Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on April 27, 2015, 01:59:52 PM
-
I'm going to start this thread again. NO FEENEYISM or discussion of BoB and BoD here! I'll delete any violating posts without mercy.
Careful, now. I'm not talking about de-facto, simplified, or "virtually". I'm not talking about any kind of imprecise, emotional, layman language, "close enough, or true enough to act upon".
I'm asking, is it 100% accurate and juridically true that "Vatican II is heretical."
I'm talking about simpliciter, literally, juridically, specifically. Can it be said with 100% accuracy, not in spirit and in truth, cutting through the smokescreen of ambiguity but rather in a court of ecclesiastical law.
Ladislaus pointed out that Vatican II could teach heresy, even if it didn't DEFINE any new doctrine(s). Of course, one must realize that Vatican II declared itself a "pastoral council" (a novelty in itself), intentionally NOT invoking the protection of the Holy Ghost or pretending any way to be dogmatic.
But would any self-respecting Canon Lawyer or theologian ever say, "Vatican II was heretical."
I'll throw you a hint: Who can declare something heretical?
To be clear: I believe Vatican II is gravely ambiguous, confusing, unclear, misleading, sometimes downright erroneous, and should be thrown in the trash. It served no purpose but to confuse, destroy the Faith of millions, and was the French Revolution in the Church. It defined no new dogmas, but certainly implied some new ones that are foreign to the Catholic Faith. De facto, or for the simple layman, you can treat the whole thing as a bunch of garbage. Heresy? Sure, whatever. Just ignore the whole thing and you'll be OK. (I'm talking to Joe Sixpack here)
But in the original topic, I'm instead talking about an accurate censure. Keeping in mind the Theological Notes and the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church.
For one thing, it could be said that any Catholic wielding the precise charge that "Vatican II is heretical" is Sedevacantist, whether or not he knows it or admits it himself. A valid Pope can convoke (and later on approve, condone) a heretical council?
If the word simpliciter doesn't ring any bells with you, I would ask kindly that you refrain from posting in this thread.
Archbishop Lefebvre signed off on all Vatican II docuмents.
This fact is so problematic (and controversial!) that it was commonly believed that he didn't sign SOME of them, until Bishop Tissier de Mallerais brought this truth to light when he wrote his large biography of the Archbishop (the one published in 2003).
"Vatican II was heretical", you say?
So, basically, I just threw a monkey wrench in the works for any SSPX, Resistance, or SSPX-MC -supporting Catholic hoping to claim simply that "Vatican II was heretical."
Because all of those groups hold that +Lefebvre was a good faithful bishop, a hero, etc.
But if Vatican II were heretical (full stop) instead of ambiguous, confusing, diabolically disoriented, etc. then how could any good bishop sign off on it?
Yes, we all know which heresy (Modernism) pervades the Conciliar Church today and since Vatican II. But the hallmark of Modernism is to twist and distort every truth of the Faith, often in a very subtle manner.
I'm keeping an open mind on this. Perhaps we can say that most of the post-V2 hierarchy is acting heretical, perhaps we can say that Vatican II has one foot in error and one foot in wanting to stay Catholic, etc.
All that matters to us laymen is that we avoid Modernism LIKE THE PLAGUE -- which is appropriate considering the virulence of this particular heresy -- and since it's evident that the entire Conciliar Church is infected, that even includes staying aloof of the Church hierarchy and structures in order to preserve our Faith.
But it doesn't fall to us laymen to pinpoint what went wrong, place the blame, determine that status of individual bishops and popes, etc. Moral certainty is enough for us to act on, to make our prudential decisions on where to attend Mass for example. But moral certainty isn't enough to compel the conscience of others.
When you see a man with a smoking gun next to a dead body, you can be morally certain that he committed murder. It would be moral to threaten or arrest that man, including with lethal force. But it's still circuмstantial evidence -- the man with the gun might have been firing at the murderer as he fled away.
We must distinguish moral certainty from the certainty we have that God is Three in One. Or that Jesus Christ became man, died for our sins, and will come again to judge the living and the dead.
Am I as certain about matters touching on the Crisis (Vatican II, the Pope, etc.) as I am about these truths of the Faith? Heck no. And I'll be the first to admit it. Of course I have a slight doubt or hesitation in the back of my mind.
Anyone who pretends to be as certain is not "more courageous in the Faith" as most of them claim, but instead he is foolhardy, or a fool. As the saying goes, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
Or perhaps some of them are cynical demagogues, simplifying matters for the confused laymen in order to get their $upport and carve out a comfortable living for themselves.
Survivors floating in a lifeboat don't need to figure out why the main ship went down. What's important to the simple men & women on the lifeboats is SURVIVING -- keeping body and soul together until they are rescued.
And just like men floating on a lifeboat MUST rely on outside help if they are ever to see land again, we Catholics on the lifeboats of Tradition must wait for God's help if we are ever to see "normal times" again. There's not much we can do with our makeshift oars and inflatable life rafts to get from the middle of the Atlantic Ocean back to New York City or wherever in Europe the cruise liner left from.
-
Could it be that you are merely giving a bad interpretation to Vatican II?
No. The heretical nature of this council is confirmed by:
The doctrinal interpretation given to Vatican II by Paul VI and his successors in their decrees, encyclicals, catechisms, etc.;
the series of abominations perpetrated by John Paul II against the First Commandment of God, in the form of ecuмenical ceremonies which constitute false worship, even to pagan deities in some cases;
the alteration of the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that the Catholic Mass has been replaced by a Protestant supper service;
the tampering with the matter and form of the sacraments so that many of them, but most notably the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders, labor under doubt or invalidity;
the promulgation of disciplines, especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Ecuмenical Directory, which approve of sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and which demonstrate heresies concerning the unity of the Church as their theoretical basis;
the scandalous mockery made of the Sacrament of Matrimony by the granting of annulments for spurious reasons, constituting an abandonment of the sacred doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage;
the fact that John Paul II is in communion with manifest heretics, has openly declared himself to be in communion with non-Catholic sects, and has recognized an apostolic mission in schismatic and Lutheran bishops, all of which destroys the unity of faith. He has even kissed the Koran, which explicitly denies the Incarnation and the Trinity. He has also publicly prayed that St. John the Baptist protect Islam
What false doctrine does it teach concerning the unity of the Church?
Vatican II teaches heresy concerning the unity of the Church, namely that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine is contained principally in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning is confirmed in statements of Paul VI and his successors, particularly in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, in the 1992 Statement concerning Church and Communion, and in the Ecuмenical Directory.
It is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, contained principally in Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII, Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII, and in the condemnations of the "Branch Theory" made by the Holy Office under Pope Pius IX..
What false doctrine does it teach concerning ecuмenism?
The teaching of Vatican II concerning ecuмenism, which states that non-Catholic religions are a "means of salvation," is overtly heretical. This doctrine directly contradicts the teaching of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, called by Pope Pius IX "a most well-known Catholic dogma." In addition, the ecuмenical practices which have resulted from this heretical doctrine are directly contrary to Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI.
5. What false doctrine does it teach concerning religious liberty?
The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty, contained in Dignitatis Humanae, nearly word for word asserts the very doctrine which was condemned by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, and by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty also contradicts the royalty of Jesus Christ in society as expressed in Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI, and the constant attitude and practice of the Church with regard to civil society.
6. What false doctrine does it teach concerning collegiality?
The teaching of Vatican II concerning collegiality alters the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that the subject (the possessor) of the supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with the pope, is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of Vatican I.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/issues/ (http://www.traditionalmass.org/issues/)
-
Look around you in the Conciliar church.
The bishops of that sect, including the past few bishops of Rome, all say that they are implementing the "teachings of Vatican 2". Councils need not be interpreted; Councils are implemented. The Word of God is subject to interpretation, Councils teach true interpretations of the Scriptures and sacred traditions. This concept the one can "interpret Vatican 2" is itself a novelty that must be spurned by all Catholics.
The Conciliar bishops are the Magisterium...of the Conciliar sect anyway. If they are (and were) true Catholics and Vatican 2 was (and is) a true Council and did not contain heresy, then what the bishops teach today as a body is the true faith and no Catholic should resist their teachings.
On the other hand, Catholics absolutely must see that what is taught today by the body of the bishops is incompatible on so many fronts with what was received from the Church from the beginning until, oh, 1958 or so. Doctrines contrary to the Catholic Faith is called "heresy". From beginning to the end, Vatican 2 was a Robber Council. While it does indeed contain truths, just as all false religions contain some modicuм of truth in order to fool even the elect, it is, by its nature, an act of heresy.
In answer to the opening post's question, not only can it be said that Vatican 2 is heretical, it must be admitted by Catholics that Vatican 2 is heretical.
-
I'm going to start this thread again. NO FEENEYISM or discussion of BoB and BoD here! I'll delete any violating posts without mercy.
Define "Feeneyism" because there can be no discussion of any heresy or even error, for that matter, in Vatican II, without reference to the subjectivized soteriology that leads directly to the subjectivized ecclesiology. My posts on the other thread were completely ignored when the anti-Feeneyites degenerated my discussion of soteriology into a discussion of BoD. I wasn't even referring to BoD and had no interest in discussing it.
-
Heretical? What makes a council of the Church that Christ founded, valid? Hm? I have read a lot of books. First, was Vatican I finished? I think it was not. WHY? War for one, 1870. Cardinal Manning has great writings of Communism, weakening of Holy Mother Church. He most definitely saw the workings throughout Europe and the Popes that followed sure spilled the beans, did they not! From my understanding, the clergy knew, that if there ever was a council to come, THEY would not call for it, because they knew what was to come! So, the council II began when it did, when communism knew she had the Vatican. Your history of Hitler and Stalin/Lenin Cardinal Mindstenty they knew!! They lived it every day! Their clergy were put to prison and the clergy that supported Russia/communism were put in their place. Where was the pope? We had Pope Pius XII and his powers for on this earth were pretty much going. The communist told Cardinal Mindstenty "The vatican is under a net, you know." And they also were known to say, "Do You think you will have valid popes to follow?"
How devious were the communist?! We were weak in Europe after all the sects broke off from the Church. Ridicule, murder, confusion and that for 300 years, made take over easy. Less and less people wanted a Pope, no one to tell them what to do.
So, when Vatican II council came on, what 1958-62. My Grandmother knew, and she said, "There goes the Church". When you read about the council, you will see the scheme of the communist and how the True Clergy tried and even Cardinal Mindstety and Cardinal Manning all did what they could to defend HER! Millions of Catholics gathered for pilgrims in 1948 and such. They did all they could to make a statement to the communist. But the communist took over. We had the infiltrators as we know.
When we read about Vatican II, the communists are there!! They are too smart to define. If they were to define anything that they "suggested" it would show that they were who they truly are, communists! And someone had said, IF they were to define, it would show them to be heretical. I say, just call them for what we know, Communists! The True clergy of Vatican II were known to complain that nothing in the council mentioned anything against the Communist! And nothing for Our Lady. Heaven forbid, she was put on the back burner.
We know that the Popes who knew of Communism and wrote on Communism stated that anyone, who supports them, follows them, are excommunicated. Well, of course! Is Vatican II heretical? It was certainly Communistic. Was Vatican II taken over? I don't think so. I think it was well planned out by the Clergy who were wolves, communists. Now, can anyone or any group, align themselves to this?
Things were so slow and gradual with the communist. They knew what they were doing and they did and are still doing a fine job for Satan! You do it so slow to be able to confuse and of course it is hard to put a finger on where thing begin.
Did Archbishop Lev, know? Does one have the Mass of the 1962 missal, which makes me think, it is to show acceptance of Vatican II? Maybe the Archbishop did not know how to handle the situation, but truth is, you can not, with a good mind, align yourself to a communist group. Cardinal Mindstey and Cardinal Manning said, "No Compromise!" to the communist. They certainly wanted their way and they have it! We see communist Forced on Europe and we see and live the peaceful Communism. That one is the hardest for us to see. They come in with social and justice and charities and the money goes where?! We know! For us in the USA, it is the agenda of the Federal gov't for starts.
I say we have enough info to prove to ourselves over time, that Vatican II was the council of the Communist, flexing their muscles and letting the world know, that they were in place!
-
Here is an attempt by John Daly and John Lane to identify some of the primary errors and heresies in Vatican II. I do not necessarily agree with everything they have written here, but it is a good place to start: http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html
The Dimond brothers also have a docuмent (copied by catholicapologetics.info) listing and refuting the principal errors and heresies of Vatican II, but I will not provide a link to it because the Dimond brothers are notorious Feeneyites, and because of that certain doctrines of Vatican II which they identify as heresies are not so, e.g. that "the life of grace; faith, hope and charity" "can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church" (Unitatis redintegratio #3), which is actually Catholic doctrine (at least that part of the quote, e.g. catechumens, who can have faith, hope and charity, are still not members of the Church - not within the visible boundaries of the Church). They also completely condemn NFP, which they also mention in the list.
Here are only a few important quotes of Vatican II as examples of its teachings.
Unitatis redintegratio #12:
"Hence, through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these Churches [referring to Eastern schismatics], the Church of God is built up and grows..."
Unitatis redintegratio #3:
"It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation whose efficacy comes from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church."
Unitatis redintegratio #3:
"Those who are now born into these communities [i.e. today's members of heretical sects] and who are brought up in the faith of Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church looks upon them as sisters and brothers, with respect and love. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect... it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."
Lumen gentium #16:
"But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the Muslims are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us they worship the One Merciful God who will judge mankind on the Last Day."
Nostra aetate #2:
"In Buddhism, according to its various forms, the radical inadequacy of this changeable world is acknowledged and a way is taught whereby those with a devout and trustful spirit may be able to reach either a state of perfect freedom or, relying on their own efforts or on help from a higher source, the highest illumination."
Nostra aetate #2:
"Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored and propounded with an inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God with loving confidence."
Reviewing these quotes, it can be said that Vatican II professes a religion different than the Catholic Faith, and that it professes a church (the Conciliar Church) different than the Catholic Church. It does so by attacking one of the fundamental dogmas of the Catholic Faith - that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
It first creates a heretical ecclesiology, in which all of today's heretics and schismatics are members of the Church, and in which heretical sects are means of salvation (a few examples being the first three quotes above). Then, although not explicitly, it professes the modernist heresy that all religions are fundamentally good and praiseworthy, and it does so de iure by religious liberty (an example in the link at the top, under 'a'), where it professes a supposed natural right of man to profess any religion whatsoever (which would mean either that all religions are good or that God gave man a right to profess evil, and even to deny Him), and de facto by ecuмenism, encouraging communicatio in sacris with heretics (an example in the link at the top, under 'd') and blasphemously praising pagans and religions which deny Christ (a few examples being the last three quotes above).
Thus the Church which Vatican II professes is one which includes every sect (and every member of every sect) which calls itself Christian, and the religion which Vatican II professes is one which acknowledges that "everything on earth is ordained towards man" and that every human religion is fundamentally good, which by consequence means that members of absolutely any religion can be saved, even while worshipping demons (such as the pagans) or denying Christ (such as the Muslims and the Jews).
I am sure we can all agree that that is not the Catholic Church nor the Catholic Faith which Vatican II professes.
-
I just wanted to contribute this to the discussion because it seemed relevant:
Execrabilis (On Appealing to a Future Council) Papal Bull of Pope Pius II
"1. An execrable, and in former ages unheard-of-abuse, has sprung up in our time, namely that some people, imbued with the spirit of rebellion, presume to appeal to a future Council, from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, to whom it was said in the person of blessed Peter: "Feed my sheep" and "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven"; they do not do so because they are anxious to obtain sounder judgment, but in order to escape the consequences of their sins, and anyone who is not ignorant of the laws can realize how contrary this is to the sacred canons and how detrimental to the Christian community."
The question is that if Vatican 2 is not heretical, how can its errors be corrected without an appeal to a future council and contradicting this papal bull? Something along those lines.
-
It does so by attacking one of the fundamental dogmas of the Catholic Faith - that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
:roll-laugh1:
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Daly's stuff is complete junk. He has no clue about what the term "heresy" actually means.
So, despite the fact that Pius IX calls Religious Liberty merely an "erroneous opinion" and "insanity", Daly concludes from this that it's heresy.
-
I'm going to start this thread again. NO FEENEYISM or discussion of BoB and BoD here! I'll delete any violating posts without mercy.
Define "Feeneyism" because there can be no discussion of any heresy or even error, for that matter, in Vatican II, without reference to the subjectivized soteriology that leads directly to the subjectivized ecclesiology. My posts on the other thread were completely ignored when the anti-Feeneyites degenerated my discussion of soteriology into a discussion of BoD. I wasn't even referring to BoD and had no interest in discussing it.
So, Matthew, why do you create these threads and then disappear (not joining in any of the subsequent discussion)?
-
Does it matter if there is heresy in Vatican II simpliciter?
What is the point of such an inquiry?
If the issue is could the Church adopt heresy in its teachings, the issue is rendered moot by the history of the Conciliar Church which implemented those teachings.
What I mean to say is, the issue concerns the indefectibility and infallibility of the “Church.” Can the “Church” do such? That is the concern.
The concern has been answered by the Conciliar Church.
Does the issue become then “when” the Church defected? Does that matter? If the Conciliar Church has in fact defected, then it is a fact that an institution which appears to be the “Church” is capable of defecting.
When did this Church which appears to be the Catholic Church defect? 1958? 1965? Does it matter?
Identify the cause of the defection or the error. Identify when the error appeared in the Magisterium of the Church. This is an academic exercise, for reasons I expressed above.
The point is we need to pray for the abjuration of the error and the restoration of a true Pontiff who, with the authority of Peter, proclaims the Catholic faith and truth to the world.
We are spinning our wheels in these discussions until then. We reject the Revolution, seek priests who can administer the sacraments to us if possible, pray the Rosary and just pray period, and hold to the Catholic faith.
The “error” is not preaching the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation. The Catholic faith, as a minimum, means faith in Christ, which requires, at a minimum, belief in His divinity (the Trinity) and His Incarnation. And with that must be an understanding of these in terms of their relation to the necessity for Redemption by a God who rewards and punishes.
As Monsignor Fenton said regarding Suprema Haec:
Monsignor Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, February, 1951, pages 124-143
The idea that a votum, that is a desire or an intention, of entering the Church can bring a man “within” the Church sufficiently to allow for the possibility of his salvation is one of the dominant factors in recent theological writing on the Church’s necessity. The notion itself is a part of Catholic doctrinal tradition, although this particular terminology, or, to be more exact, the application of this terminology to the thesis that there is no salvation outside the Church, goes back only to the latter part of the sixteenth century, to the time of Stapleton and St. Robert. [57] Now the idea, and to a lesser extent the terminology itself, is definitely a standard part of the scholastic treatment of this thesis.
Likewise, and by force of the very content of Catholic theology, it is standard scholastic teaching that the votum or desire of entering the Catholic Church may be merely implicit and still sufficient to bring a man “within” the Church so as to make his salvation possible. Salvific faith must be explicit on four points. No man can believe in God as he must believe in order to possess the life of sanctifying grace without distinctly acknowledging the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order, the fact that God thus rewards the good and punishes evil, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and the mystery of the Incarnation. The mystery of the Catholic Church is not one of these facts which must be believed explicitly in salvific faith.
http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=420&sid=18ce7ada68b9a368d56494eea4c56761
This faith can imply all the other elements of the Catholic faith for one who simply hasn’t been catechized and doesn’t know. It is lost as soon as one rejects a teaching of that faith culpably if merely interior or if one rejects it publicly and manifestly, thus rejecting the unity of the external profession necessary to the visible body, and rendering one outside that body.
As to Vatican II, it plays the old game of the Revolutionaries and heretics, who took over the institution and buildings of the Church:
Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei
They knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words7 such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circuмstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.
Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such docuмents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine8 who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.
In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.
That there are “perverse meanings” and “errors” implied in Vatican II is clear by the actions of those who apply it, the popes and bishops of the Conciliar Church, who have expressed and acted as if salvation is possible and actually can be achieved in non-Catholic religions and without the Catholic faith.
Keep looking for heresy simpliciter, Matthew, but you’re basically asking that Satan admit he’s a liar, or looking for a clear admission of such, and effectively insisting for proof that he has laid down his arms and given us his major weapon.
If and when he does that or such proof appears to all and any reasonable man, we will all go “home,” for the game will be over, and the debate concluded forever.
-
Daly's stuff is complete junk. He has no clue about what the term "heresy" actually means.
So, despite the fact that Pius IX calls Religious Liberty merely an "erroneous opinion" and "insanity", Daly concludes from this that it's heresy.
No, he concludes that it is heresy because Pope Pius IX teaches that it contradicts Revelation.
From John Daly's article:
Almost the only label that Pope Pius IX does not attach to this doctrine is in fact that of "heresy", but he clearly thought the "insanity" he spoke of to be heretical for he says that it contradicts Divine Revelation.
From Quanta Cura, the sentence before the one quoted by John Daly in his article:
And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require."
However, even if John Daly happened to be mistaken in this particular qualification of error, that does not mean that his other qualifications are also mistaken. You would have to refute each one, and even if only one accurate qualification of heresy remained, it would be enough to prove the existence of heresy in Vatican II.
-
Daly's stuff is complete junk. He has no clue about what the term "heresy" actually means.
So, despite the fact that Pius IX calls Religious Liberty merely an "erroneous opinion" and "insanity", Daly concludes from this that it's heresy.
No, he concludes that it is heresy because Pope Pius IX teaches that it contradicts Revelation.
Every error contradicts Revelation; it's the proximity of the contradiction that leads to the theological note. Daly has no idea what he's talking about.
However, even if John Daly happened to be mistaken in this particular qualification of error, that does not mean that his other qualifications are also mistaken. You would have to refute each one, and even if only one accurate qualification of heresy remained, it would be enough to prove the existence of heresy in Vatican II.
Uhm, not even close. If Daly's making the charge of heresy, the burden of proof rests squarely on him to prove it and not on me to disprove it. I have to disprove nothing.
-
PS -- none of Daly's allegations of heresy are even ERRORS (not to the slightest degree) if you accept Suprema Haec as you do.
-
misericordianos and Ladislaus
are once again discussing doctrine relating to BoD and Feeneyism, so instead of forcing me to reply by quoting Catholic theologians again, I expect Matthew will delete those comments.
I'm going to start this thread again. NO FEENEYISM or discussion of BoB and BoD here! I'll delete any violating posts without mercy.
-
misericordianos and Ladislaus
are once again discussing doctrine relating to BoD and Feeneyism, so instead of forcing me to reply by quoting Catholic theologians again, I expect Matthew will delete those comments.
I'm going to start this thread again. NO FEENEYISM or discussion of BoB and BoD here! I'll delete any violating posts without mercy.
So are you, dimwit.
It does so by attacking one of the fundamental dogmas of the Catholic Faith - that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
You admit that your allegation of heresy rests on soteriology but then when we try to refute that the soteriology is heretical if one accepts Suprema Haec then you start getting your panties in a knot. No one has mentioned BoD, but merely broader soteriological issues, which you YOURSELF raised first. So let's delete all your posts on this thread, eh?
But if Matthew won't allow anyone to bring up soteriology, then this discussion is a joke. That's why I asked Matthew to define "Feeneyism". Every SV claims that the heresy of V2 is in the soteriology and ecclesiology, you allege the same, and then you try to silence us when we refute your allegation. But Matthew has disappeared from this thread. YOU are the first one to discuss "Feeneyism".
-
Every error contradicts Revelation; it's the proximity of the contradiction that leads to the theological note. Daly has no idea what he's talking about.
Pope Pius IX is quite clear that religious liberty is "against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers". The only theological note which fits that qualification is de fide divina et catholica (http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html) (a truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God), and the denial of such a doctrine is heresy.
Uhm, not even close. If Daly's making the charge of heresy, the burden of proof rests squarely on him to prove it and not on me to disprove it. I have to disprove nothing.
He does prove it in his article, which means that the burden of proof is on you to refute his evidence, every single qualification of heresy (because only one is enough to prove his point). By summarily dismissing them all and resorting to insults ad hominem against him you are only proving that you are unable to do so.
-
misericordianos and Ladislaus
are once again discussing doctrine relating to BoD and Feeneyism, so instead of forcing me to reply by quoting Catholic theologians again, I expect Matthew will delete those comments.
I'm going to start this thread again. NO FEENEYISM or discussion of BoB and BoD here! I'll delete any violating posts without mercy.
I never discussed either.
-
"The Code of Canon Law defines schismatics as the faithful who have separated themselves from the body of the Church, made up of the Pope and the bishops in union with him. More directly they are against charity, than against the Faith. Thus, before the First Vatican Council, one would have thought that this referred to someone who held to heresy. A historical example is the act constituted by the "petite église", formed by the bishops and faithful who had not heeded to the decision of Pius VII, when, yielding to the demands of Napoleon, dismissed all the faithful bishops to the monarchy of Louis XVI. These bishops and faithful did not adhere to any doctrinal error, but did not heed to the Pope's decision. They only had distanceds themselves from the Pope and the bishops united with the Pope. It was a schism. It was not a heresy.
"Since the First Vatican Council has defined as a dogma of faith that the Roman Pontiff has in the Church, the supreme power of jurisdiction over bishops and faithful, there is no possibility of a schism forming that is not also heresy, which does not reject one truth of faith.
"However, as does heresy, schism, in general, also involves doctrinal disagreement. That's what we mean when we talk about the St. Hippolytus schism in the third century, when the Saint refused to accept the authority of the Pope Saint Callistus. Schism, then could set up a body of doctrine that would pose as a doctrinal lot of the Church, and that, in fact, turns away the purity and integrity of the teachings of the Church.
"In the case of Vatican II, this could and should be appointed as schismatic, since it shows that, in its authentic texts, there are deviations from the teachings of the Church's traditional faith.
"Now similar dissonance was noted even during the Council's work. It is, moreover, of all known religious freedom, claimed by the council as natural law, even for those who do not comply with the duty to investigate the true religion. In other words, the Council admits that such a right is recognized by all states. This teaching of Vatican is diametrically opposed to the traditional doctrine, renewed by Pius IX in his encyclical 'Quanta Cura'.
"This is one example. There is much more.
"Given this schismatic position of Vatican II, the good of souls requires the absolute need to discard it before taking care of any others that may arise. Incidentally, the Vatican 2 Council must not be presented as a council of the Catholic Church."
-
"The Code of Canon Law defines schismatics as the faithful who have separated themselves from the body of the Church, made up of the Pope and the bishops in union with him. More directly they are against charity, than against the Faith. Thus, before the First Vatican Council, one would have thought that this referred to someone who held to heresy. A historical example is the act constituted by the "petite église", formed by the bishops and faithful who had not heeded to the decision of Pius VII, when, yielding to the demands of Napoleon, dismissed all the faithful bishops to the monarchy of Louis XVI. These bishops and faithful did not adhere to any doctrinal error, but did not heed to the Pope's decision. They only had distanceds themselves from the Pope and the bishops united with the Pope. It was a schism. It was not a heresy.
"Since the First Vatican Council has defined as a dogma of faith that the Roman Pontiff has in the Church, the supreme power of jurisdiction over bishops and faithful, there is no possibility of a schism forming that is not also heresy, which does not reject one truth of faith.
"However, as does heresy, schism, in general, also involves doctrinal disagreement. That's what we mean when we talk about the St. Hippolytus schism in the third century, when the Saint refused to accept the authority of the Pope Saint Callistus. Schism, then could set up a body of doctrine that would pose as a doctrinal lot of the Church, and that, in fact, turns away the purity and integrity of the teachings of the Church.
"In the case of Vatican II, this could and should be appointed as schismatic, since it shows that, in its authentic texts, there are deviations from the teachings of the Church's traditional faith.
"Now similar dissonance was noted even during the Council's work. It is, moreover, of all known religious freedom, claimed by the council as natural law, even for those who do not comply with the duty to investigate the true religion. In other words, the Council admits that such a right is recognized by all states. This teaching of Vatican is diametrically opposed to the traditional doctrine, renewed by Pius IX in his encyclical 'Quanta Cura'.
"This is one example. There is much more.
"Given this schismatic position of Vatican II, the good of souls requires the absolute need to discard it before taking care of any others that may arise. Incidentally, the Vatican 2 Council must not be presented as a council of the Catholic Church."
And the Bishop was correct. The council needs to be rejected in toto, and yes by its implications, attempted teaching, and its intent , which intent, was confirmed by many of the authors of the docuмents, and by the supreme authority as interpreted by the conciliar popes, it is indeed heretical, and it will remain as such in thread three, four, five, and so on.
-
The interesting part is: why is Matthew insisting on debating whether or not the Vatican 2 Council was heretical, while putting emphasis on the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre signed every last docuмent despite telling us he didn't?
If it is the hermeneutic of continuity that is being pushed in this forum, why not sign up with the Fraternity of St. Peter?
-
The interesting part is: why is Matthew insisting on debating whether or not the Vatican 2 Council was heretical, while putting emphasis on the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre signed every last docuмent despite telling us he didn't?
If it is the hermeneutic of continuity that is being pushed in this forum, why not sign up with the Fraternity of St. Peter?
Matthew is suggesting that there is in fact nothing strictly heretical in Vatican II, not that there isn't lesser error in Vatican II. (he's pushing the notion of "heresy" in the strict sense of the word). Now, if there's no actual lesser error even, but just ambiguities, then I do suggest everyone simply apply the hermeneutic of continuity and follow the leadership of Bishop Fellay back into the Catholic fold.
I believe that there is heresy, but I am not allowed to discuss it due to that being "Feeneyism".
-
The interesting part is: why is Matthew insisting on debating whether or not the Vatican 2 Council was heretical, while putting emphasis on the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre signed every last docuмent despite telling us he didn't?
If it is the hermeneutic of continuity that is being pushed in this forum, why not sign up with the Fraternity of St. Peter?
Matthew is suggesting that there is in fact nothing strictly heretical in Vatican II, not that there isn't lesser error in Vatican II. (he's pushing the notion of "heresy" in the strict sense of the word). Now, if there's no actual lesser error even, but just ambiguities, then I do suggest everyone simply apply the hermeneutic of continuity and follow the leadership of Bishop Fellay back into the Catholic fold.
I believe that there is heresy, but I am not allowed to discuss it due to that being "Feeneyism".
Well then your issue is with...
1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”
Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”
2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)
Moral Theology (Bk. 6):
“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 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.”
3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.”
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).
Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).
5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:
Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.
6. ST. AMBROSE
“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated... and expressed his intention to be baptized... Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”
7. ST. AUGUSTINE, City of God
“I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic... The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit” (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).
8. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
“I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”
9. ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621)
Liber II, Caput XXX:
“Boni Catehecuмeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa” (Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).
10. Roman Martyrology
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
11. POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) — Singulari Quadam, 1854:
174. “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) all we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863):
“...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepare to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”
12. POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958) — Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, 1943):
“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 organization 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... For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”
13. FR. A. TANQUERY, Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II - 1945 (1024-1)
The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on
one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.
14. FR. DOMINIC PRUMMER, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949:
“Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;
“Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by Water”;
“Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire... both cause sanctifying grace. ...Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial sin and temporal punishment...”
15. FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:
“Baptism of Desire... is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition...”
“These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood and Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament.”
“...Even if an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith....”
16. MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).
17. FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. — Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, 1921
Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.
18. FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J., Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II, 1948:
The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; ...but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21).
19. FR. LUDOVICO BILLOT, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacmmentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV - 1931:
Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire, is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition including a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins.
20. FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo, Chapter I, 1926:
Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation...
>From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water... Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto).
21. FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II), Tractatus XII, 1902
Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected...
Both are called “of desire” (in voto)...; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation.
...NOT the Second Vatican Council.
How about we be productive and talk about the heresies of the Council.
1) proclamation of religious liberty
The civil right to religious liberty.
"The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person... This right to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right."2 (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 2)
2) Revelation was completed at the Crucifixion.
"Finally, He brought His revelation to completion when He accomplished on the Cross the work of redemption by which He achieved salvation and true freedom for men." (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 11)
This contradicts the traditional and definite Catholic teaching that many truths proposed by the Church as Divinely revealed were not revealed by Our Lord until after His Resurrection. For instance, the Council of Trent (Session 6, chapter 14) taught that "Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance when He said, "Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained." These words were pronounced by Our Lord (John 20:23) on the evening of Easter Sunday, more than two full days after His Crucifixion. And of course Catholic tradition contains not the slightest reason to believe that Our Lord had revealed before the Crucifixion His plan to institute the sacrament; and to claim that He did so would therefore be to invent a new dogma never before heard of in the Church. And even then the objection remains that the answers to such questions as exactly who were the ministers of the sacrament could not have been revealed before the Passion, since the apostasy of Judas was kept secret by Our Lord until it took place.
The list of dogmas revealed by Our Lord after His Crucifixion includes the form of the sacrament of Baptism, the extension of the preaching mandate of the Apostles to the entire world, the abolition of the patriarchal religions as means of salvation, the coming into force of the promised primacy and infallibility of St. Peter, the elevation to the Apostolic dignity of St. Paul, and of course Our Lord's own Resurrection. This last He had already prophesied long before, of course; but it is as a historic event that we must believe it today, and its historical fulfilment was not revealed until the morning of Easter Sunday when it took place and was announced by the angels to the holy women.
So the doctrine of Vatican II on this topic denies the Divine revelation of a large part of the Catholic Faith and the Catholic sacramental system, relegating to the status of an unrevealed inessential the very linchpin of Christianity concerning which St. Paul wrote "If Christ be not risen again, your faith is in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:17). But of course if Our Lord did not reveal his choice of St. Paul as an Apostle (an event which probably happened more than a full year after the Crucifixion), it is not surprising that the Conciliar Sect takes no notice of his doctrine!
3) Heretical and schismatic sects are means of salvation.
"The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Decree on Oecuмenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3)
This contradicts a doctrine which has been repeated perhaps more times than any other by the Church and is unquestionably Divinely revealed. Only a single example of the magisterial teaching of the true doctrine is necessary and we select the following from the Council of Florence held under Pope Eugene IV (1441):
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..."
We have heard it argued that the word "means", occurring in the aberrant passage in this decree, was perhaps intended to signify something like "stepping-stone"; but of course the word is not capable of that meaning either in itself or in the Latin word of which it is the translation. A philosophical axiom states that "a means which cannot achieve its end is not a means." Flying in an aeroplane is a means of getting from England to France, but riding on a bicycle is not, even if, on reaching the Channel, one tossed the bicycle aside and used some other form of transport instead.
note: if Feeneyite knuckleheads can't understand this that's not my problem.
4) ) The Church has a high regard for doctrines which differ from her own.
"The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these [non-Christian] religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men." (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate, paragraph 2)
Putting aside the scandalous reference to life, conduct and precepts, let us concentrate on the statement that the Church has "a high regard" for the "doctrines" of false religions, not only those doctrines which, fortuitously, may be true, but even those which "differ...from her own teaching." Now since the teaching of the Catholic Church is true, it is a logical necessity that any doctrine which differs from it must be false. The Fathers of Vatican II, therefore, have firmly declared that the Church "has a high regard" for false doctrines. Of course, this is perfectly true of the Conciliar Sect; but the attitude of the Catholic Church towards false doctrines has always been the same as that of her Divine founder: unrestrained loathing.
...there are many more examples.
-
The interesting part is: why is Matthew insisting on debating whether or not the Vatican 2 Council was heretical, while putting emphasis on the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre signed every last docuмent despite telling us he didn't?
If it is the hermeneutic of continuity that is being pushed in this forum, why not sign up with the Fraternity of St. Peter?
Matthew is suggesting that there is in fact nothing strictly heretical in Vatican II, not that there isn't lesser error in Vatican II. (he's pushing the notion of "heresy" in the strict sense of the word). Now, if there's no actual lesser error even, but just ambiguities, then I do suggest everyone simply apply the hermeneutic of continuity and follow the leadership of Bishop Fellay back into the Catholic fold.
I believe that there is heresy, but I am not allowed to discuss it due to that being "Feeneyism".
There is no doubt that the conciliar docuмents promote the notion that the Catholic Church is not the exclusive means of salvation. The worst of them are in fact based up-on this premise. John Paul II wrote and taught this using quotes from the council in his encyclicals and books. There is material heresy contained in these where they quote the council.
So this so called "Feeneyism" issue does not enter into it.
Heresy is objectively what it is. It does not need formal declaration to be such.
That which is opposed to the defined and settled doctrine of the Church is heresy plain and simple, no matter how it is transmitted.
-
If the council were a true council of the Catholic Church, it could not promote or propose heresy.
If it is a true council of the Church, one must submit to it.
One does not have the option to pick and choose which items or lines to reject and which are ok, as to to do this in regards to a true council is schismatic.
Rejecting this questionable council in its entirety is the only logical path, using the same standard as the Church uses and has used. If any manuscript or proposition contained as much as a whiff of heresy, it would be placed upon the index or condemned by the supreme pontiff.
Such an attitude suffers the same defects as the R&R position, which claims full validity and authority for the conciliar popes, and yet, believes that it can pick and choose where he must be submitted to.
So, you either accept the council as it is, or you reject it as a whole, as Bishop Castro Mayer and Father Hesse did, correctly, in my opinion.
-
note: if Feeneyite knuckleheads can't understand this that's not my problem.
No, Centro, YOU are the knucklehead who understands absolutely nothing.
Nothing? Absolutely nothing? Geez what a bag of hot air.
Obviously in the context of this thread.
First you chime in criticizing Matthew for something that he didn't say and which would have been obvious had you read the OP, and then you spam the thread with quotes regarding "Baptism of Desire" when no one has made any reference whatsoever to Baptism of Desire. Please read the actual thread before posting and derailing everything.
-
I didn't spam the thread, I made one post to show you you're issue was with de fide Catholic doctrine, namely the desire of baptism.
I read the post the first time Matthew posted it before he had to close it because objective non-Catholics wouldn't stop obsessing over feeneyism...and I simply made the question as a thought expecting a response whether or not he was now going down the road of interpreting the Council in the light of Tradition, to which no one has replied.
-
The whole collapse in the Church today can be traced to the denial of the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church for salvation. Most conservatives and traditionalists are not aware of this fact and they have hard time identifying the real disease, let alone the solution. They cannot name the disease nor propose the real cure, because most of the time they themselves share it in common with the same enemies of the Church they think they are opposed to and they are not aware of it. That is how Modernism works. The disease is the heresy of Liberalism; and the reality is that not until the fundamental truth of exclusive salvation is preached again from every Catholic pulpit shall we see again the triumph of Catholic values and morals.
Having said that, here is Prof. Plinio Correo de Oliveira talking about how the Vatican II Council itself may be "suspect of heresy":
Prof. Plinio said:
Your Excellency ( Bishop Mayer ) spoke about the ambiguity of the Council, and I spoke of those ambiguities making up a system of thinking. Let me elaborate on this point so that Your Excellency may tell me whether it is right or wrong. I believe that by putting all these ambiguities together, what emerges is a wrong doctrine, a false doctrine. These are not, therefore, accidental ambiguities due to the inaccuracy of the writers. Even when the ambiguities are contradictory, there is a common thread that weaves them together. I used the expression “the suspicion of heresy.”
It is good to point out to those here [in the auditorium] who are accustomed to the language and implications of civil law, that when a person is suspected of a crime in civil law, he is supposed innocent until proven guilty. Thus, even when he is suspected of a crime, he is to be treated as innocent. This is not the case with the suspicion of heresy in Canon Law. To be suspected of heresy is a crime in itself. Therefore, when such a situation presents itself, when an individual author writes ambiguous things representing an erroneous system of thinking, he objectively acts wrongly and commits a crime. It is not licit for him to do this.
Applying this to the Council, we cannot go so far as to say: “The Council has these many ambiguities, therefore it is heretical.” But we can say: “It is in an irregular situation according to Canon Law.” It seems that the Council’s systematic ambiguity goes against the teaching mission of the Church.
This false system of thinking, this false emerging doctrine cringes on the obliteration of the Catholic dogma of exclusive salvation and the allowance for those in false religions to be in "partial communion" with the Church of Christ. This started way before Vatican II and was what had set up the stage for the progressivists to totally take over after the Council.
-
No, this isn't about ambiguity or a number of ambiguities.
In Vatican II you find a new subjectivized ecclesiology rooted in the new subjectivized soteriology.
-
No, this isn't about ambiguity or a number of ambiguities.
In Vatican II you find a new subjectivized ecclesiology rooted in the new subjectivized soteriology.
The constant reduction of the council's apostasies to simple ambiguities is but a soft selling of un-Catholic ideas which it proposed.
-
No, this isn't about ambiguity or a number of ambiguities.
In Vatican II you find a new subjectivized ecclesiology rooted in the new subjectivized soteriology.
The constant reduction of the council's apostasies to simple ambiguities is but a soft selling of un-Catholic ideas which it proposed.
If it's just a question of ambiguity, we are bound to resolve the ambiguity by applying the hermeneutic of continuity and then move along, but we would then have no business being Traditional Catholics.
-
No, this isn't about ambiguity or a number of ambiguities.
In Vatican II you find a new subjectivized ecclesiology rooted in the new subjectivized soteriology.
The constant reduction of the council's apostasies to simple ambiguities is but a soft selling of un-Catholic ideas which it proposed.
If it's just a question of ambiguity, we are bound to resolve the ambiguity by applying the hermeneutic of continuity and then move along, but we would then have no business being Traditional Catholics.
Lad,
If there is anything in the docuмents of Vatican II simpliciter it is ambiguity, but it is resolved by the implementation and explanations of the ambiguities in the docuмents themselves which expose the ambiguities for what they are - heretical.
For example, I maintain that this is heretical:
Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).
Indeed, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, “since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of coming into contact, in a way known to God, with the paschal mystery” (Gaudium et spes, n. 22).
JOHN PAUL II, GENERAL AUDIENCE, Wednesday, 9 September 1998
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1998/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_aud_09091998.html
JP II cites Ad Gentes and Gaudiem et spes in support of his proposition. The “ambiguities” resolve into this blatant heresy: salvation in other religions without recognition or acknowledgment of Christ as Saviour.
Do the cited authorities in Vat II say that directly and simpliciter? No. As I said, not all reasonable men would agree that that is what those docuмents say.
Yet I say that is what they say, and the intentions of the drafters as expounded by men who were influential and part of the drafting. But the texts themselves are ambiguous to the extent that a reasonable man could read them, by themselves, and say they don’t say that.
One could even argue - and many have - that there is no definitive Magisterial pronouncement that one can only be saved by an explicit faith in Christ. Indeed, some like Nishant who maintain that explicit faith in Christ is necessary say it “hasn’t been settled.”
Of course I think Nishant is wrong. But I resolve it this way: not simply by reading previous pronouncements of the Magisterium as virtually and effectively precluding such a position as JP II’s - which perhaps may be arguable (cf. Nishant) - but on the basis that no Magisterial pronouncement prior to VII says that, not in 2,000 years of Magisterial teaching prior to VII and the Conciliar Church. This is something radical and new, and not justified by the times. Not a necessary new application of established truths. There were Jews, pagans and Muslims for centuries when the Church taught otherwise. As in 1441 when the Council of Florence said this:
Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
So I see departures from tradition abounding: in this teaching regarding salvation without faith in Christ and in fact outside the Church (while being denied by sophistry, but still nonetheless being denied); by a radical creation of a “new rite” of the Mass which was implemented in the Latin Rite churches, contrary to Tradition and past expressions of the Magisterium regarding the Latin Rite, for example in Trent and Quo Primum); by the creation of new rites for almost all the sacraments; by abandoning the Gospel preaching of the necessity of conversion to the true Catholic faith, which the Magisterium previously asserted . . . etc.
The facts of a Revolution are indisputable. The mere fact of a Revolution in the Catholic Church, such a radical alteration of the faith, mocks Tradition, and is itself a clear sign of something wrong and to be rejected.
As I’ve said before, the search for heresy simpliciter in the docuмents of Vatican II is not necessary. It’s a trip down a rabbit hole. The Conciliar Church has clearly told us where the rabbit hole leads.
We do not need to see more, or “find” it in the docuмents of Vatican II.
-
Yes, ambiguities and heresies, with a generous infusion of blasphemies and many outright lies about what the Church believes.
For me, it is a non-starter that this is a true council of the Catholic Church.
It is beyond obvious, that we were betrayed by each Bishop who signed these docuмents.
-
It is beyond obvious, that we were betrayed by each Bishop who signed these docuмents.
Objectively, yes, subjectively, no. I am sure that probably most of the bishops never intented to teach any error against the Catholic Faith. Unfortunately, they were deceived and manipulated by the modernists, most especially by Paul VI.
-
It is beyond obvious, that we were betrayed by each Bishop who signed these docuмents.
Objectively, yes, subjectively, no. I am sure that probably most of the bishops never intented to teach any error against the Catholic Faith. Unfortunately, they were deceived and manipulated by the modernists, most especially by Paul VI.
Bishop Castro Mayer was not deceived. A man who is strong in the Faith, will not be easily moved. The potential for error was manifest in these docuмents.
-
Not only was the obvious apparent so was communism! No mention of communism since the last council of 1870. For all the persecutions, no mention. The True Blue Clergy who did not sign, but signed against it knew what they were up against, communism! No one can align themselves with those who serve the State and not God to save souls, the New Order/dioceses.
That is why I say, show me one New Order clergy/valid, which they are not. Show me one who is pro-life, no, not one! New Order is supporting the Federal gov't and its agenda of Communism. Yet, we have pro-life organizations who continue to up hold Bishops that they claim are So-o-o pro-life. No, they are using a dog and pony show. And a show that is outstanding, for look at the followers! You can pick up any dioceses newspaper and see how the federal gov't is paying out grants. Oh, they are paying crisis pregnancy centers. Yes they are. And the State is paying for the babies and take a look at the list of doctors, they are of the State. Being of the State, they are expected to offer and promote birth controls and abortion! I know, I was within these groups in 1991 and I read Federal grants.
Our state of AZ in 1991, had a small group of women searching to find who was bringing sex ed. into the schools when it was against the laws. Well, it was in the catholic and private schools to dodge the laws of state run schools. Who was paid to implement, the dioceses!.
-
No, this isn't about ambiguity or a number of ambiguities.
In Vatican II you find a new subjectivized ecclesiology rooted in the new subjectivized soteriology.
The constant reduction of the council's apostasies to simple ambiguities is but a soft selling of un-Catholic ideas which it proposed.
If it's just a question of ambiguity, we are bound to resolve the ambiguity by applying the hermeneutic of continuity and then move along, but we would then have no business being Traditional Catholics.
Lad,
If there is anything in the docuмents of Vatican II simpliciter it is ambiguity, but it is resolved by the implementation and explanations of the ambiguities in the docuмents themselves which expose the ambiguities for what they are - heretical.
No, I agree that the V2 ecclesiology is quite clearly expressed and I consider it to be heretical / non-Catholic. Problem is that when I call this out I'm denounced as a "Feeneyite" (never mind that I make no mention of BoD).
-
No, this isn't about ambiguity or a number of ambiguities.
In Vatican II you find a new subjectivized ecclesiology rooted in the new subjectivized soteriology.
The constant reduction of the council's apostasies to simple ambiguities is but a soft selling of un-Catholic ideas which it proposed.
If it's just a question of ambiguity, we are bound to resolve the ambiguity by applying the hermeneutic of continuity and then move along, but we would then have no business being Traditional Catholics.
Lad,
If there is anything in the docuмents of Vatican II simpliciter it is ambiguity, but it is resolved by the implementation and explanations of the ambiguities in the docuмents themselves which expose the ambiguities for what they are - heretical.
No, I agree that the V2 ecclesiology is quite clearly expressed and I consider it to be heretical / non-Catholic. Problem is that when I call this out I'm denounced as a "Feeneyite" (never mind that I make no mention of BoD).
Obviously, you are called this because, there is no reasonable coherent argument forthcoming from the opposition. Vatican II and its popes clearly and unambiguously deny the doctrine exclusive Salvation as found in the Catholic Church, by teaching its opposite.
-
-
No, this isn't about ambiguity or a number of ambiguities.
In Vatican II you find a new subjectivized ecclesiology rooted in the new subjectivized soteriology.
The constant reduction of the council's apostasies to simple ambiguities is but a soft selling of un-Catholic ideas which it proposed.
If it's just a question of ambiguity, we are bound to resolve the ambiguity by applying the hermeneutic of continuity and then move along, but we would then have no business being Traditional Catholics.
Lad,
If there is anything in the docuмents of Vatican II simpliciter it is ambiguity, but it is resolved by the implementation and explanations of the ambiguities in the docuмents themselves which expose the ambiguities for what they are - heretical.
No, I agree that the V2 ecclesiology is quite clearly expressed and I consider it to be heretical / non-Catholic. Problem is that when I call this out I'm denounced as a "Feeneyite" (never mind that I make no mention of BoD).
Yes, been there myself.
They are spitting in the wind, and will continue to do so, until they deal with the core problem.
I predict this crisis will go on and only be resolved by a clear affirmation coming from a pope that “there is no salvation without the Catholic faith nor outside the Catholic Church,” which means what is has always meant: faith in Christ as a minimum per the Athanasian Creed, and then no rejection of any dogma of the Catholic Church.
-
And, ironically, Father Feeney HIMSELF did not place a lot of emphasis on BoD/BoB, but rather on EENS proper. He held a personal opinion regarding BoD/BoB which he was ready to retract at any time in deference to Church teaching, an opinion which I share. But the enemies of Father Feeney's defense of EENS are the ones who blow BoD out of proportion and conflate it with the broader EENS issue in order to undermine EENS.
-
Are we still talking about Fr. Feeney on this thread?
Geez!
-
Are we still talking about Fr. Feeney on this thread?
*****
Stop uttering blasphemous derivatives of Our Lord's name, would you?
-
Are we still talking about Fr. Feeney on this thread?
*****
Stop uttering blasphemous derivatives of Our Lord's name, would you?
I wasn't aware that the interjection was interpreted that way.
-
Are we still talking about Fr. Feeney on this thread?
*****
Stop uttering blasphemous derivatives of Our Lord's name, would you?
I wasn't aware that the interjection was interpreted that way.
Most people aren't. I've known a lot of Traditional Catholics who throw the term out there in addition to a similar one for God that ends in "-sh". Those are both derived from the name of Jesus and of God respectively, and I don't allow my children to use the expressions. It's like the term "Hocus Pocus", which is blasphemous ridicule of the Catholic Mass.
-
And, ironically, Father Feeney HIMSELF did not place a lot of emphasis on BoD/BoB, but rather on EENS proper. He held a personal opinion regarding BoD/BoB which he was ready to retract at any time in deference to Church teaching, an opinion which I share. But the enemies of Father Feeney's defense of EENS are the ones who blow BoD out of proportion and conflate it with the broader EENS issue in order to undermine EENS.
Yes. I have also made the mistake and said Father Feeney identified BOD as a major issue or the “linchpin” doctrine. That’s wrong, as you note. Father Feeney identified EENS as the “linchpin” doctrine.
And he was absolutely right.
Most Trads make a big deal out of VII and what followed. For myself, I think those things came upon the Church because of the absolutely shoddy handling of the Father Feeney affair. The necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation was placed forefront just when it needed to be, and we got the Holy Office Letter in response. An utter failure under the circuмstances; a woeful response.
I think there was a divine weighing at that time, and the governing body of the Church was fond wanting. I think the Feeney affair was a watershed.
And the rest is history.
-
And, ironically, Father Feeney HIMSELF did not place a lot of emphasis on BoD/BoB, but rather on EENS proper. He held a personal opinion regarding BoD/BoB which he was ready to retract at any time in deference to Church teaching, an opinion which I share. But the enemies of Father Feeney's defense of EENS are the ones who blow BoD out of proportion and conflate it with the broader EENS issue in order to undermine EENS.
Yes. I have also made the mistake and said Father Feeney identified BOD as a major issue or the “linchpin” doctrine. That’s wrong, as you note. Father Feeney identified EENS as the “linchpin” doctrine.
And he was absolutely right.
Most Trads make a big deal out of VII and what followed. For myself, I think those things came upon the Church because of the absolutely shoddy handling of the Father Feeney affair. The necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation was placed forefront just when it needed to be, and we got the Holy Office Letter in response. An utter failure under the circuмstances; a woeful response.
I think there was a divine weighing at that time, and the governing body of the Church was fond wanting. I think the Feeney affair was a watershed.
And the rest is history.
Absolutely right on target. These same hierarchs who silenced and persecuted Father Feeney would be the ones who later brought us Vatican II, founded in the same theology which they articulated against Father Feeney.
And Suprema Haec doesn't pass the smell test. It was published 3 years after allegedly being written ... shortly after the man whose signature it allegedly bears DIED. It never appeared in AAS and so is not to be considered an act of the authentic papal Magisterium. Why didn't it appear in AAS? Was it because Pius XII would have scrutinized it personally? Just look at all the shennanigans around fake statements attributed to Sister Lucia being put out by the Vatican right around the same time. By that time the Church had already been DEEPLY INFILTRATED and was being subverted. And it's these errors and this ecclesiology which comprise all the errors in Vatican II.
-
We have indeed side-tracked onto "Feeneyism" on this thread, but it wasn't by design. It had to do with the fact that we point to soteriology and ecclesiology as the V2 "heresies" and get immediately attacked for being "Feeneyite".
-
Ah, after 11 pages, Matthew was most likely just playing mind games with us.
"Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical?"
Answer. Of course it can be SAID to be heretical. Many people do indeed SAY so.
All this for nothing.
-
Charles Coulombe also says:
This Holy Office letter has appeared in various editions of Denzinger since 1963, first appearing there under the editorship of Karl Rahner, S.J., at whom we shall gaze more carefully in a moment. But it never appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official Latin language registry of all the Holy See’s official acts. Indeed, it did not see the light of day at all, until after the death of Marchetti-Selvaggiani a few years later; at that time it was finally published in the American Ecclesiastical Review. When Rahner decided to put it into Denzinger, he had to have it translated into Latin from English, whence it was retranslated for the English edition of Denzinger. To say that the authority of such a docuмent is more than a little suspect is perhaps the most charitable thing to be said for it. It has been maintained that the Pope himself carefully went over the wording of the letter; but the only evidence we have of this is that of Cardinal Wright. Given His Eminence’s role in this matter, some may not feel called to value his testimony too highly.
Coulombe, Charles (2009-10-01). Desire & Deception (Kindle Locations 2386-2393). Tumblar House. Kindle Edition.
An official statement of the OUM being published in the American Ecclessiatical Review?
An official, binding authoritative teaching of the Holy See sent privately to a bishop in the U.S., and only published years later in the AES. An incredible way for the Magisterium to teach the faith to the world, wouldn’t you say?
A very unusual organ and manner for Magisterial teaching.
I’m dubious about Couloumbe’s claim (as to it having to be translated into Latin) in light of this:
Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.
This important Letter of the Holy Office is introduced by a letter of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston.
The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circuмstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.
Given at Boston, Mass., the 4th day of September, 1952.
Walter J. Furlong, Chancellor
Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM
But then again, it’s Cushing’s testimony. I wonder if anyone has seen that thing in the “original” Latin. :pop:
-
We have indeed side-tracked onto "Feeneyism" on this thread, but it wasn't by design. It had to do with the fact that we point to soteriology and ecclesiology as the V2 "heresies" and get immediately attacked for being "Feeneyite".
Shoot. You start replying to posts and things kind of take off.
Yes, and the points we made originally, Lad, were limited to just soteriology and ecclesiology.
:cheers:
-
I’m dubious about Couloumbe’s claim (as to it having to be translated into Latin) in light of this:
Yeah, something if off there. But everything else is quite accurate. There were many people quite capable back then of creating a Latin text.
-
Good thread, guys. Just wanted to chime in and say hi to Ladislaus and misericordianos.
Very good, thanks.
-
......and even after another backroads tour of so called "Feeneyism", yes, it can still be said that Vatican II is heretical, by the intent of its authors, by the interpretations of the conciliar popes, and by the demonstrable aftermath of destruction and apostasy from the Holy Religion...........