One of the areas of misunderstanding is the relative authority of various sources of theology. Until Vatican I there was some ambiguity about it. But Vatican I defined that the pope is infallible when teaching ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
- From the Canons of the Vatican Council (1870)
That is known as the Solemn Magisterium. It is the highest possible authority. And the other source of infallible dogmas is the Universal Ordinary Magisterium which has not been solemnly defined but is universally believed to be all those doctrines which the pope together with the bishops teach as divinely revealed truths. The theologians (not even if they are unanimous throughout all of history) are not the magisterium. You can't multiply quotes from theologians and expect to discover magisterial doctrines. If the opposite were true (that theologians are the magisterium) then we traditionalists must all throw in the towel now and concede that the V2 new theology is obligatory on us. But we know it is not true. We know that St Thomas has something like 20 errors in his works. We know that St Alphonsus has errors in his works. Every single theologian who ever lived has errors in his works. And that includes Catechisms as well which are written by theologians and do not limit themselves strictly to doctrines taught by the Magisterium. St Thomas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent both taught that the human body is created days or weeks before the soul is created. But we now know that is false. So when a theologian or a group of theologians teach a doctrine which is in apparent conflict with a doctrine of the Magisterium, it is the theologians who must give way to the Magisterium either by interpreting the theologian in such a way so as to remove the apparent conflict or by rejecting the theologian's teaching if it cannot be reconciled with the Magisterium.
I don't know of any so-called Feeneyite/Dimondite who doesn't adhere strictly to Magisterial teaching. Which brings me to my next point.
Magisterial doctrines (dogmas) are not interpreted. Papa Pius V (PPV) and XavierSem (XS) already posted the Council of Trent's condemnation of interpretations of doctrine/dogmas. Here it is again:
Furthermore, in order to avoid the perversion and confusion which might arise, if each one were permitted, as he might think fit, to publish his own commentaries and interpretations on the decrees of the council; We, by apostolic authority, forbid all persons, as well ecclesiastics, of what order, condition, and rank soever they may be, as laymen, with what honour and power soever invested; prelates to wit, under pain of being interdicted from entering the church, and all others, whosoever they be, under pain of excommunication incurred by the fact,[3] that they presume, without our authority, to publish, in any form, any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia, or any kind of interpretation soever touching the decrees of the said council; or to settle anything in regard thereof, under any plea soever, even under pretext of greater corroboration of the decrees, or the execution thereof, or under any other colourable pretext soever. But if anything therein shall seem to any one to have been expressed and ordained obscurely, and it shall, on that account, appear to stand in need of an interpretation or decision, let him go up to the place which the Lord hath chosen;[4] to wit, to the Apostolic See, the mistress of all the faithful, whose authority the holy synod also has so reverently acknowledged.
Benedictus Deus
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Canons_and_Decrees_of_the_Council_of_Trent/Second_Part/Bull_of_our_most_Holy_Lord_Pius_FourthAnd Pope St Pius X also condemned interpretations of dogma.
The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned
- Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22. (see Denzinger 2022)
The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned
- Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54. (see Denzinger 2054)
Likewise Pope Pius IX:
Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.
- Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra. (see Denzinger 1800)
When the Church says that we are bound to give our assent to dogmas of the Church, we are bound to the literal meaning of the dogma. That is the intended meaning. If we know the definition of the terms, we will understand the meaning of the dogma. If there is any distinction to be made on the terms, the Pope specifies them. We are not bound to the interpretations of theologians. We are bound to the literal words and meaning of the dogma as stated by the Pope.
So when I see PPV and XS saying that Stubborn and Ladislaus are interpreting the dogma wrong, I have to wonder at their blindness. I don't see Stubborn and Ladislaus interpreting these dogmas at all. They are giving assent to the literal meaning of them. We are all bound to do the same. Everyone understands correctly what EENS means. And that is precisely why theologians had to come up with interpretations in order to undermine it. I know PPV and XS are a rarity in that they believe one must have explicit faith in order to be saved in line with the infallible Athanasian Creed. I would guess that 95% of those who call themselves Catholic would say that EENS is false. Only traditionalists of one form or another would even bother to give assent to EENS. And I'm not including the 4.99% of those who call themselves Catholic who believe that invincible ignorance is compatible with EENS. So PPV and XS are among the .01% (I'm being generous) who believe that explicit faith is necessary for salvation. So the argument about BOD is only relevant among the .01% who don't reject the Church's constant ex cathedra teaching that the Catholic faith is necessary. But PPV and XS still fail because they reject the doctrine that the sacramental system as a whole is absolutely necessary as a necessity of means for salvation as defined by the Council of Trent. But no other sacrament can be received before baptism and therefore baptism is absolutely necessary as a necessity of means for salvation (as every theologian admits even if they go on to completely undermine that teaching by claiming exceptions).
The worst part of this entire debate is that the BOD advocates are implying that Our Lord is a deceiver.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
When Our Lord said, ‘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’, he made no exceptions as he did concerning divorce (let's not get side-tracked by that debate, the point is that Our Lord will give us precise instructions). To say that His words contained a hidden exception for BOD implies that Our Lord deceived those to whom he was speaking at that time. How could they have known of a hidden exception? And apparently He also deceived half a dozen Fathers of the Church as well since they also believed there were absolutely no exceptions. And then you have the popes who also stated the same without specifying any exceptions (see above quote and others including Trent). So if there were hidden exceptions that only the theologians could tease out hundreds of years later, how are you not implying a deception by Our Lord? Both of you should take the St Benedict Center (NH) as a model. They, like Fr. Feeney are insisting on assent to the literal meaning of dogmas. In the case of EENS and the necessity of baptism, anything other than a literal meaning of the dogma results in the literal meaning being false. That makes the Magisterium the author of literally false doctrines. The Modernists would love that.
Finally, I have to say that I greatly admire MHFM (the Dimonds). I read their books and I watched most of their videos. They are consistent in their assent to all the Church's dogmas. They do not refrain from using theologians when those theologians are consistent with the Church's defined dogmas. Also, I don't think they are schismatic. They are simply strict about breaking communion with those who either are heretics themselves or who are in communion with heretics. I'm not sure it is necessary to break communion with non-heretics who are in communion with heretics but I don't think it is condemned or immoral to do so. John Daly wrote some articles about that. He thinks the Dimonds are wrong. But just because Hypatius was confirmed (by the pope) in his decision to break communion with Nestorius doesn't mean that he would have been condemned for breaking communion with Eulalius. He did not break communion with Eulalius (who was still in communion with the heretic Nestorius) but that does not imply that Hypatius was required to remain in communion with Eulalius. Eulalius remaining in communion with Nestorius was an error and a scandal which doesn't make Eulalius himself a heretic but non-heretics are sometimes excommunicated when their behavior could lead others into error. Also, MHFM condemns St Benedict Center specifically for their communion with the arch-heretic "popes" of the Novus Ordo sect. Even though MHFM thinks BOD is heretical, they don't put Fr Feeney and St Benedict Center in the same boat with Cushing. I think maybe because of the confusion concerning BOD, they would probably not break communion with a sede vacantist who believes that BOD/BOB only applies to catechumens. But I'm sure they would let him know in no uncertain terms that he is completely wrong and that BOD/BOB cannot be held at all.
https://romeward.com/articles/239752007/heresy-in-historyhttps://romeward.com/articles/239752903/an-extract-from-the-life-of-saint-hypatiushttps://romeward.com/articles/239750407/the-dimond-brothers-and-favouring-heretics-a-letterOne thing I have not seen in this discussion so far is the necessity of the Character of the Sacrament of Baptism. Br Robert Mary's book, Fr Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, goes into detail about the importance of the Sacramental Character with which the soul is marked at Baptism. Fr Laisney gives no importance to it. But Br Robert Mary's explanation is beautiful. He points out that there is a tradition that Our Lady was baptized. She certainly had no need to be justified since she was already justified at conception. But the Character signifies incorporation into the body of Christ and therefore she was baptized specifically for that purpose.
The other point that struck me from Br Robert Mary's book was that Trent covered justification and salvation separately. When it was treating on justification it spoke of desire (voto; Session 6, Ch 4). Br Robert Mary and Fr Feeney believed that this did in fact mean that BOD was possible for purposes of justification. But when Trent treated on salvation, it said nothing of desire/voto. It specified that the Sacrament of Baptism was absolutely necessary as a necessity of means for a soul to achieve salvation. That's why Fr Feeney taught that BOD as defined by St Alphonsus was possible but that nevertheless in order to be saved one had to be baptized before death. But I agree with MHFM that Pope Leo's letter to Flavian (promulgated by Chalcedon, 451) rules out any separation of justification from the water of Baptism. However, does that mean that there is no separation in time? Or does it mean there is no separation in eternity? It seems like the baptism of Our Lady would mean that they could be separated in time which would mean that Fr Feeney's teaching is compatible with Pope Leo's too because Fr. Feeney believed that everyone who was justified would also be baptized (even if he didn't make that clear in Bread of Life).
Topic: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy (Read 21413 times)