have translated the word "securi" into sure when the correct translation is "secure". So what? Pius XII doesn´t say those who are related to the Mystical Body are outside the Church, it says they are not members, and that they cannot be secure about their salvation because they lack many graces and benefices which you can only enjoy by being member of the Catholic Church. So a member of the Catholic Church may have a realitve security (not certainty) about his salvation if he believes who the Church teaches, does what the Church commands and receives the Sacramental graces.
But if a non member cannot be secure about his salvation that means that he still may be saved in that state (non-member). I think the words are clear. Otherwise the Pope would have said that they cannot obtain salvation. He clearly teaches the posibility of salvation for non-members.
Cristian
-
The passage is anything but clear. You might be right if that were the only statement we had on the matter, but you have to remember there are three ex cathedra statements that say NO ONE is saved outside the Catholic Church.
-
The passage is anything but clear. You might be right if that were the only statement we had on the matter, but you have to remember there are three ex cathedra statements that say NO ONE is saved outside the Catholic Church.
You are assuming the terms "outside the Church" and "non-members" are synonymous... quod probandum est amigo!...
I insist. The text is quite clear.
-
Possibly Cristian might like to consider that any paperwork claiming to condemn Fr Feeney is a fraud-- just as the paperwork re: Card Rampolla and his alleged membership in OTO.
-
Possibly Cristian might like to consider that any paperwork claiming to condemn Fr Feeney is a fraud-- just as the paperwork re: Card Rampolla and his alleged membership in OTO.
Like Suprema Haec Sacra? :)
-
Offhand I am not familiar with the docuмent-- pls provide details.
-
Offhand I am not familiar with the docuмent-- pls provide details.
Ok, here is a link. You have the docuмent and a commentary made by Fenton.
http://www.ekaristi.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5182
Cristian
-
Checked out the link you provided, Cristian -- thanks! Have to start becoming acquainted with Msgr. Fenton's writings.
-
In his book After The Boston Heresy Case, G Potter shows how the docuмents allegedly summoning or condemning Fr Feeney are a fraud.
-
...Have to start becoming acquainted with Msgr. Fenton's writings.
.....A worthwhile thing for all Catholics to do.
-
Checked out the link you provided, Cristian -- thanks! Have to start becoming acquainted with Msgr. Fenton's writings.
You are welcome! :)
-
In his book After The Boston Heresy Case, G Potter shows how the docuмents allegedly summoning or condemning Fr Feeney are a fraud.
Well I think now it is you who have to provide details... :)
-
I have read the book 2 times-- it is All there.
-
I have read the book 2 times-- it is All there.
Ahhh ok, but it is not here is it?... Anyway, I trust the Pope and the Holy Office :)
-
Roscoe is correct with that, Cristian. Have you ever read After the Boston Heresy Case? I have read it many times.
-
Obviously Cristian does Not trust the Pope and Holy Office.
-
Roscoe is correct with that, Cristian. Have you ever read After the Boston Heresy Case? I have read it many times.
No, I haven`t.
-
Obviously Cristian does Not trust the Pope and Holy Office.
Why you accuse me of that sin?
-
Because neither the Pope nor Holy Office has condemned or summoned Fr Feeney. Some one will correct me if I am wrong but the condemnation of St Benedict Center (b4 Fr Feeney himself is allegedly summoned or ex-communicated) is also a fraud.
Cristian will find the book of Mr Potter to be of interest in more than a few ways.
-
Don't have to look very hard to find thread, after thread, after thread, after overdone thread about this issue.