Author Topic: The Loyolas and the Cabots (Read 3180 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #15 on:** May 02, 2015, 08:09:14 AM »

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Feeneyite propaganda is sickening to anyone who knows what exactly they are refusing

You, sir, are the one whose attacks against the faith are downright revolting. You are a servant of the devil and an enemy of the Faith. There's not a lick of difference between you and Jorge Bergoglio where it comes to actual theological principles.

Clearly the devil is laughing right now that he has bamboozled 98% of all Traditional Catholics who accuse Vatican II and the V2 Popes of heresies and errors into fiercely promoting the SAME heresies and errors that they pretend to condemn. What a master-stroke on his part; you're being played for fools by the devil. I can actually envision the conversation between the demons: "Demon: Hey, look, Satan, I convinced these morons to promote the same heresies that they accuse Vatican II of. Satan: Hilarious. Well done. What a bunch of fools."

What's even more ironic is that it's the Sedevacantists who are the most rabid enemies of EENS and yet out of the other side of their mouth they accuse V2 of soteriological heresies. What a bunch of fools. And they declare the V2 holders of their own errors to be manifest heretics outside the Church. Our Lord warned that we shall be judged with the same measure that we ourselves judge. Consequently, the SVs who promote heresies against EENS will be judged as manifest heretics outside the Church by Our Lord Himself.

You had better start praying deeply, fools, before you lose your souls.

If I held to your soteriology and ecclesiology, then I would immediately renounced Traditional Catholicism and would make haste to get back into communion with the Holy See.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** May 02, 2015, 08:13:49 AM »

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Feeneyite propaganda is sickening to anyone who knows what exactly they are refusing (teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church since at least the 4th century,

What an incredible liar you are. BoD was floated as an admittedly-speculative opinion by St. Augustine: "After considering it over and over again, I find that ..." St. Augustine later RETRACTED the opinion and issued some of the most "Feeneyite" quotations you'll EVER find in the history of Catholic theology. And, after St. Augustine, there was not another peep on the subject until about the year 1200. Meanwhile, 7-8 Church Fathers openly rejected Baptism of Desire. You have the audacity to LIE and claim that this constitutes the "teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church since at least the 4th century". Such lies can only come from you father, the devil, the father of lies. It's the same with Father Laisney who lyingly claimed a "unanimous consensus of the Fathers" when if anything the opposite is true.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #17 on:** May 02, 2015, 10:19:29 AM »

First of all, being attacked by heretics is a badge of honor. I consider it a great honor indeed to be subjected to the same hatred you express for the Jesuits, the greatest defenders of the Papacy for many centuries.
Second, when I said that Feeneyites refuse doctrines taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church since at least the 4th century I was referring to baptism of blood, as you well know. Since the 4th century onwards the Church has venerated several saints for whom She Herself has said that they died as catechumens, i.e. without water baptism, but as martyrs, baptised in their own blood (e.g. St. Emerentiana, St. Victor of Braga etc.). Feeneyites try to get around this by saying that there was a mistake in the records and that they must have been baptised before death, but they fail utterly because what is important is that the Church has venerated people who She said were not baptised, thus teaching through Her OUM that some can be saved even without water baptism, a doctrine which the Feeneyites obstinately call heresy.

Now, as for those who try to muddle the water of Fr. Feeney's excommunication by transferring the focus to Abp. Cushing (who in that newspaper article was merely teaching implicit baptism of desire), their attempts are easily defeated by quoting the actual decree of excommunication, which has nothing to with Abp. Cushing and everything to do with Fr. Feeney repeatedly refusing to appear in Rome and explain his extremist views:

Quote

SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE

DECREE

THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.

Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.

Marius Crovini, Notary

Acta Apostolicae Sedia (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100

Stubborn · « **Reply #18 on:** May 02, 2015, 03:06:37 PM »

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

First of all, being attacked by heretics is a badge of honor. I consider it a great honor indeed to be subjected to the same hatred you express for the Jesuits, the greatest defenders of the Papacy for many centuries.
Second, when I said that Feeneyites refuse doctrines taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church since at least the 4th century I was referring to baptism of blood, as you well know. Since the 4th century onwards the Church has venerated several saints for whom She Herself has said that they died as catechumens, i.e. without water baptism, but as martyrs, baptised in their own blood (e.g. St. Emerentiana, St. Victor of Braga etc.). Feeneyites try to get around this by saying that there was a mistake in the records and that they must have been baptised before death, but they fail utterly because what is important is that the Church has venerated people who She said were not baptised, thus teaching through Her OUM that some can be saved even without water baptism, a doctrine which the Feeneyites obstinately call heresy.

Now, as for those who try to muddle the water of Fr. Feeney's excommunication by transferring the focus to Abp. Cushing (who in that newspaper article was merely teaching implicit baptism of desire), their attempts are easily defeated by quoting the actual decree of excommunication, which has nothing to with Abp. Cushing and everything to do with Fr. Feeney repeatedly refusing to appear in Rome and explain his extremist views:

Quote

SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE

DECREE

THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.

Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.

Marius Crovini, Notary

Acta Apostolicae Sedia (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100

PapalSupremacy is yet another disciple of +Cushing.

PapalSupremacy knows what he is doing, saying "Abp. Cushing who in that newspaper article was merely teaching implicit baptism of desire" gave you away.

Next time, click the link and use some of those links as proof that "Abp. Cushing who in that newspaper article was merely teaching implicit baptism of desire".

Honestly, PS has nothing on Nado.

Matto · « **Reply #19 on:** May 02, 2015, 03:19:28 PM »

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

First of all, being attacked by heretics is a badge of honor.

Here is an example, roscoe, in answer to your question. There are many others if you read the BOD / "Feeneyite" subforum.

roscoe · « **Reply #20 on:** May 02, 2015, 07:04:06 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: PapalSupremacy
Quote from: Petertherock
The problems of VII started around the time of WWII.

No, they started in the 19th century, when the enemies of the Church began their infiltration of the seminaries, which St. Pius X noticed and warned about in Pascendi.

Keep going. Even Bishop Williamson traces the problems to the Renaissance. There was a growing emphasis on the natural vs. the supernatural and a growing subjectivism in theology, spearheaded by the Jesuits. This led to a subtle but discernible trend towards Pelagianism which finally came to a full expression in Vatican II.

Another attack on the Jesuits whose founder is a Canonised Saint and of which Fr Feeney was a member. I hope the Forum is wise enough to figure it out.

Cantarella · « **Reply #21 on:** May 03, 2015, 12:34:36 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: PapalSupremacy
Quote from: Petertherock
The problems of VII started around the time of WWII.

No, they started in the 19th century, when the enemies of the Church began their infiltration of the seminaries, which St. Pius X noticed and warned about in Pascendi.

Keep going. Even Bishop Williamson traces the problems to the Renaissance. There was a growing emphasis on the natural vs. the supernatural and a growing subjectivism in theology, spearheaded by the Jesuits. This led to a subtle but discernible trend towards Pelagianism which finally came to a full expression in Vatican II.

I think it is all part of the timeless war between the Children of God and the Children of the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. The eternal battle between Our Lady and the Father of Lies. Old heresies never die but they re-appear over and over again throughout the time since Eve's fall, just in a different fashion, but it is all part of the crafty work of the Enemy to cause the loss of souls and distract people from the True Faith, only path of human salvation.

There are some who attribute our present day Modernism, killer of all Divine mysteries and eternal truths, to the French Revolution and even before, since times of Reformation. The Heresy of Liberalism as we experience it today can be traced to times of Descartes (XVI Century) as Fr. Wathen explains here:

Quote

The Liberal climate in which we are immersed has the subver- sive dignity of having been propounded by those who are considered the fathers of modern philosophical thought: Descartes (1596-1650), Spinoza (1632-1677), Voltaire (1694-1778), Hume (1711-1776), Rousseau (1712-1778), Fichte (1762-1814), Hegel (1770-1831), Schelling (1775-1854), especially Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804), Feuerbach (1804-1872), Karl Marx (1818-1883), and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), all of whom so disconnected modern man from both the seen and the unseen world, and even natural rationality, that he is now prey to 'every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:14).

The result of their influence, sewn in the world by Jєωry and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, is an all-pervasive climate of muddled and petulant sub- jectivism. The Church condemned the books of these disorbited stars no sooner than did they appear. But this did not succeed in preventing the vapors of their beguiling errors from filling the nostrils and brains of the people of what was once Christendom. Nor did it prevent individuals within the Church under Masonic discipline from injecting their conjurings into their philosophical and theological postulations, and eventually codifying them into the decrees of the Second Vatican Council.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** May 03, 2015, 10:09:16 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: PapalSupremacy
Quote from: Petertherock
The problems of VII started around the time of WWII.

No, they started in the 19th century, when the enemies of the Church began their infiltration of the seminaries, which St. Pius X noticed and warned about in Pascendi.

Keep going. Even Bishop Williamson traces the problems to the Renaissance. There was a growing emphasis on the natural vs. the supernatural and a growing subjectivism in theology, spearheaded by the Jesuits. This led to a subtle but discernible trend towards Pelagianism which finally came to a full expression in Vatican II.

Another attack on the Jesuits whose founder is a Canonised Saint and of which Fr Feeney was a member. I hope the Forum is wise enough to figure it out.

What are you blabbering on about? This is just a statement of fact. It was Jesuit theologians who first started to promote the notion that people can be saved without belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. I am not attacking all Jesuits or the Jesuit order per se; as you know I have the highest regard for Father Feeney, and there have been many great Jesuit saints. Yet it's also true that some of the most rabid modernists even today are Jesuits. This has absolutely nothing to do with the holiness of St. Ignatius.

roscoe · « **Reply #23 on:** May 03, 2015, 01:32:22 PM »

My apologies. Because your post mentions the Renaissance, I took it to mean that you were referring to the Jesuits from the beginning --same same Melchior Cano.

I agree that the modernist 20th Century 'jesuits' have played a big part in the v2 anti-church. It is in fact, those in his own order that Fr Feeney was complaining about. :reporter:

roscoe · « **Reply #24 on:** May 03, 2015, 02:00:17 PM »

BTW--- i recall you taking a cheap shot at the alleged 'Molinists' in the past.

There is No Such Thing as a 'Molinist' any more than there is such a thing as a 'sede' --- Paul V has seen to that.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #25 on:** May 03, 2015, 03:21:11 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

My apologies.

No problem.

JPaul · « **Reply #26 on:** May 04, 2015, 08:45:37 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: PapalSupremacy
Quote from: Petertherock
The problems of VII started around the time of WWII.

No, they started in the 19th century, when the enemies of the Church began their infiltration of the seminaries, which St. Pius X noticed and warned about in Pascendi.

Keep going. Even Bishop Williamson traces the problems to the Renaissance. There was a growing emphasis on the natural vs. the supernatural and a growing subjectivism in theology, spearheaded by the Jesuits. This led to a subtle but discernible trend towards Pelagianism which finally came to a full expression in Vatican II.

I think it is all part of the timeless war between the Children of God and the Children of the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. The eternal battle between Our Lady and the Father of Lies. Old heresies never die but they re-appear over and over again throughout the time since Eve's fall, just in a different fashion, but it is all part of the crafty work of the Enemy to cause the loss of souls and distract people from the True Faith, only path of human salvation.

There are some who attribute our present day Modernism, killer of all Divine mysteries and eternal truths, to the French Revolution and even before, since times of Reformation. The Heresy of Liberalism as we experience it today can be traced to times of Descartes (XVI Century) as Fr. Wathen explains here:

Quote

The Liberal climate in which we are immersed has the subver- sive dignity of having been propounded by those who are considered the fathers of modern philosophical thought: Descartes (1596-1650), Spinoza (1632-1677), Voltaire (1694-1778), Hume (1711-1776), Rousseau (1712-1778), Fichte (1762-1814), Hegel (1770-1831), Schelling (1775-1854), especially Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804), Feuerbach (1804-1872), Karl Marx (1818-1883), and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), all of whom so disconnected modern man from both the seen and the unseen world, and even natural rationality, that he is now prey to 'every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:14).

The result of their influence, sewn in the world by Jєωry and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, is an all-pervasive climate of muddled and petulant sub- jectivism. The Church condemned the books of these disorbited stars no sooner than did they appear. But this did not succeed in preventing the vapors of their beguiling errors from filling the nostrils and brains of the people of what was once Christendom. Nor did it prevent individuals within the Church under Masonic discipline from injecting their conjurings into their philosophical and theological postulations, and eventually codifying them into the decrees of the Second Vatican Council.

Excellent analysis.