If he was a good Catholic, then why was he excommunicated.His excommunication was over disobedience, he was called to Rome for trial without being informed of the reason, which goes against canon law.
From wikipedia:
"Excommunication
On 8 August 1949, Cardinal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_(Catholicism)) Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Marchetti_Selvaggiani) of the Holy Office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith) sent a protocol letter to Archbishop Richard Cushing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing) on the meaning of the dogma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_in_the_Catholic_Church) extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus) ("outside the Church there is no salvation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Christianity)"). This protocol had been approved by Pope Pius XII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII) on 28 July 1949. The docuмent states: "[T]his dogma [extra Ecclesiam nulla salus] must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Saviour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redeemer_(Christianity)) gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church".[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney#cite_note-13)[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney#cite_note-14)[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney#cite_note-15)
After Feeney refused twice to oblige to the Holy See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See)'s summons to Rome to explain himself, he was excommunicated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_in_the_Catholic_Church) on 13 February 1953 by the Holy See for persistent disobedience to legitimate church authority due to his refusal to comply. According to Cardinal John Wright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wright_(cardinal)), Pope Pius XII personally translated the edict into English.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney#cite_note-Feldberg-9)"
Why would we still try to listen to him today? Maybe he was right in addressing some issues, but to be overly dogmatic can also be a sign of great pride.
Is it really worth my time to figure out the ins and outs of Father Feeney? or is this just another distraction put before us to not work out our own salvation with fear and trembling?
And Gunter, why would you purposefully put a topic title on the board that would rile up those who like Father Feeney? Couldn't you have written something like interesting information on Father Feeney?
If he was a good Catholic, then why was he excommunicated.Because he started an illegal cult that separated parents from their children. History tends to repeat maybe in slightly different ways with different circuмstances. Traditional chapels are the breeding grounds of clicks and whisper campaigns.
From wikipedia:
"Excommunication
On 8 August 1949, Cardinal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_(Catholicism)) Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Marchetti_Selvaggiani) of the Holy Office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith) sent a protocol letter to Archbishop Richard Cushing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing) on the meaning of the dogma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_in_the_Catholic_Church) extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus) ("outside the Church there is no salvation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Christianity)"). This protocol had been approved by Pope Pius XII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII) on 28 July 1949. The docuмent states: "[T]his dogma [extra Ecclesiam nulla salus] must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Saviour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redeemer_(Christianity)) gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church".[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney#cite_note-13)[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney#cite_note-14)[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney#cite_note-15)
After Feeney refused twice to oblige to the Holy See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See)'s summons to Rome to explain himself, he was excommunicated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_in_the_Catholic_Church) on 13 February 1953 by the Holy See for persistent disobedience to legitimate church authority due to his refusal to comply. According to Cardinal John Wright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wright_(cardinal)), Pope Pius XII personally translated the edict into English.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney#cite_note-Feldberg-9)"
Why would we still try to listen to him today? Maybe he was right in addressing some issues, but to be overly dogmatic can also be a sign of great pride.
Is it really worth my time to figure out the ins and outs of Father Feeney? or is this just another distraction put before us to not work out our own salvation with fear and trembling?
And Gunter, why would you purposefully put a topic title on the board that would rile up those who like Father Feeney? Couldn't you have written something like interesting information on Father Feeney?
... but to be overly dogmatic can also be a sign of great pride.
Because he started an illegal cult that separated parents from their children. History tends to repeat maybe in slightly different ways with different circuмstances. Traditional chapels are the breeding grounds of clicks and whisper campaigns.
Feeney was responsible of operating a cult of personality. Be careful you're not in one.
Slandering the man out of obvious ignorance. He was anything but dogmatic, clearly stating that his position regarding BoD was his opinion only. Nor was BoD even the issue in the beginning. He was dealing with the Heresiarch "Cardinal" Cushing and heretical Jesuit superiors who explicitly, verbatim, and pertinaciously rejected EENS dogma. Cushing: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense."
So, yeah, he was dogmatic about ... dogma, a dogma that's been defined 3 times.
Again with the hypocrisy of proudly accusing him of pride ... when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Father Feeney was THE ONLY ONE who realized that there was something rotten in the Church in the 1940s and 1950s. Seminaries and convents were full, conversions at record levels, schools going up left and right ... so everyone was complacent. But Father Feeney realized that something stunk. He reflected on it for years and understood that the problem had to do with the rejection of EENS dogma and the resulting anti-Tridentine ecclesiology. He basically saw Vatican II coming before anyone else thought it possible. Obviously Vatican II didn't just come out of nowhere, or fall out of the sky ... as the root causes had been festering in the Church for decades and, to some extent, even for centuries. We didn't have a perfectly sound Church and then all of a sudden on one sunny morning in, oh, 1962, the Church just apostasized en masse.
In fact, most "Trads" even with the 20/20 of hindsight STILL have no clue about the actual theological root cause of Vatican II: EENS dogma. In fact, many of them effectively hold the very same ecclesiology that they with the other side of their mouth denounce as heretical in Vatican II. Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner marveled that the conservative fathers at V2 didn't make a peep about what he realized was the most revolutionary aspect of V2, the soteriology. Clueless wonders are most "Trad" clergy ... as we see also with regard to the voting issue.
This is why Tradism has floundered and not spread, why the SSPX is being sucked inexorably back into the Conciliar Church, others are thinly-vailed Old Catholics. If you accept the 1940s/1950s Modernist-heretical ecclesiology, you really don't have a leg to stand on in condemning the teaching of Vatican II.
I might be naive on Father Feeney's particulars, but I know that disobedience is the root cause of the fall of man. It has been from the time Adam fell in the Garden of Eden. If God wants success he requires obedience. You want this Crisis to come to an end, then stop finding everything to disagree with and start finding the authority you wish to follow, and stick to it. It sucks that there are so many to choose from right now.You do know that St. Athanasius was disobedient to his superiors and "contra mundi?" False obedience is never a virtue. Fr. Feeney simply figured out who the bad guys were faster than anyone else and those who were late to the game hate him for it.
St. Athanansius, pray for us!!!!
You want this Crisis to come to an end, then stop finding everything to disagree with and start finding the authority you wish to follow, and stick to it.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXMZ1JeXwAEjGkA?format=jpg&name=small)I love how people keep taking things out of context to make a person sound worst than they are.
I love how people keep taking things out of context to make a person sound worst than they are.Like happens with Fr. Feeney? You participated in slander by calling a deceased holy priest disobedient, overly dogmatic, and linking to a secular article with half-truths. The facts have been presented to you. If you want peace and you want trad infighting to stop, then quit contributing to it. Slanders were posted, slanders were rebutted. Facts were given. More information and resources can be given if you really want to know the whole story. And now we are into "why can't we all get along?" We can't get along because of exactly the kind of behavior you have engaged in. All you need to do was say "Wow, I didn't know that! Makes sense." Or ask another sincere question. Stay on topic, please. But slander is always sinful and as such, public slanders need to be called out.
I love how people keep taking things out of context to make a person sound worst than they are.But most trads do not know the truth because they make exceptions for Catholic dogma and refuse to look at information that tells them otherwise. They cannot say that God didn't give them the opportunity if they wilfully refused to consider the things presented to them. The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church is vital to this crisis yet so many simply dismiss it because of someones propaganda (perfect example is the slander against Fr Feeney), the priests and bishops will have a larger account to make before God to why they chose to be wilfully ignorant on this subject compared to the flock they were supposed to lead into heaven.
Right now we have so many traditional choices. All of them argue that they are the most perfect to follow, yet none of them seem to have God's stamp of approval. We have the writings of great saints, we do not need to waste our time in these weeds. We have questions about Father Feeney, Archbishop Lafebvre, Bishop Dolan, Father Cekada, etc which is funny because they have gone to their eternal reward and know the TRUTH and yet God keeps us in the dark.
Why don't we try to help each other instead of bring each other down?
We know what the TRUTH is. We follow that TRUTH. We pick the priest or bishop that we align with the most, and we HOPE for the best.
My statement was no call to become Novus Ordo or Protestant.
If we doubt everything that God puts before us as Catholics, then we are ripe for the devils picking.
So your saying that 12 married couples didn't start an unauthorized religious order under Fr. Feeney thereby splitting up there children to be raised in a commune?I believe this is called a strawman
I believe this is called a strawmanOk. If whatever Trad group leader suggested to live as what was done under Fr. Feeney, I wouldn't walk but run from such bizarre behavior. The parents first obligation are to their children. Priest do not have authority to dismiss them from their obligations period.
So your saying that 12 married couples didn't start an unauthorized religious order under Fr. Feeney thereby splitting up there children to be raised in a commune?Do you have sources for this? Others say it is all slander.
I'm sorry but it sounds like an end of the world doomsday cult.
The Catholic lawyer in the video quoted a brother Andre. He also references a book written by one of the children entitled "Walled in" . The alleged discipline handed down by the group on the children was abusive.
If you believe this sort of behavior is unique to Fr. Feeney, it's not. I have friends that were brought into another traditional cult in north America because it looked like they were holding on to the Faith. This group is still around and their religious sisters say mass.
Like happens with Fr. Feeney? You participated in slander by calling a deceased holy priest disobedient, overly dogmatic, and linking to a secular article with half-truths. The facts have been presented to you. If you want peace and you want trad infighting to stop, then quit contributing to it. Slanders were posted, slanders were rebutted. Facts were given. More information and resources can be given if you really want to know the whole story. And now we are into "why can't we all get along?" We can't get along because of exactly the kind of behavior you have engaged in. All you need to do was say "Wow, I didn't know that! Makes sense." Or ask another sincere question. Stay on topic, please. But slander is always sinful and as such, public slanders need to be called out.I am sorry you think I slandered Father Feeney. It was not my intent.
I might be naive on Father Feeney's particulars, but I know that disobedience is the root cause of the fall of man. It has been from the time Adam fell in the Garden of Eden. If God wants success he requires obedience. You want this Crisis to come to an end, then stop finding everything to disagree with and start finding the authority you wish to follow, and stick to it. It sucks that there are so many to choose from right now.Yes Gray, you are naive on Fr. Feeney's particulars, as are all those who continue to slander him even today. The fraudulent case against him was initially perpetrated by his Bishop (later promoted to Cardinal) Cushing. Read a little about what +Cushing stood for here (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/justification/msg558599/#msg558599), which, if you only read the headlines should explain some of the reasons for Fr. Feeney's disobedience and why.
St. Athanansius, pray for us!!!!
Yes Gray, you are naive on Fr. Feeney's particulars, as are all those who continue to slander him even today. The fraudulent case against him was initially perpetrated by his Bishop (later promoted to Cardinal) Cushing. Read a little about what +Cushing stood for here (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/justification/msg558599/#msg558599), which, if you only read the headlines should explain some of the reasons for Fr. Feeney's disobedience and why.But why focus on the past? It doesn't solve the problem of the here and now.
But why focus on the past? It doesn't solve the problem of the here and now.Yes. What Fr. Feeney should have done is gone to Rome and clarified his position to the Holy Father. The Church has condemned any form of denial of baptism of desire. If he intended to condemn it, then his own position would be condemned. Turns out, under Pope Paul VI, and after Vatican II in fact, he was reconciled to Vatican (which some would say was, by now, the "conciliar church"), simply by professing the Athanasian Creed. So Fr. Feeney died visibly united to the Church and the chapter should be closed. Fr. Feeney erred by not going to Rome when he was summoned to go.
If Father Feeney was right or if he was wrong does not help us now. All it does is cause an overly emotional reaction on both sides.
And when people are overly emotional the devil has more to work with. This is my point. I don't have to take sides. I don't have to understand the particulars.
Where are the good fruits?
Yes. What Fr. Feeney should have done is gone to Rome and clarified his position to the Holy Father. The Church has condemned any form of denial of baptism of desire. If he intended to condemn it, then his own position would be condemned. Turns out, under Pope Paul VI, and after Vatican II in fact, he was reconciled to Vatican (which some would say was, by now, the "conciliar church"), simply by professing the Athanasian Creed. So Fr. Feeney died visibly united to the Church and the chapter should be closed. Fr. Feeney erred by not going to Rome when he was summoned to go.Not only has the Church not done this but the Church also has never taught baptism of desire.
Quote from: AnthonyPadua (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=75227.msg956704#msg956704) 17/10/2024, 17:15:42Of course she has. Please read the below carefully: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076
Not only has the Church not done this but the Church also has never taught baptism of desire.
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.
[the textbook definition of a condemnation of doctrine as being harmful - MM]
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "<imprimatur,>" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency's most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.
But why focus on the past? It doesn't solve the problem of the here and now.Well, the above is your opinion and you are welcome to it, but history matters. It is because he was right and for that reason was beat to death in the jew press and by his own superiors and fellow Catholics worse than Trump for it, sadly most Catholics still believe the Church teaches that there is salvation outside of the Church, and often use the fraudulent case against him as proof. So that's why I would say that it still matters.
If Father Feeney was right or if he was wrong does not help us now. All it does is cause an overly emotional reaction on both sides.
And when people are overly emotional the devil has more to work with. This is my point. I don't have to take sides. I don't have to understand the particulars.
Where are the good fruits?
If you truly believe EENS, then why aren't you converting everyone you know? Maybe you are?
At this point, Jesus could come back and no one would believe it was Him because a lot of us are attached to our own ideas.
Of course she has. Please read the below carefully: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076
Cardinal Franzelin, Tractatus de divina traditione et scriptura, Thesis 12, edition 1875, p. 119: “Likewise, there can be and are docuмents not only private but put forward entirely from the Pastoral Office concerning a doctrine of faith or morals by which it is determined to some extent to warn, persuade, command, reprehend, or prohibit the propagation of some opinion or error, without intending to proclaim a definitive sentence by which the whole Church would be bound. And that itself is not an ex cathedra statement. ‘For often the popes respond to private questions of this or that bishop, by explicating their opinion concerning the things proposed, not by passing a sentence by which they will that the faithful would be obligated to believe’ (Melchior Canus, Canus 1. VI. c. 8. ad 7). In this sense the two letters of Honorius to Sergius of Constantinople are rightly recalled.”
Which Catholics believe that one shouldn't convert to Catholicism? None of the traditionalists I know would say that.You aren't following the logic or the argument here, and are letting your feelings get in the way. A trad in this very thread, just a few posts up, posted the link to THIS. Mark is presenting this notion as Church teaching.
Yes. What Fr. Feeney should have done is gone to Rome and clarified his position to the Holy Father. ... Fr. Feeney erred by not going to Rome when he was summoned to go.
You aren't following the logic or the argument here, and are letting your feelings get in the way. A trad in this very thread, just a few posts up, posted the link to THIS, from Cardinal Cushing, the chief detractor and persecutor of Fr. Feeney, as well as a proud architect of Nostra Aetate. Mark is presenting this notion as Church teaching.
"The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."
The Baptism of Desire as held by St. Alphonsus and others was not some implicit, vague desire to do what God wants and be a good person. Does God, as it says in your catechism, give all men the graces they need to come to the fullness of truth or doesn't He?
The foundational problem that the trad detractors of Fr. Feeney have is their timeline. In their world, Nostra Aetate is heresy and the guys who pushed it at V2 are heretics and not legitimate clergy. But the SAME clergy with the same public beliefs who ran around promoting false ecuмenism in the 1950's were magically ok and it is the word of those men we should take. They want to doubt the conclave of 1958 but at the same time believe Fr. Feeney would get a fair hearing from the same individual who is known to be an infiltrator and anti-apostle under orders to keep Siri and Ottaviani out of the office. These men did not magically change their stripes in 1958.
Yes. What Fr. Feeney should have done is gone to Rome and clarified his position to the Holy Father. The Church has condemned any form of denial of baptism of desire. If he intended to condemn it, then his own position would be condemned. Turns out, under Pope Paul VI, and after Vatican II in fact, he was reconciled to Vatican (which some would say was, by now, the "conciliar church"), simply by professing the Athanasian Creed. So Fr. Feeney died visibly united to the Church and the chapter should be closed. Fr. Feeney erred by not going to Rome when he was summoned to go.Archbishop Vigano didn’t go to Rome. I don’t blame him or Father Feeney. Why go to Rome to be murdered?? Do we answer to God or a false church of communist sodomites?
Is this post even for real? EVERY Catholic must believe in EENS. It's a defined dogma of the Church, and every Catholic should be trying to convert everyone they can. It's only Bergoglio who condemns prosletysm. AND you are accusing others of emotionalism?Taking what I said out of context yet again.
:facepalm:
At some point, they are going to have to admit that Pius XII put the guys in place to get us to V2 and he's not some glorious pope. History is hard to argue with.
After the death of Cardinal Alfredo Ildefonso Schuster in 1954, Montini was appointed to succeed him as Archbishop of Milan, which made him the secretary of the Italian Bishops Conference. Pius XII presented the new archbishop "as his personal gift to Milan". He was consecrated bishop in Saint Peter's Basilica by Cardinal Eugène Tisserant, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, since Pius XII was severely ill.
On 12 December 1954, Pius XII delivered a radio address from his sick-bed about Montini's appointment to the crowd in St. Peter's Basilica. Both Montini and the Pope had tears in their eyes when Montini departed for his diocese with its 1,000 churches, 2,500 priests and 3,500,000 souls. On 5 January 1955, Montini formally took possession of his Cathedral of Milan. Montini settled well into his new tasks among all groups of the faithful in the city, meeting cordially with intellectuals, artists and writers
I never said anything against EENS.
Archbishop Vigano didn’t go to Rome. I don’t blame him or Father Feeney. Why go to Rome to be murdered?? Do we answer to God or a false church of communist sodomites?
You do this repeatedly, take a hypocritical approach of condemning others for being attached to their "own ideas" ... based on the criteria of YOUR "own ideas".I am more middle of the ground (and don't you dare take this out of context) I am not clinging to anything that has not already been clearly defined by the Church.
Theological disagreements, even among Catholics, have been around since the beginning of the Church, many of which remain unresolved to this day, since the Church has not intervened. In fact, even our rejection of Vatican II currrently stands in the status of our "own ideas", since there's no authoritative condemnation having issued from the Church.
This is such absolutely hogwash. You proudly accuse others of proud and then attack them for clinging to their own ideas because they don't line up with YOUR ideas.
But why focus on the past? It doesn't solve the problem of the here and now.
If Father Feeney was right or if he was wrong does not help us now. All it does is cause an overly emotional reaction on both sides.
And when people are overly emotional the devil has more to work with. This is my point. I don't have to take sides. I don't have to understand the particulars.
Where are the good fruits?
But why focus on the past? It doesn't solve the problem of the here and now.What??? Truth doesn't change. That's why Church history matters. Fr Feeney's debate was doctrinal in nature. Since doctrine doesn't change, and since EENS is still under attack today, yes, his debate is still relevant today.
If Father Feeney was right or if he was wrong does not help us now.
Taking what I said out of context yet again.
I never said anything against EENS.
I am accusing men of being too emotional.
I am a woman and it is right for me to express my emotions.
Like I said in another post on the forum men are suppose to help women through their emotions, not tell them they are too emotional or tell them not to have emotions.
Starting a religious order with married couples is strange. If you believe otherwise then I guess I question your judgment.
Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton started her religious order taking some of her younger children with her.We are talking about 39 children and 12 couples. There must have been something in the water to produce that many forced religious vocations. I don't know did these saints write an instructional manual to set forth the perferred Catholic way to raise children?
Starting a religious order with married couples is strange. If you believe otherwise then I guess I question your judgment.Vows of chastity are indeed strange to worldly minds. The religious order was not started with married couples, but SOME married couples who had already lost their livelihoods and reputations and been through more than comfortable Joe Trad can comprehend, made a heroic sacrifice and decision. Many others did not. There was no forcing. This has already been explained to you. But you dodged the question: What was the sin? There was none.
Children being forced into unnatural living arrangements is not correct. Our Lord blessed marriage and choose His Mother and earthly father. That's the model, prove me wrong. I mean if you didn't want children why did you make a vow? Tell me who really cares about the children. If that doesn't anger you it's hopeless.And yet, St. Joachim and Anna gave Our Lady to religious life at the age of 3. There are countless examples in lives of other saints through the ages of them being reared by religious. Your modern Protestant bias is showing.
Forced on the children. That's unjust no matter how you sugar coat it.I don't know how you were raised, but when I was a child, EVERYTHING was forced on me.
except he aggregated authority to himself as to infallibility on the question.What book and page # did he do this? Please be specific, since your accusation is specific.
Fact: nobody cares about you like your parents. How many of these 39 children are restoring the Church through preaching, or forgiving sins in the confessional? Sounds like whoever thought that that was a good idea was not tradional or Catholic.I strongly suspect that this is not a sincere question because you still have not manned up. And you have not answered the question of the name of the sin that the parents who took religious vows while still providing for the exceptional education of their children committed. The fact that you don't know how many of these children became religious or had lovely families of their own means you should shut up. It would take a book or volumes to tell the story of their impact. Maybe that's the book that needs to be written instead of the story of the one damaged soul whose father sent him into the Center school, pulled him out, and then sent him back when he got a new woman. Facts don't matter to the detractors of Fr. Feeney, however, as has been demonstrated by this thread.
I don't know how you were raised, but when I was a child, EVERYTHING was forced on me.Take any position to the extreme and then you might see how wrong it is. I mean death after birth when you have valid baptism might be the surest path to eternal bliss.
I was forced to go to bed at a certain time.
I was forced to eat what was on my plate.
I was forced to help my siblings.
I was forced to do my homework.
:laugh1: "Forced on the children"...it's a great emotional-sound-bite, but upon review, it makes no sense. Children are forced to do about 99% of their tasks. Because they're children.
Take any position to the extreme and then you might see how wrong it is. I mean death after birth when you have valid baptism might be the surest path to eternal bliss.Yes, it actually is. Your problem is with eternal Rome and basic catechesis, not Fr. Feeney.
I think your beef should be with the parents who made the decisions about THEIR family, not Fr Feeney. None of these parents were forced to go along with him. And they all stayed of their own free will. There wasn't barbed wire and fences around the property.And at the end of the day, it's all irrelevant to the doctrinal question, but emotional thinkers can't help conflating. It's truly pathetic, though, when such attacks come from other trads, especially those such as the Catholic Family Podcast, whom, it is my understanding, are CMRI affiliated. Of all people, they do not get to cast aspersions of abuse on other trads with the criminal skeletons sitting in their own closet. It is the duty of any Catholic to ascertain the facts before running their mouths. And that clearly was not done.
Grow up and place your criticism (even if unjustified) where it belongs - with the parents. Not Fr Feeney.
When a priest allows such behavior he has put his stamp of approval on it. The people involved were probably misguided naive people who were reacting to the crisis in the Church. I know many people that bought farmland in rural areas because Russia was going to invade. They were hedging in case of world War III and the Fatima messages.
Forced on the children. That's unjust no matter how you sugar coat it.If you're going to criticize families for following Fr Feeney then you should also criticize all the families who followed +ABL/sspx and moved out to St Mary's Kansas. In the beginning, this place was in the middle of nowhere, and families moved from all over the country to live around this church. Even today, it's a super rural area, with limited jobs and a hard way of life. Some families live in trailers to be close to church. Those that have houses, some of them have 10+ children with only 2 bedrooms (horror!). Most non-Trads would consider this 'child abuse'. It's no different than what people did with Fr Feeney.
So the Church has some instruction were families can choose this sort of life. Please educate me where married couples can go to legally enter such arrangements.You are a first class constructor of straw men AND a drama queen. Second class dodger of honest questions. Congratulations, and keep it coming. Any honest soul can see the nature of those who continue to slander a holy priest and you exonerate Father further with every post. It's pretty awesome.
Wouldn't it be easier to make a law against marriage or that children must be given to the religous.
Actually you have to answer the tough questions in order to come to the truth of any matter. I think that's the prudent way to approach controversy.You asked no question to start this whole mess. You slung names and slander. Gray asked the questions. But thanks for allowing the truth of the matter to come to light. Hopefully now more people understand exactly the *who* of the individuals involved in the Fr. Feeney debacle, and how this is integral to the entire nature of the crisis we are dealing with instead of sticking one's head in the sand and saying "1950's hierarchy were the good guys and Fr. Feeney should have trusted them for a fair hearing!" And the truth of the matter was that his excommunication had nothing to do with BOD or BOB. That all came later. Facts are hard.
You asked no question to start this whole mess. You slung names and slander. Gray asked the questions. But thanks for allowing the truth of the matter to come to light. Hopefully now more people understand exactly the *who* of the individuals involved in the Fr. Feeney debacle, and how this is integral to the entire nature of the crisis we are dealing with instead of sticking one's head in the sand and saying "1950's hierarchy were the good guys and Fr. Feeney should have trusted them for a fair hearing!" And the truth of the matter was that his excommunication had nothing to do with BOD or BOB. That all came later. Facts are hard.I don't know ihsv, there is something about the mentality of those who are anti-Fr. Feeney. They have an agenda for sure, but why? I think the meme here (https://www.cathinfo.com/teen-catholic-hangout/unfunny-stuff/new/?topicseen#new) explains it perfectly.
Thirty years ago I asked a question to a good priest regarding the validity of a certain line of Bishops. He asked me the question "do you think that Fr. so and so is so smart he couldn't possibly be wrong on this issue"? I know the priest that asked me the question is sincere in instructing souls to avoid doubtful orders so I don't hold any bad feelings towards him, but I felt he didn't give me enough evidence to suggest doubts on the matter. I have seen and heard with my own eyes and ears many naive Catholics looking for instruction and direction for the most mundane things. So the story fits in many cases. Father so and so said this so he speaks for the Church. Very dangerous times indeed.Exactly. Look at the words of Fr. Feeney himself, the actual docuмents involved in the debacle, the lives of those who "disciplined" him, and the results of what they did. Don't just trust the trad clergy on this because most of them had their opinions on it formed by Fr. Laisney and they are misinformed at best and malicious at worst. The only group that uses "Feeneyite" to mean denial of BOD/BOB are trads. The rest of the world understand it as holding that "There is No Salvation Outside the Church." Even wikipedia defines it in this way because that's the way that any NO clergy mean it when they say it. They, at least, are honest that the case was not about BOD/BOB but about Church doctrine. BOD/BOB wasn't an issue in the excommunication at all. It came later. Cardinal Avery Dulles, who later succuмbed to modernism but was involved in the Center early on wrote of Fr. Feeney: He was convinced that Catholics must not hesitate to present the full challenge of the Gospel, which for him included the whole system of official dogma. He felt that too many tended, out of politeness and timidity, to evade the task of forthright witness. As long as any person was alive, Father Feeney used to say, we should urge the necessity of his accepting the fullness of the faith. But after death, the situation was different. We could confidently leave our loved ones to the unfathomable mercy of God, to which we could set no limits. “I would infinitely rather be judged by God,” Father Feeney would say, “than by my closest friend.” Isn't that nuts?
You aren't following the logic or the argument here, and are letting your feelings get in the way. A trad in this very thread, just a few posts up, posted the link to THIS. Mark is presenting this notion as Church teaching.(Read this with a sad tone) But what would St. Alphonsus say today? Where are the Graces today? If this is the case then millions of souls are falling into hell daily by their own fault because there is always sufficient grace. How is that a loving God, to allow soooo many choices that we hang ourself spiritually?
"The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."
The Baptism of Desire as held by St. Alphonsus and others was not some implicit, vague desire to do what God wants and be a good person. Does God, as it says in your catechism, give all men the graces they need to come to the fullness of truth or doesn't He?
Cardinal Avery Dulles, who later succuмbed to modernism but was involved in the Center early on wrote of Fr. Feeney: He was convinced that Catholics must not hesitate to present the full challenge of the Gospel, which for him included the whole system of official dogma. He felt that too many tended, out of politeness and timidity, to evade the task of forthright witness.At least in America, EENS has been attacked since 1776. Protestants vs Catholics has been the battle for centuries. EENS forced Catholics to preach the gospel and forced protestants to face their heresy straight in the face. Politically, the "problem" of EENS is that it divided the nation (unnecessarily, the liberals say) and so many politicians and american bishops took a softer stance. Orestes Brownson (a convert) wrote his whole life in defending EENS and complained of the wishy-washy clerics of his day.
Exactly. Look at the words of Fr. Feeney himself, the actual docuмents involved in the debacle, the lives of those who "disciplined" him, and the results of what they did. Don't just trust the trad clergy on this because most of them had their opinions on it formed by Fr. Laisney and they are misinformed at best and malicious at worst. The only group that uses "Feeneyite" to mean denial of BOD/BOB are trads. The rest of the world understand it as holding that "There is No Salvation Outside the Church." Even wikipedia defines it in this way because that's the way that any NO clergy mean it when they say it. They, at least, are honest that the case was not about BOD/BOB but about Church doctrine. BOD/BOB wasn't an issue in the excommunication at all. It came later. Cardinal Avery Dulles, who later succuмbed to modernism but was involved in the Center early on wrote of Fr. Feeney: He was convinced that Catholics must not hesitate to present the full challenge of the Gospel, which for him included the whole system of official dogma. He felt that too many tended, out of politeness and timidity, to evade the task of forthright witness. As long as any person was alive, Father Feeney used to say, we should urge the necessity of his accepting the fullness of the faith. But after death, the situation was different. We could confidently leave our loved ones to the unfathomable mercy of God, to which we could set no limits. “I would infinitely rather be judged by God,” Father Feeney would say, “than by my closest friend.” Isn't that nuts?
But in the minds of the average NO Catholic, or Catholic in the pew in the 1950's, Fr. Feeney invented the idea that there was no salvation outside the Church and that's a heresy and he was excommunicated for it.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/no-salvation-outside-the-church This is the Novus Ordo religion and it happened before V2. That the Father Feeney case changed Catholic understanding of the necessity of the Church for salvation is undeniable. The irony here is that Fr. Cekada, any of the SSPX priests, etc... would all be radical Feeneyites under interdict if you transported them back in time to Boston, 1952. They certainly would not agree with 'Fr.' Ryland or 'Fr.' Most or Karl Rahner's interpretations of this doctrine.
https://x.com/RorateCaeli/status/928318989582905344?prefetchTimestamp=1729182565332.
From biography of Bobby Kennedy: "Back in his undergraduate days, he joined other Harvard Catholics at lectures by Fr. Leonard Feeney, an influential Jesuit priest who warned that the Jєωs "are trying to take over this city" and preached that only Catholics could be saved. Bobby was embarrassed enough by those diatribes to discuss them with his brother Ted and his father, who arranged for him to meet with Archbishop Richard Cushing to convey his concern. Even a Kennedy found it difficult to confront a prelate in those days, and Bobby's courage likely played a role in Feeney's eventual expulsion from his order and excommunication from the church."
Side note: it took no courage for Bobby to talk to "Uncle Richard." He was over at the Kennedy compound for drinks with Joe all the time.
Fr. Feeney was a threat to Kennedy political aspirations. You can't get people to vote for you if you tell them they are part of a false religion. This is also detailed in Ted Kennedy's autobiography where he brags about how his family took out Fr. Feeney and the Kennedy family's role in "changing Church doctrine." Go check it out in the library. And then ask yourself if what the Kennedy's hated Fr. Feeney for and persecuted him for was BOD. No, it wasn't. It was EENS. Would you have had the courage to stand up and say "Hang on, this actually IS what the Church teaches! Look at Trent! Look at Florence!" Those professors at Boston College did just that. And they put their names to it. And they lost their livelihoods and reputations for recognizing the creeping liberalism that was happening in Catholic higher education. Fr. Feeney didn't invent anything. He stuck up for them like a good father would do. Like every priest in Boston should have. Those are real men, but you give us an anonymous lawyer who wasn't there and has clearly cherry-picked information. Just don't.
And that's what is so insane about the position of these trads who want to continue to mudsling the man. Even the words of his enemies at the time exonerate him, but we are supposed to trust clerics who came along decades later and know the real story? Please.
(Read this with a sad tone) But what would St. Alphonsus say today? Where are the Graces today? If this is the case then millions of souls are falling into hell daily by their own fault because there is always sufficient grace. How is that a loving God, to allow soooo many choices that we hang ourself spiritually?It's not that God loves not men, but that men do not love God.
It's not that God loves not men, but that men do not love God.You went to an extreme and then accused me of judging God. How helpful? Correct me if I misunderstood you.
But how could so many of the poor Sioux warriors, Mayan child-sacrificers and Aboriginese cannibals go to hell?
The only acceptable answer: Who put you in judgment over Almighty God?!
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
At least in America, EENS has been attacked since 1776. Protestants vs Catholics has been the battle for centuries. EENS forced Catholics to preach the gospel and forced protestants to face their heresy straight in the face. Politically, the "problem" of EENS is that it divided the nation (unnecessarily, the liberals say) and so many politicians and american bishops took a softer stance. Orestes Brownson (a convert) wrote his whole life in defending EENS and complained of the wishy-washy clerics of his day.This wishy washy behavior of Catholics started way before 1776, it came over on the Arc and the Dove with religious liberty, around 1633.
By the time the post-WW1/Depression days began, american politicians started pushing 'separation of church and state' in order to silence those catholic clerics who wanted to preach EENS. Post war was the time to "come together" not be divided. This is the atmosphere where Fr Feeney started preaching...the pre-V2 movement of "universal salvation" and "religious liberty" started with the watering-down of EENS.
but all the innocent people caught in the crossfireThe only innocent Indians were the children. All of the adult indians who didn't convert were involved in witchcraft, constant war, killiing, cannibalism, etc. They weren't innocent; they violated the natural law (which is written on every man's heart by God) six ways to Sunday.
The only innocent Indians were the children. All of the adult indians who didn't convert were involved in witchcraft, constant war, killiing, cannibalism, etc. They weren't innocent; they violated the natural law (which is written on every man's heart by God) six ways to Sunday.How do you know there weren't others who fought against the atrocity, I can't believe that there was absolutely no adult, who didn't want to offend the natural law and ended up being offered to the sun God as well?
Generally speaking, Gray. Only God knows if there were exceptions, so it's a waste of time to discuss it.Gray is taking this thread in sixteen different directions, none of which have anything to do with the topic. It is in everyone's best interest to ignore her and stick to the topic at hand.
Another interesting side note. Look up JFK's funeral Mass on YouTube. It was said by Cushing and was a sloppy mess. Then ask yourself if that's how a devout cleric says Mass in front of the world.And then if you have read AA-1025 think about how he describes how the anti-apostles were taught to say the Mass and slur the words as to give the appearance of validity but render it invalid.
And then if you have read AA-1025 think about how he describes how the anti-apostles were taught to say the Mass and slur the words as to give the appearance of validity but render it invalid.
Cushing was honored by B’nai B’rith as "Man of the Year" in 1956 for "a lifetime of distinguished service to the cause of human brotherhood under God and in further recognition of great leadership in the fields of education and community relations." He was a close correspondent with Robert E. Segal, longtime executive director of the Jєωιѕн Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Boston, who played a key role in Jєωιѕн-Catholic relations in Boston. As well as this, Cushing maintained close contacts with Abram L. Sachar of Brandeis University. From the very start of Cushing's tenure as Archbishop of Boston, there was a major change in the relationship between official Bostonian Catholicism and Judaism, where there had previously been much mutual suspicion, Cushing sought closer relations. The author James Carroll has attributed Cushing's outlook to the (non-Catholic) marriage between his sister Dolly Cushing and a local Jєωιѕн haberdasherer, Dick Pearlstein. At the time this was very uncommon.
If I were to become entirely convinced baptism of desire is actually heretical, I would have no other choice but to declare Pope Pius XII to be a heretic who ipso facto lost his office (or never had it) without need for any further declaration. Even Br. Dimond says that if Pope Pius XII had personally signed the Holy Office letter, he would be a heretic. Therefore, the only two possibilities are (1) Pope Pius XII is a heretic (2) baptism of desire is not heretical. Tertium non datur (there is no third option). Pius XII's holy office clearly said in the letter quoted earlier that denying bod is "very harmful both to those within the Church and those without". Also, Pius XII taught the same doctrine as the holy office letter in other places. For e.g. he said: "In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of Baptism". So do any other sedevacantists want to go that far, that Pius XII was also a heretic just like John XXIII and Paul VI were?What are you talking about? Pius 12th never signed the letter against Fr Feeney. The Church also has not directed condemned BoD but 'allowed'/tolerated it (unfortunately) that's why saints like Alphonsus are not heretics despite believing a non-heretical form of BoD (there are different versions). To say his holy office condemned it but yet he never signed it is contradictory. It was already brought up that this docuмent was unreliable because it was held for 2 years after it was made and published after the death of the person who supposedly wrote it, meaning it could have been altered. Also it wasn't published in by the Church but in a news paper...
Again, Fr. Feeney should have gone to Rome. Archbishop Lefebvre went when Rome summoned him. Even Our Lord Jesus Christ went before Pontius Pilate to testify to His Gospel. If Fr. Feeney was genuinely convinced, as some of his followers here believe, that Pope Pius XII would have supported him, and that it wasn't the Pope, but only Archbishop Cushing, and also at least Cardinals Selvagianni and Ottaviani (who signed the letter) who were teaching BOD, he would have gone to Rome and clarified the matter. In fact, this would have been an exceptional opportunity to present the Gospel and the Catholic faith before the Roman authorities. This is the reason Fr. Pagliariani also gave recently for discussion with the Roman authorities. Even if Rome were not 100% convinced by the Society's theological arguments, it was an excellent opportunity to present the Gospel (i.e. the orthodox Catholic faith in its fullness) to the Roman authorities.
So I think Fr. Feeney missed a golden opportunity. Next, here is Fr. Fenton explain that Suprema Haec Sacra is indeed authoritative Magisterium, ordinary Magisterium about which Pope Pius XII says, "these things are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, about which it is true to say, "he who hears you, hears Me". Thus, again, if Pius XII was a Pope, it is Christ Himself whom we hear to teach us bod. Thus if bod is heretical, it clearly follows that Pius XII was every bit a heretic as Paul VI and John XXIII and therefore either never pope or ipso facto losing office for bod.
Fr. Fenton: "One of the few good results that followed from the unfortunate debates centering around Father Feeney's group at St. Benedict's Center was the issuance of the Holy Office instruction Suprema haec sacra, dated Aug. 8, 1949, and published officially with its authorized English translation in the Oct., 1952, issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review. This docuмent made it very clear to the men of our own time that the Church had by no means abandoned or modified the age old dogma to the effect that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact this Holy Office letter put themagisterium itself on record as asserting what had been, since the latter part of the sixteenth century, the teaching of the best theologians of the Church: the doctrine that the Catholic Church itself is definitely and actually necessary for the attainment of eternal salvation with the necessity of precept and with the necessity of means." https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2013/10/questions-about-membership-in-church.html The Church of course still teaches EENS. She just rejects the Feeneyite interpretation of it. Either that, or if the Feeneyite interpretation is correct, the Church defected at this time by teaching heresy. That's if Pius XII is a legitimate Pope.
What are you talking about? Pius 12th never signed the letter against Fr Feeney.
The Church also has not directed condemned BoD but 'allowed'/tolerated it (unfortunately)
that's why saints like Alphonsus are not heretics
Quote despite believing a non-heretical form of BoD (there are different versions).
Quote To say his holy office condemned it but yet he never signed it is contradictory. It was already brought up that this docuмent was unreliable because it was held for 2 years after it was made and published after the death of the person who supposedly wrote it, meaning it could have been altered. Also it wasn't published in by the Church but in a news paper...
Read the post carefully. (1) Pope Pius XII firstly taught BOD elsewhere, showing he certainly wasn't opposed to it. "In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of Baptism". (PIUS XII, “Allocution to Italian Midwives”, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 43 (1951), 841.) Note that this IS in the AAS. Do you accept it?The address to midwives also taught that NFP was ok but it's not. It wasn't binding, Pope Pius 12th was wrong here on BoD. The Church didn't condemn SBC, that docuмent was already dealt with earlier in this thread. Ironic, you claim that those who properly hold the dogma EENS are revisionist modernists but it's the opposite, those who make exceptions to the teaching of the Church are following the revision of modernists. The Church has never taught salvation in the state of invincible ignorance, the Holy Office has made this very clear. I mention St Alphonsus because you are conflating the belief in BoD as heresy with your example of Pope Pius 12th
Not condemned BoD? She has CONDEMNED the denial of BoD when SBC tried it. In other words, She has not allowed or tolerated the denial of BOD but clearly declared this to be "very harmful both to those within and without (outside) the Church". In other words, the Church is saying your revisionist 20th century modernist Feeneyite version of EENS is a condemned and heterodox doctrine not accepted or approved by the Church. For e.g. to affirm every Protestant or Orthodox is a formal heretic or schismatic is a false doctrine which rejects the Church dogma on invincible ignorance. Likewise to affirm every non-Christian is guilty of sin for being a non-Christian is a condemned doctrine.
Saints like Alphonsus are not heretics? Whoever believe Alphonsus is a heretic, like Ibranyi does, is a schismatic.
If I were to become entirely convinced baptism of desire is actually heretical, I would have no other choice but to declare Pope Pius XII to be a heretic
St. Alphonsus believed in the same form of bod as Pius XII. There is only one version. BOD means love of God or perfect contrition can secure for a non-Christian the remission of sins when Baptism is not available. St. Alphonsus taught this, and Pope Pius XII confirmed it. Was Pope Pius XII a heretic for what he taught and had inserted into the AAS? Your opinion leads to that.St Alphonsus also mentions a baptism of tears, which like BoD, he was wrong about. No there isn't only one version of BoD this is false. The version the Saints held still DID NOT DENY THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM AS PER THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. The heretical forms of BoD skip over baptism. You are conflating a lot of different things while also making assumptions while also not having the proper nuance to BoD.
It's not required that he personally sign every docuмent. His Cardinals condemned it and informed him of it. If he disagreed, he certainly would have said so. As it is, he taught BOD in 1951 and had it inserted in the AAS as proven above. Are you willing to acknowledge that if Pius XII approved BOD (in any way, not only in the way you prefer, as if the Pope were bound to the forms you choose) and if BOD is in fact heretical as you believe, then Pius XII is a heretic?
That would be the logical conclusion of your error. But it is schismatic to believe such a thing, just as it would be schismatic to believe St. Alphonsus is a heretic. Realize that Ibryani believes such a thing. What has it availed him? Nothing. Meanwhile, numerous Catholic missionaries have never accepted your revisionist interpretation of the dogma contrary to that sense in which the Church Herself has understood Her dogma and have evangelized millions. St. Padre Pio is just one example of a saintly Catholic priest who rejected the Dimonds opinion yet led many to Christ and Baptism. Baptism of Desire is only operative when Baptism is unavailable, never when it has been despised, as St. Augustine clearly teaches St. Augustine also wrote: "Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." (Denzinger 388) Leave God's mysteries to Himself and focus on trying to convert your non-Catholic and non-Christian friends and bring them to Baptism or to confession respectively.
The address to midwives also taught that NFP was ok but it's not. It wasn't binding, Pope Pius 12th was wrong here on BoD. The Church didn't condemn SBC, that docuмent was already dealt with earlier in this thread. Ironic, you claim that those who properly hold the dogma EENS are revisionist modernists but it's the opposite, those who make exceptions to the teaching of the Church are following the revision of modernists. The Church has never taught salvation in the state of invincible ignorance, the Holy Office has made this very clear. I mention St Alphonsus because you are conflating the belief in BoD as heresy with your example of Pope Pius 12th2Corinthians 4:3-4
This was never the claim, BoD has many forms, most are heretical but the version which the Saints mentioned were not those heretical forms.St Alphonsus also mentions a baptism of tears, which like BoD, he was wrong about. No there isn't only one version of BoD this is false. The version the Saints held still DID NOT DENY THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM AS PER THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. The heretical forms of BoD skip over baptism. You are conflating a lot of different things while also making assumptions while also not having the proper nuance to BoD.
Baptism is never unavailable as God is not constrained by impossibility. The elect will ALWAYS receive baptism. God can constrain Himself like when He promised not to flood the earth again or that unless a man be born of water and spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Saint Augustine also said in his LATER WORK against Julian, that "Let it not be said that God will allow any of His elect to die before receiving the sacrament of the mediator". BoD is not a sacrament, it doesn't have matter and form, and as per Trent, True Justice can only begin with sacraments.
Quote The address to midwives also taught that NFP was ok but it's not.So you don't care if a Pope teaches something in the AAS. You'll just reject it anyway. That's a sin on your part.
So St. Alphonsus had a "want of faith"? That's extremely temerarious of you to speak in that way about a Doctor of the Church. You might want to examine your own "want of faith". You need to humble yourself and learn with a teachable spirit from the Doctors/Teachers of the Church. How long have you been a Catholic?
So you don't care if a Pope teaches something in the AAS. You'll just reject it anyway. That's a sin on your part.
I am leaving it beyond this point, because until you are willing to submit to the Magisterium, you will be in error.
If I were to become entirely convinced baptism of desire is actually heretical ...
St. Alphonsus believed in the same form of bod as Pius XII. There is only one version.
Not condemned BoD? She has CONDEMNED the denial of BoD when SBC tried it.
If he was a good Catholic, then why was he excommunicated.
From wikipedia:
"Excommunication
On 8 August 1949, Cardinal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_(Catholicism)) Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Marchetti_Selvaggiani) of the Holy Office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith) sent a protocol letter to Archbishop Richard Cushing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing) on the meaning of the dogma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_in_the_Catholic_Church) extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus) ("outside the Church there is no salvation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Christianity)"). This protocol had been approved by Pope Pius XII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII) on 28 July 1949. The docuмent states: "[T]his dogma [extra Ecclesiam nulla salus] must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Saviour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redeemer_(Christianity)) gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church".[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney#cite_note-13)[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney#cite_note-14)[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney#cite_note-15)
After Feeney refused twice to oblige to the Holy See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See)'s summons to Rome to explain himself, he was excommunicated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_in_the_Catholic_Church) on 13 February 1953 by the Holy See for persistent disobedience to legitimate church authority due to his refusal to comply. According to Cardinal John Wright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wright_(cardinal)), Pope Pius XII personally translated the edict into English.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney#cite_note-Feldberg-9)"
Why would we still try to listen to him today? Maybe he was right in addressing some issues, but to be overly dogmatic can also be a sign of great pride.
Is it really worth my time to figure out the ins and outs of Father Feeney? or is this just another distraction put before us to not work out our own salvation with fear and trembling?
And Gunter, why would you purposefully put a topic title on the board that would rile up those who like Father Feeney? Couldn't you have written something like interesting information on Father Feeney?
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215. (https://catholicism.org/lateran-iv.html))
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302. (https://catholicism.org/unam-sanctam.html))
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs 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.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441. (https://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html))
Mark, you have to understand that these “neo Feeneyites” believe they know more than any pope, saint, theologian, or canonist. There is no humbling for them, their pride is going to be their ruin.
Hi Maria! Good post and I'm very happy to see you here again, and tell Drew I said hello!!
Gray,
St. Athanasius was "excommunicated" for disobedience, "Why would we still try to listen to him today?"
ABL was "excommunicated" for disobedience, "Why would we still try to listen to him today?"
AB Vigano was "excommunicated" for disobedience, "Why would we still try to listen to him today?"
Funny, Fr. Feeney will continue to be slandered for defending the 3 Dogmas on EENS precisely because they are the ones constantly being attacked but I never met any of them that even know what dogma is and never read the three dogmas. So, for your benefit, here they are:
St. Athanasius was "excommunicated" for disobedience, "Why would we still try to listen to him today?"
ABL was "excommunicated" for disobedience, "Why would we still try to listen to him today?"
AB Vigano was "excommunicated" for disobedience, "Why would we still try to listen to him today?"
Funny, Fr. Feeney will continue to be slandered for defending the 3 Dogmas on EENS precisely because they are the ones constantly being attacked but I never met any of them that even know what dogma is and never read the three dogmas. So, for your benefit, here they are:
If I were to become entirely convinced baptism of desire is actually heretical, I would have no other choice but to declare Pope Pius XII to be a heretic who ipso facto lost his office (or never had it) without need for any further declaration.Oh brother! Do you even know what a heresy is? FYI, very simply, if it's contrary to the faith, it's heresy.
Oh brother! Do you even know what a heresy is? FYI, very simply, if it's contrary to the faith, it's heresy.
OK, well, if it's DIRECTLY contrary to faith, it's heresy. There are other notes of error lower than heresy when the contradiction is less direct, e.g. "proximate to heresy", "error", and even things like "offensive to pious ears".I don't believe someone who privately hopes or thinks salvation is possible via a BOD is a heretic, I do believe they are wrong, but so what - but this guy declares that he's kicking PPXII out of office over it - if he was ever in it to begin with.
Also, there's objective heresy vs. defined heresy. So, for instance, while it was always heretical (objectively) to deny the Immaculate Conception (since it's always been objective dogma), those who denied it were not formal heretics until the Church defined it as dogma. Same was true of Papal Infallibility. Many denied it before its definition. In fact, some officially sanctioned Catechisms denied papal infallibility and had to be revised after Vatican I (so much for the "Catechism" argument from the anti-BoDers)>
So there are indeed distinctions to be made.
Issue there is that the majority of Feeneyites do not (nor did Father Feeney himself) hold that BoD is heretical ... so it's a strawman against most of us.
So St. Alphonsus had a "want of faith"? That's extremely temerarious of you to speak in that way about a Doctor of the Church. You might want to examine your own "want of faith". You need to humble yourself and learn with a teachable spirit from the Doctors/Teachers of the Church. How long have you been a Catholic?You sound like a sophist. Did Saint Alphonsus deny EENS by saying salvation outside the church by the church? Or claiming someone can be saved in the state of ignorance? Nor did he hold a heretical form of BoD.
So you don't care if a Pope teaches something in the AAS. You'll just reject it anyway. That's a sin on your part.
I am leaving it beyond this point, because until you are willing to submit to the Magisterium, you will be in error.
I don't believe someone who privately hopes or thinks salvation is possible via a BOD is a heretic, I do believe they are wrong, but so what - but this guy declares that he's kicking PPXII out of office over it - if he was ever in it to begin with.
I believe the constant broadcasting and preaching of a BOD as if it were a doctrine of the Church is heretical.
It still amazes me how screwed up people, including a lot of trad clergy still are about Fr. Feeney even after all these decades, even in this age of instant information.
The meme I linked to earlier might just be what solves the mystery for me, it's St. Augustine of Hippo who said: "People hate the truth for the sake of whatever it is that they love more than the truth."
They must not be able to accept the fact that so few, only a select very few are saved, doing away with the first requirement for salvation is a comfort to them.
Not getting into a big debate about this now. Bod does not say "salvation outside the church by the Church". Bod says individuals in inculpable ignorance can enter the Church by the extraordinary means of baptism of desire in some circuмstances.
If you hold the AAS of a legitimate Pope can teach heresy ...
The Catechism of Trent also refutes your absurd opinion.
“Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended from his priestly duties on account of grave disobedience of Church Authority, being unmoved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, has not submitted, the Most Eminent and Reverent Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, 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
AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100
Not getting into a big debate about this now. Bod does not say "salvation outside the church by the Church". Bod says individuals in inculpable ignorance can enter the Church by the extraordinary means of baptism of desire in some circuмstances.What???:confused::confused::confused: that's not what BoD is. BoD is if a catechuman who wanted baptism but died before they physically received it, then their desire sufficed for the sacrament in voto.
Read the Magisterium's explanation, which is Christ's, as Pope Pius XII said "he who hears you hears Me" applies to the explanations of the Magisterium rather than going by your own lights.
Yes, and this was pointed out pages ago in this thread as the real reason why the average sede or SSPX adherent will not look honestly at the facts of the Fr. Feeney case. The timeline and facts challenge their dogmatic view of the crisis in the Church. It's also why they end up bleeding souls off into the Eastern Orthodox sects once they see the evidence for how far back the corruption goes. (Not recommending that course, it will damn you). The fact remains that Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated over BOD. He didn't take a position on that until later, when he pointed out that BOD was what the Holy Office used to say that he was wrong for saying EENS. It's only some trads who insist it was over BOD because they can't wrap their minds around what actually happened.
If in spite of this one wants to say Pius XII was not a heretic, then one can easily say the same of John XXIII or John Paul II for the same reason. If one of them lost their office ipso facto such that their acts were invalid, then so did the other. And if the act was indeed invalid, that would explain how a "Pope" inserted heresy into the AAS/Magisterium. A legitimate Pope, as those who've studied the issue know, cant teach heresy in the Magisterium.
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.This line (red text) always gets me. The crooks always have to add a disclaimer somewhere in order to render the dogma meaningless.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it....
Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton started her religious order taking some of her younger children with her.St. Eliazabeth was a widow.
This line (red text) always gets me. The crooks always have to add a disclaimer somewhere in order to render the dogma meaningless.
I am only here because I was addressed.
Gray,
St. Athanasius was "excommunicated" for disobedience, "Why would we still try to listen to him today?"
ABL was "excommunicated" for disobedience, "Why would we still try to listen to him today?"
AB Vigano was "excommunicated" for disobedience, "Why would we still try to listen to him today?"
Funny, Fr. Feeney will continue to be slandered for defending the 3 Dogmas on EENS precisely because they are the ones constantly being attacked but I never met any of them that even know what dogma is and never read the three dogmas. So, for your benefit, here they are:
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm
In the link above, The Oath Against Modernism, the word dogma appears 6 times. Why?
And Pascendi Dominici Gregis? 26 times! Why?
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html
I am only here because I was addressed.Archbishop Lefebvre - On True and False Obedience
I think these acts of disobedience (the vice) have made the Crisis last longer.
These men might be right with what they were trying to get people to understand, but the fruits of all these actions have not proven to be good. We might have little pockets of Tradition, but the lack of charity between each group is abominable.
If they went to Rome, held strong to their belief in the Crisis and then were excommunicated or martyred, then I would be more apt to believe that God was behind them and not their desperation to fix the situation their way. God can do anything with those who cooperate with His grace. I think we have forgotten this.
Obedience is, without doubt, more meritorious than any austerity. And what greater austerity can be thought of than that of keeping one's will constantly submissive and obedient? ----St. Catherine of Bologna
Obedience is a penance of the soul, and for that reason a sacrifice more acceptable than all corporal penances. Thence it happens that God loves more the least degree of obedience in thee, than all the other services thou mayest think to render Him. ----St. John of the Cross
To pick up a straw from the ground through obedience is more meritorious than to preach, to fast, to use the discipline to blood, and to make long prayers, of one's own will. ----St. Alphonsus Rodriguez
All the good of creatures consists in the fulfillment of the Divine Will. And this is never better attained than by the practice of obedience, in which is found the annihilation of self-love and the true liberty of sons of God. This is the reason why souls truly good, experience such great joy and sweetness in obedience. ----St. Vincent de Pau
Would you know who are true monks? Those who by mortification have brought their will under such control that they no longer have any wish except to obey the precepts and counsels of their Superior. ----St. Fulgentius
The devil, seeing that there is no shorter road to the summit of perfection than that of obedience, artfully insinuates many repugnances and difficulties under color of good, to prevent us from following it. ----St. Teresa
I really do not blame them, and I really think they were trying to be good Catholics, but I fear that they lacked some courage.
I won't comment again unless addressed directly. Hint, don't call me by name if you don't want me to reply.
"Q. 509. Are all bound to belong to the Church?And what about the rest of the world, you know, all those who choose to not know the Church to be the true Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved.
[...]
Why is it that the anti-Fr. Feeney crowd conveniently forgets that Cardinal Humberto Medeiros (consecrated a bishop in 1966) visited the St. Benedict Center in 1972 and lifted the "excommunication" of Fr. Feeney? Fr. Feeney did not recant anything. The late Mike Malone (author of Only Begotten) was there, and told us at a Catholic conference years ago that Fr. Feeney recited the Athanasian Creed in Greek. Here are the links to the Mike Malone talk.Because they have a mental block. They cannot accept the dogma EENS so they make up strawmans, fallacies, sophism and logical contradictions to justify their denial of doctrine.
Mike Malone, pt 1 (https://rumble.com/v3q0oga-mike-malone-the-only-begotten-why-the-blessed-virgin-needed-baptism-pt.-1.html?mref=lbs2z&mc=5c3sg)
Mike Malone, pt 2 (https://rumble.com/v3q0qmm-mike-malone-the-only-begotten-why-the-blessed-virgin-needed-baptism-pt.-2.html?mref=lbs2z&mc=5c3sg)
"Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth."Do you think everything in the Holy Office is infallible? Do you know that no catechism meets the criteria for infallibility?
Amen. Btw, just as it's indubitably clear to anyone who reads the relevant docuмents of that time period that Pope Pius XII was well aware of everything the Holy Office did in his name and approved their doctrine (with 3 AAS docuмents no less), it clearly follows that Pius XII is a heretic if what the Church under him deemed to be "very harmful both to those within and outside the Church" is in fact somehow the true doctrine of the Church. But it doesn't even end there. Leo XIII approved the Baltimore Catechism teaching both bod and EENS in the same Catholic sense taught by Pius XII. Thus, if as Feeneyites erroneously hold, that sense "contradicts the dogma" (being like Calvinists and Jansenists, misunderstanding true Catholic EENS/predestination), Leo XII would be a heretic too.
There's something called reductio ad absurdum. It's used for proofs in mathematics and logic. When you reach an absurd conclusion, like that 99% of traditional clergy, traditional popes etc are heretics or teaching heretical doctrine, you stop and consider the possibility you yourself are gravely mistaken. That's what Feeneyites should do here. Instead, they stubbornly refuse to admit they are at war with at least the past 150 years of Roman Pontiffs themselves. Leo XIII would have excommunicated Feeneyites just like Pius XII did. Either (1) those 150 years of Popes were all heretics, or (2) the Feeneyites are wrong about their heretical, warped perversion of EENS, which is totally different from the true traditional Catholic doctrine of EENS. That makes it real simple for real Catholics.
"Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth."
Amen. Btw, just as it's indubitably clear to anyone who reads the relevant docuмents of that time period that Pope Pius XII was well aware of everything the Holy Office did in his name and approved their doctrine ...
Do you think everything in the Holy Office is infallible? Do you know that no catechism meets the criteria for infallibility?
Cathecism of Saint Pius X has been teaching BOD for 40 years until fr Feeney.
Tridentine catechism has contained BOD doctrine for almost 400 years until fr Feeney.
Cathecism of Saint Pius X has been teaching BOD for 40 years until fr Feeney.
Allegedly the original doesn't mention it. Also catechisms are not infallible
Tridentine catechism has contained BOD doctrine for almost 400 years until fr Feeney.
It doesn't teach BoD, and catechisms aren't infallible
How lucky are we that we finally got the "correctors" at last. Better late than never. Because you see -what so many valid popes, canonists, doctors, saints and theologians have collectively missed through and allowed through their omission for this most pernicious "error" to creep up in the bloodline of the Church COMPLETELY UNCHALLENGED, was finally corrected by a priest in the 1950s.
How lucky we are that in the first millenium we have 'the theologian' Saint Gregory nαzιunzus tell us that since we don't judge the desire for murder the same as actual murder then he can't see how desire for baptism suffices for actual baptism. How lucky we are that a doctor of the church, saint Peter Canisius attended the council of Trent and wrote a catechism on it, and in it he never mentions baptism of desire, instead imploring the necessity of water baptism for all
Why has there not been a single soul to write about this elephant in the room for so long? Imagine Vatican II finished and then we have the first trads around the year 2000 finally realising that something is rotten and not one person raising an issue with these errors before. How absurd would that be?
Everytime an elephant comes out he get attacked by the enemies of the church and Culminated and people like yourself don't believe it or want to hear it. Fr Feeney is the best example.
The Church has always had issues just look at judas...
If he isn't anathematized after the Church is restored, then the Church owes Honorius an apology.If this were to happen would that make anything he taught invalid?
If this were to happen would that make anything he taught invalid?
Cmon Lad, you are better than that: "On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."Grace and righteousness IS baptism. But you are mistaken in what avail means. It means that a person will be brought baptism somehow not that someone is baptised without actually receiving baptism.
Quoted from Tridentine catechism which clearly states this, and theologians confirm it.
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).
But what do they know of course, we have forum members and upstate NY brothers we should rely on instead.
Cmon Lad, you are better than that: "On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."Florence states that shedding your blood for Christ does nothing unless you are apart of the Church. Pius 12th teaches that only those who are baptised can be members of the Church. Therefore baptism of blood is false.
Quoted from Tridentine catechism which clearly states this, and theologians confirm it.
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).
But what do they know of course, we have forum members and upstate NY brothers we should rely on instead.
Grace and righteousness IS baptism. But you are mistaken in what avail means. It means that a person will be brought baptism somehow not that someone is baptised without actually receiving baptism.Of course you are the one interpreting that correctly over any approved theologian. Congrats! I beg you pardon fellow feenyite.
Of course you are the one interpreting that correctly over any approved theologian. Congrats! I beg you pardon fellow feenyite.You are coping extremely hard by making up a lot of crap. All because you cannot accept infallible Catholic teaching over fallible sentimentals. You don't even know what you are talking about, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned "body of theologians". You also ignore the Saints who rejected BoD, especially the Saint most relevant who was at Trent, Peter Canisius.
You claim this was not in the catechism of Pius X. Was it there being taught universally in the time let's say of Pius XII who did not do anything about it then?
Can canon law give poison unto damnation? Can catechisms? Apparently so. Let's also step on the neck of saint Alphonsus while we are at it, as of course he taught it as de fide. (now pull another quote from him to try to "disprove" him :facepalm: )
It sounds as if you feenyites use flowcharts when answering objections. It's always the same recycled asnwers. Catecisms are fallible unto damnation and heresy, so is canon law, popes were wrong for centuries, so were doctors (here insert saint Aquinas and Immaculate Conception), deny deny deny that Fathers have ever taught this, if something remotely resembles BOD say it aint so (in the case of tridentine catechism which body of theologians mention all the time. Gaslight, gaslight, galisght...
Heck, manuals of theology- good for dustbins. Mention how theologians have brought about Vatican II. No need for them, we have dimond bros after all. That will suffice.
It's just so tiresome. You will not change your view, neither will we. If only there were bishops and priests who supported your views so you don't cause so much havoc in the trad world. One can dream...
P.S Judas' views were never taught through UOM so I don't see the comparison. But okay...
Why has there not been a single soul to write about this elephant in the room for so long? Imagine Vatican II finished and then we have the first trads around the year 2000 finally realising that something is rotten and not one person raising an issue with these errors before. How absurd would that be?I refer you to the Ghetto where all these questions are answered, including theologians who raised issues. That would indeed be absurd, and there are hundreds of years of history here. No, BOD has been an allowed theological opinion since the misinterpretation of the funeral oration of St. Ambrose. And Fr. Feeney never denied that it was an allowed theological opinion. That's not what he was "excommunicated" for. The problem is when Cushingites take that opinion and start giving percentages of Jєωs and Moslems who are saved, like Fulton Sheen did on a broadcast. Go hunt YouTube for it. It's there. That's what Fr. Feeney was fighting against in the 50's. What's absurd is to think all was hunky dory under Pius XII and Vatican 2 came out of nowhere. Do NO Catholics think there is salvation outside the church? How do they understand EENS? I give you Catholic Answers. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/no-salvation-outside-the-church
"Catholic" Answers:
Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings...
Yep, likely another moronic sedevacantist who claims that every time Pius XII passed wind, he was speaking irreformably and infallibly. I guess we'd have to expand Denzinger to 300 times its size and include every one of Pius XII's long-winded 2-hours rambling speeches (he like to hear himself talk as much as Wojtyla did).You're a heretical idiot and a bad willed fool. I certainly am not discussing this with you any further. I might with the others, but not you because you're foul mouthed bad willed moron and heretical schismatic. I can't believe you said above that you believe Pope Pius XII should be anathematized. That makes you a heretic and a schismatic. Shaking off the dust.
Pius XII was a scandal, both in his "doctrine", his toleration of Modernism, and even of his suspicious/scandalous fraternization with the "Popessa". If he isn't anathematized after the Church is restored, then the Church owes Honorius an apology.
He's directly responsible for Vatican II.
In any case, the teaching of the theologians is quite clear that these low-level quasi-Magisterial come nowhere near to meeting the notes of infallibility, but this bad-willed moron knows better "by his own lights".
It's also clear that he holds the exact same ecclesiology that he condemns as heretical in Vatican II, thereby condemning himself of heresy by his own mouth.
I can't believe you said above that you believe Pope Pius XII should be anathematized.Why not? He’s not a canonized saint. There’s no certainty that he saved his soul. And he said/allowed many, many progressive things. It’s not wrong to criticize a pope's papacy. He’s not an oracle or a Demi-god.
Yes, and this was pointed out pages ago in this thread as the real reason why the average sede or SSPX adherent will not look honestly at the facts of the Fr. Feeney case. The timeline and facts challenge their dogmatic view of the crisis in the Church. It's also why they end up bleeding souls off into the Eastern Orthodox sects once they see the evidence for how far back the corruption goes. (Not recommending that course, it will damn you).Brother, I understand and appreciate your zeal for the faith. There's no doubt EENS has been attacked in various ways both before and after Vatican II. Many simply did not believe it any longer for reasons that have nothing to do with bod and would outright deny the dogma. My suggestion to you is to preach EENS and work on converting non-Catholics without mentioning bod, not to create a schism over it. For me, the main issue is the Kingship of Christ. But EENS is also important and EENS in its traditional sense is absolutely true and must always be preached by the Church and by faithful Catholics. The problem you mentioned of souls lapsing into the Eastern Orthodox sects requires greater introspection. If you believe 150 years of Popes (going back to Pius IX) were gravely mistaken on bod, whats to stop them saying 1000 years of Popes were gravely mistaken on filioque? My main issue here is Church indefectibility. It's heretical to say the Magisterium of the Church can give or teach heresy to the faithful.
The fact remains that Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated over BOD. He didn't take a position on that until later, when he pointed out that BOD was what the Holy Office used to say that he was wrong for saying EENS. It's only some trads who insist it was over BOD because they can't wrap their minds around what actually happened.
Why not? He’s not a canonized saint. There’s no certainty that he saved his soul. And he said/allowed many, many progressive things. It’s not wrong to criticize a pope's papacy. He’s not an oracle or a Demi-god.What next? You're going to anathematize Pius IX as well for teaching invincible ignorance in his Magisterium? Pius X for teaching BOD in his Catechisms? At that point, you may as well declare that you've renounced the Roman Catholic faith and become an Old Catholic apostate and heretic yourself. Not you, but Ladislaus in particular.
What next? You're going to anathematize Pius IX as well for teaching invincible ignorance in his Magisterium? Pius X for teaching BOD in his Catechisms? At that point, you may as well declare that you've renounced the Roman Catholic faith and become an Old Catholic apostate and heretic yourself. Not you, but Ladislaus in particular.Neither of those Popes taught the things you claim.
Brother, I understand and appreciate your zeal for the faith. There's no doubt EENS has been attacked in various ways both before and after Vatican II. Many simply did not believe it any longer for reasons that have nothing to do with bod and would outright deny the dogma.Thank you. What people need to understand is that they had to kill EENS and make the Church unnecessary before V2 could happen. Cushing, Wight, and those involved in Fr. Feeney's case were no defenders of the Catholic Faith. They were destroyers and architects of the V2 religion. And Fr. Feeney, regardless of what one thinks about the position he took later on BOD, was the one who stood up and was nailed for it. Trads need to quit saying it was over BOD because it wasn't.
My suggestion to you is to preach EENS and work on converting non-Catholics without mentioning bod, not to create a schism over it.
The problem you mentioned of souls lapsing into the Eastern Orthodox sects requires greater introspection.It was an observation, but thanks for your concern. If you search this forum, you will find numerous posts from me on the untenability of the (un)orthodox. And they are outside the Church, where there is no salvation. But I have seen too many sedes who got themselves into hot water once they really started looking at the depth and timeline of the crisis and the magical 1958 number didn't work any more. Some of them used to post here and are no more.
If you believe 150 years of Popes (going back to Pius IX) were gravely mistaken on bod, whats to stop them saying 1000 years of Popes were gravely mistaken on filioque? My main issue here is Church indefectibility. It's heretical to say the Magisterium of the Church can give or teach heresy to the faithful.I don't believe Pius IX was gravely mistaken on BOD. Nor that the Magisterium can give heresy to the faithful. But we are afield again.
Quote What people need to understand is that they had to kill EENS
Quote I have not created a schism over it at any point in this thread. I defended the good reputations of individuals who were falsely maligned.
Quote It was an observation, but thanks for your concern.Its is a big problem, ihsv. I've seen it too. I know multiple trad or ex trad friends who lapsed into Orthodoxy. By God's grace, I was able to win some of them back, but not all. We can only pray for them after that. We should be careful about "pushing the crisis back too much" otherwise we will have no answer to give to those who want to push it back 100+ years (Old Catholics) or 1000 years (Orthodox) whom we both agree are outside the Church.
Quote I don't believe Pius IX was gravely mistaken on BOD. Nor that the Magisterium can give heresy to the faithfulGood to know.
And what about the rest of the world, you know, all those who choose to not know the Church to be the true Church?
"And when he is come, he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. 9 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=16&l=9-#x)Of sin: because they believed not in me... [John 16:9] (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=16&l=9#)
Christ Himself said that it is a sin to not believe in Him. No disclaimer. Christ and the Church are one and the same, therefore it is a sin not to know and believe in the Church - period.
There are other points taught in the Baltimore Catechism in need of correction and/or could do a better job explaining.
Fr. Wathen was mistaken. Also, Fr. Wathen does not take his errors to their logical conclusion. If Fr. Wathen is right, multiple Popes are heretics. It would then clearly follow the Magisterium defected and the Church became heretical.Quote"Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecclesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it." - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
Someone in say North Korea where Christians are persecuted and who does not even have access to the Gospel certainly isn't in sin because of the unfortunate accidents of his birth which he in no way chose. If you think was, you are a heartless wretch who in no way knows or loves the Heart of God. You should carefully reflect on your own soul. Love God, love souls, preach the Gospel, live the Faith, try to win souls to Christ, that's good. But to be willfully blind like the Pharisees were and some of you Feeneyites/wathenites seem to be is not good at all.Those who are invincibly ignorantly are damned not for the sin of infidelity but for their other sins.
Falsely imputing sin to others is itself a sin on your part. Pius IX says invincible ignorance is as dogmatically certain as EENS. That means someone who denies invincible ignorance is a heretic. Next, read Mat 18:17 after Jn 9:41. It is only those who willfuly refuse to hear the Church, as Christ Himself in this passage, and as Pope Pius XII confirms in his authoritative Magisterial explanation, who are deemed to be outside the Church and be lost. Since some of you deliberately refuse to hear the Church on this subject, take care that that does not apply to you. It does not apply to those who have never heard of the Church. To those who have rejected the Church, Mat 18, yes.
Pius IX on invincible ignorance and souls in good faith able to attain eternal life: "There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanto.htmDivine light and grace means the gospel, Catholic faith and baptism. It does not mean someone is saved outside the church without baptism or ignorant of the incarnation of Christ and the Blessed Holy Trinity.
If you reject this doctrine, Stubborn or Ladislaus or whoever, you are a neo-Calvinist heretic who does not believe in Catholic doctrine but in your own heretical and warped perversion of it. You do not know God's supreme kindness and clemency which Pius IX speaks of. And you are not willing to listen to your betters in the Church like Pope Pius IX who teach you about it. What did Christ say about that in Mat 18:17? He said whoever refuses to listen to the Church has rejected Him and is lost. Again, be careful not to be that person who lives and dies obstinately refusing the Church. I pray for your souls to be cured of the wilful spiritual blindness some of you are in, wanting to declare Pius IX, Pius X and Pius XII all to be heretics for bod and invincible ignorance when they are some of the best Popes in history. If you start anathematizing Pius XII, like the schismatic Ladislaus wants, you'll deny Pope St. Pius X's canonization next. Pope St. Pius X is of course a saint but he was both beatified and ultimately canonized by Pope Pius XII. If you anathematize one, you can anathematize the other. You are thus on the path of becoming Old Catholics and or Orthodox schismatics. Turn back before it is too late to save your soul, but it is not up to me to help save you. You must will it.
Negative. It is the false, self-misleading/reading/misunderstanding of what popes have all taught that leads you to that "logical conclusion." It's called the "Thrice Defined Dogma" because it was defined ex cathedra 3 times. Look it up.
Fr. Wathen was mistaken. Also, Fr. Wathen does not take his errors to their logical conclusion. If Fr. Wathen is right, multiple Popes are heretics. It would then clearly follow the Magisterium defected and the Church became heretical.
Secondly, your private interpretation of Scripture is wrong. Read John 9:41: "Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth." So the Savior says those who are genuinely blind (like the invincibly ignorant) do not have sin. It is therefore a sin on your part to impute sin to them. Someone in say North Korea where Christians are persecuted and who does not even have access to the Gospel certainly isn't in sin because of the unfortunate accidents of his birth which he in no way chose. If you think was, you are a heartless wretch who in no way knows or loves the Heart of God. You should carefully reflect on your own soul. Love God, love souls, preach the Gospel, live the Faith, try to win souls to Christ, that's good. But to be willfully blind like the Pharisees were and some of you Feeneyites/wathenites seem to be is not good at all.I recommend you read the Haydock commentary (https://web.archive.org/web/20180208140518/http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id102.html) on the John 9:41 Scripture.
Not yet, no. Thinking every one of the 8 billion people on Earth has access to the net is mistaken.You are on the wrong track here, you have to remember that only 12 men (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/the-triumph-of-the-church/) and their disciples got the word out to the whole world, to "every creature" (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=16&l=15#x), the internet is merely one method and insignificant in the scheme of things.
Some things Fr. Wathen says are good. On others, however, he was mistaken.It's like Fr. said: "If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it."
Care to address this point: "90% of people in the 10/40 Window are unevangelized (https://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/heathen.htm). Many have never heard the Gospel message even once." Do you know what is 90% of 4.4 billion. It is nearly 4 billion people.
"Two-thirds of the world's population -- more than 4.4 billion people -- live in the 10/40 Window. "Of the 55 least evangelized countries, 97% of their population lives within the 10/40 Window"
Yes, God can bring the Gospel or the faith or the sacraments to anyone He chooses in any way He pleases. I 100% affirm that and that's entirely up to His holy will. He generally works through ordinary means however.
You are on the wrong track here, you have to remember that only 12 men (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/the-triumph-of-the-church/) and their disciples got the word out to the whole world, to "every creature" (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=16&l=15#x), the internet is merely one method and insignificant in the scheme of things.The best part is that there was a Saint who died without baptism and they were turned back from entering heaven and brought back to life and were baptised
Read below:
"The only reason that God does not succeed in getting others into the Church must be found in the reluctant will of those who do not enter it. If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children. Nothing prevents His using the skies for his billboard, and the clouds for lettering, or the rolling thunder for the proclamation of His word. (Indeed, for believers, He does just this: "The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands." {Ps. 18:1}.But for atheists the heavens have no message at all.)
If poverty were the reason some do not believe, he could load them down with diamonds; if youth were the reason, He could make sure they grew to a hoary old age. If it were merely the want of information, He could put a library on their doorstep, or a dozen missionaries in their front room. Were it for a want of brains, he could give every man an I.Q. of three hundred: it would cost Him nothing. The idea that someone died before he was able to receive Baptism, suggests that God was unable to control events, so as to give the person time to enter the Church. If time made any difference, God could and would keep any person on earth a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years." - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
Thanks for the pleasant conversation.You would be surprised. But also, let's not read into what Pius XII said, something that isn't there. He doesn't say that ignorance is salvific. You'd also be surprised at how many trads believe this, in the face of dogmatic definitions. One needs to be very careful and precise in this area. Because the Church is.
The solution to those who want to kill EENS is to preach EENS more strongly than ever before. Do you have an objection to how Pope Pius XII preached EENS: "Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth."
Preach this Truth to your non-Catholic friends, whether Protestants, Orthodox or Atheist, especially ex-Trads. You will do well, and will be well. I am not aware of any traditional Catholic who would attack you for preaching the above.
Fr. Feeney should have gone to Rome and made his case. It would have been the ideal opportunity to preach the Gospel and present the faith to the widest possible audience in Rome. This is the reason given by Fr. Pagliarani as to why the SSPX leaped at the opportunity to present the faith in Rome. I read the letter from Rome to Fr. Feeney. They agreed to pay for his expenses in everything. They gave him every opportunity to come to Rome and do the right thing. Yet, I have nothing personal against Fr. Feeney. He seemed to be a good Priest with perhaps some errors.
Mark, another consideration is that God does not (as Scripture infallibly tells us) cast pearls before swine. Which means that He will not waste preaching of the Faith to those of the 4billion who will not, at least try, to follow the 10 commandments. Those pagans who are hardened in sin have no use for religion. It’s a waste. And that’s a lot of people today.You can't judge someone you haven't met and do not know. Leave all such judgments to God. Now when you are in contact with them, even if only online, then by definition they are no longer inculpably ignorant and you can tell them their obligation is to accept Christ as Savior and Baptism as soon as possible. But there are many such whom you don't know and who do not know a Christian and yet may sincerely be serving God as best they can and know to.
Also, let’s not forget all the Protestant “missionaries” who are going to Africa, India, Asia to preach the gospel. They may not be preaching Catholicism but they are preaching the basics. And their baptisms are valid. In many cases, these Protestants are doing Gods work because He knows how small Trad land is. We can’t do it. So He sends others.
There are more parallels here, however, that you may be unaware of. Like the SSPX, some of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart did jump at the chance to make their case heard in Rome and become regularized, without giving up the doctrine of EENS. Think of them as the Fraternity version of the Slaves. Others in the order disagreed with what they saw as useless compromising with modernists. It's very similar to the SSPX/SSPV/FSSP/Resistance divisions amongst the followers of Abp Lefebvre, but they just had these disagreements a little earlier than everyone else did.
We do not do theology based on emotional reasoning. We know what God has revealed and we know that God is all merciful. Even today, I myself could have been born among animists. Only God knows why I was born to Catholic parents. God knows the whys for each and every soul, and it doesn't matter if it's just one (me being born among animists) or billions. God has His reasons. But we don't do violence to EENS dogma because we implicitly judge God as being somehow "unfair" for not letting everyone who's ever lived be born to Catholic parents. Perhaps they would have rejected the faith and earned an even greater punishment in eternity. Only He knows. We only know that He taught that no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he be born again of water and the Holy Ghost.If you deny 1 Tim 2:4 that God wills all men to be saved, you are a Calvinist heretic, and not a Catholic. God loves all men, died for all, and wishes to save all. Limited atonement is heretical as is the false Calvinist heretical and warped view of predestination that follows from it. Predestination itself is a Catholic dogma, but only in its traditional Catholic sense, not in the heretical and perverted sense of the Calvinist heretics. And some of you are Calvinist, neo-Calvinist or semi-Calvinist heretics in denying that God loves all men, wants all to be saved, and died to save all men, not a few.
If you deny 1 Tim 2:4 that God wills all men to be saved, you are a Calvinist heretic ...
If you deny 1 Tim 2:4 that God wills all men to be saved, you are a Calvinist heretic, and not a Catholic. God loves all men, died for all, and wishes to save all. Limited atonement is heretical as is the false Calvinist heretical and warped view of predestination that follows from it. Predestination itself is a Catholic dogma, but only in its traditional Catholic sense, not in the heretical and perverted sense of the Calvinist heretics. And some of you are Calvinist, neo-Calvinist or semi-Calvinist heretics in denying that God loves all men, wants all to be saved, and died to save all men, not a few.
Your heretical soteriology is implicitly Calvinist, Ladislaus.
When I converted around 15 years ago and was learning about the faith, I was told about baptism of desire. It may even have been from a conference of Mgr Lefebvre. I believed this for a long while and the consequence was, that I was quite reluctant to talk about the Church to others because I feared that if they knew too much and rejected it, it would be worse for them than had they never known.It is good and holy to evangelize, but what you have said is in no way an implication of baptism of desire, even implicit. An implicit desire is defined as a desire that becomes explicit once the necessity of entering the Church is sufficiently known. It's like when you have an implicit desire to confess all your sins, but don't confess explicitly one mortal sin you did not recall. Once you know, you confess that sin. So also, only those who explicitly desire to enter the Church once that necessity is known had implicit desire. Catholics don't need to worry about anyone's internal forum but simply preach the gospel to all in our power. Once you have done that, pray for others and leave it to God.
It was only when I discovered the whole truth about Father Feeney, that I realised how wrong I had been. The concept of BOD, in my mind, is a satanic device to hold back any desire of evangelising. The plan fact is that someone is almost certainly damned when they die are outside of the Church, whether they knew about it or not, and even if they were perfectly nice.
Garbage. You ignored the question about the child who dies unbaptized, such as an aborted child, or any child who dies before reaching the age of reason ... because it flies in the face of your Prot-like misinterpretation of 1 Timothy.
It was only when I discovered the whole truth about Father Feeney, that I realised how wrong I had been. The concept of BOD, in my mind, is a satanic device to hold back any desire of evangelising. The plan fact is that someone is almost certainly damned when they die are outside of the Church, whether they knew about it or not, and even if they were perfectly nice.
Here you have Anti-Modernist Pope St. Pius X the great teach us about baptism of desire.
The best part is that there was a Saint who died without baptism and they were turned back from entering heaven and brought back to life and were baptised.I always loved the story from our own day, that of John Wayne (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19790613&id=tT9PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rAIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6975,3391742&hl=en) being baptized and receiving the traditional Last Rites on his death bed! THIS is the Divine Providence loud and clear! All for the greater Glory of God! We can be pretty dog gone certain he is spending his eternity in heaven and we glorify God for it!
Suprema Haec is not heretical, you Feeneyite nutjob. Msgr. Fenton praised it up and down as a brilliant expression of the authoritative Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. I am done with trying to talk sense into your obstinate head. You are a deluded schismatic in extremely blind self-deception. I suggest you repent and return to the Church.It's really amazing how you have ignored everything in this thread that goes against your brainwashing. The only one here at risk of schism is you, due to you inconsistency in your beliefs, the same beliefs which are compatible with vatican 2, which you seemingly reject.
You are yet to publicly apologize and publicly recant your publicly schismatic and heretical statement that Pope Pius XII should be anathematized. This places you outside the Catholic Church as a self-condemned heretical schismatic.
Here is Archbishop Lefebvre: "We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-10.htm
Suprema Haec is not heretical, you Feeneyite nutjob. Msgr. Fenton praised it up and down as a brilliant expression of the authoritative Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. I am done with trying to talk sense into your obstinate head. You are a deluded schismatic in extremely blind self-deception. I suggest you repent and return to the Church.
You are yet to publicly apologize and publicly recant your publicly schismatic and heretical statement that Pope Pius XII should be anathematized. This places you outside the Catholic Church as a self-condemned heretical schismatic.
Here is Archbishop Lefebvre: "We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-10.htm
Yes, Quo. https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/feeney-the-nut-job/150/ Post 150 here:
"Pius XII was a scandal, both in his "doctrine", his toleration of Modernism, and even of his suspicious/scandalous fraternization with the "Popessa". If he isn't anathematized after the Church is restored, then the Church owes Honorius an apology.
He's directly responsible for Vatican II."
Ladislaus can't stomach the fact that his heretical doctrine has been directly condemned by the Church as very harmful to those both inside and outside the Church. Ladislaus is a false teacher leading souls straight to hell.
"From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076 The Holy Office declarations means the Feeneyite doctrine is dangerous both to Catholics and non Catholics. To Catholics because it falsely causes arrogance, pride and bitter zeal as we see in the Dimonds and in Ladislaus, and as Archbishop Lefebvre for e.g. did not have, and to non-Catholics because it discourages prospective converts by terrorizing them and preaching a heretical false Calvinist god who supposedly predestines many billions of people to hell for no fault of their own. Such opinions have been condemned by multiple Popes of the Church.
As for rejecting Pope Pius XII, what these foolish people are doing is selecting things that THEY believe don’t line up to THEIR perception of what the Church teaches. They put their opinions above and set themselves as more knowledgeable than any pope, saint, or theologian. Obviously, this is extremely dangerous.
But a BOD has no Divine Providence - the fact is, a BOD is not possible WITH Divine Providence. The only way it can possibly hope to work, is WITHOUT Divine Providence.
Ah, OK, and most SVs don't reject the Pius XII Holy Week Rites as infected with Modernism? Hypocrisy again.
AND, the ultimate hypocrisy being that EVERYBODY is acting upon "their perception of what the Church teaches" during this Crisis. EVERYBODY. You included. When Vatican II happened, the men who were otherwise universally accepted as Popes, and all the world's bishops, and all the world's theologians accepted Vatican II as Catholic. Even +Lefebvre, while raising a fuss about a few points, ended up signing all the docuмents. There were more bishops who broke with the Church after Vatican I than who broke with the teachings of Vatican II. And nearly a universality of theologians (with then-Fr. Guerard des Lauriers being a sole excpetion that I know of) also endorsed Vatican II and the New Mass as perfectly consistent with Catholicism. No Pope or Church has yet condemned Vatican II and its teachings. So EVERY SINGLE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC is operating under their own lights and their perception, yourself included.
So if you were consistent about your exaggerated (and non-Catholic, rejected by an actual theologian, Msgr. Fenton) Cekadist viewpoint, then you'd be condemned yourself, since you're flying in the face of every bishop and every theologian at the time of Vatican II. But, of course, these same bishops and theologians were all perfectly orthodox 10 years earlier in opposing (or at least failing to defend) Father Feeny and Catholic EENS dogma.
You guys are just mired in one contradiction after another ... a clear sign of bad will.
In promoting the errors of "Suprema Haec", you're actually accepting and promoting the very same ecclesiology that, out of the other side of your mouth, you condemn as heretical in Vatican II.
It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
No sedevacantist that I know of rejects the post 1955 Holy Week changes without appealing to epikeia.
Whether it’s dogmatic or not, it’s still considered a teaching of the ChurchA teaching of the Church is dogma. A teaching cannot be non-dogma. They are one and the same. There is no such thing as a non-dogmatic teaching of the Church.
As for Pope Honorius, Saint Robert Bellarmine answered those objections in his study on the Roman Pontiff.
You can "appeal" to whatever you want, but the CMRI refutes that position ... and rightly so. See, why do you feel the need to reject the 1955 Holy Week Rites in the first place? While they try to use "epikeia" as an excuse, the undercurrent is that there's something wrong and/or harmful about those Rites. If there weren't, why not just keep them, since the entire Catholic world used them for several years even before the V2 era.
A teaching of the Church is dogma. A teaching cannot be non-dogma. They are one and the same. There is no such thing as a non-dogmatic teaching of the Church.
Nice try, but you dodged the actual point. Honorius erred gravely, and in the Church's judgment (III Constantinople and ratified by Pope Leo II) was deserving of anathema ... for a slipup, on account of his thereby failing to condemn heresy and allowing it to spread, and his error paled in comparison to those of Pius XII.
If BOD were a doctrine, then a saint who raised someone to life to baptize them would be a heretic, because such an act would would deny BOD, no?
. Yes, there is a “liberal” (possibly heretical) interpretation of BOD, but it is the unanimous opinion (post Trent) that BOD, properly interpreted, is true. Some theologians, like Saint Alphonsus, even consider it dogmatic. . Whether it’s dogmatic or not, it’s still considered a teaching of the Church and the penalty for disbelief is minimally and objectively a mortal sin:facepalm: what you are saying is contradictory.
:facepalm: what you are saying is contradictory.
>Unanimous opinion
Not so, otherwise St Peter Canisius would have taught BoD
>Properly interpreted, is true
We do not interpret Church teaching but read as it, only the Church is allowed to say how something is interpreted. Trent's decree on justification immediately follows with our Lord's words "unless a man is born again of water and spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven". The BoD interpretation is 1, an interpretation, 2 not defined by the Church, and 3, illogical and contradictory
>Some theologians consider it dogmatic
Theologians are not the authority that makes that decision
>Whether it’s dogmatic or not, it’s still considered a teaching of the Church and the penalty for disbelief is minimally and objectively a mortal sin
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
No contradiction at all.What your saying is wrong, it's as ladislaus puts it,. Cekadaism. It's not a doctrine. What's a doctrine is the unanimous interpretation of scripture according to the fathers of the Church.
It is true that the theologians aren’t properly the Teaching Church, but the Church tacitly approves their teachings until (and if) they get out of line. When they unanimously conclude that some article is under the title of “Catholic Teaching” or “Catholic Doctrine” the effect of denial is mortal sin indirectly against faith. Unfortunately for you, BOD denial falls into this category.
(https://i.imgur.com/ChxebGL.jpeg)
Saint Peter Canisius was incorrectly taken out of context to support the anti BOD argument. I posted a refutation a year ago:
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/bod-and-justification/msg904171/#msg904171
What your saying is wrong, it's as ladislaus puts it,. Cekadaism. It's not a doctrine. What's a doctrine is the unanimous interpretation of scripture according to the fathers of the Church.
St Peter was not taken out of context, he directly refers go the Canon that satan have twisted into BoD and he never mentions BoD, instead he makes it very clear that baptism is required for all.
Saint Alphonsus and Robert were wrong here on Trent.
Keep thinking that you know more about theology than Saint Alphonsus and Saint Robert and I can guarantee you that you will be headed into perdition. The Church gave us these great people to follow, not Ladislaus and not you. Catch yourself now before it’s too late, son.Agreed, Quo. Why would the Church even canonize St. Alphonsus and St. Robert, let alone declare them doctors of the church, if they allegedly failed in basic reading comprehension and supposedly could not even understand Trent did not teach baptism of desire? Feeneyism is total nonsense, makes no sense and attempts to make a mockery of the Church. But it only ends up making a mockery of itself, and proving itself to be the non-Catholic trash it indeed is.
As often happens, bad will and resistance to the truth leads to stupidity. St. Thomas taught that the intellect naturally tends to truth ... except when obstructed by bad will.
You are both at once ignorant of Church history and struggle with reading comprehension, and this is compounded by what can rightly be called a popolatry.
Honorius was anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople, an anathema that was confirmed and ratified by Pope Leo II, who then added the explanation that it wasn't for pertinacious adherence to heresy himself but for neglect, a failure to condemn, allowing heresy to flourish and thus to be used as a tool of Satan for the spread of heresy. Honorius' failure was trivial compared to the failures of Pius XII, his failure to condemn Modernism, giving it countenance in many areas, and appointing one Modernist heretic after another to episcopal Sees. Honorius was anathematized 40 years after his death. Whether or not the same fate befalls Pius XII, if you were possessed of any reading comprehension, you'd see that I said that if Pius XII isn't anathematized then it owes an apology for Honoroius, which expression means that the Church saw fit to anathematize Honorius for MUCH less that Pius XII did. It's similar to the expression that "if God doesn't destroy the United States [or Tel Aviv], then He owes an aplogy to Sodom and Gomorrha". It's a rhetorical expression that evidently you are too dense and blinded by your exaggeration of papal infallability and impeccability to properly comprehend.
In any case, take a look again at the Cadaver synod as well, where Formosus was disinterred, condemned, thrown into the Tiber, the proceedings having been presided over and approved by another Pope, Stephen VI. But then Formosus' body somehow floated shore, and so a popular uprising removed and imprisoned that Pope. Then two subsequent Popes annulled the cadavers synod, reinterred Formosus, annd condemned Stephen VI. But then ANOTHER Pope came along, one who had voted to condemn Formosus at the original synod, and reaffirmed the condemnation of Formosus, having inscribed words of praise on the tomb of Stephen VI.
So, it's the example of Honorius that Cardinal Franzelin uses as a caution to avoid exaggerating the scope of papal infallibility.
Unfortunately, in reacting against R&R, who have effectively gutted the Church's indefectibility by reducing the protection of the Holy Ghost over the Church and the Papay to the one-or-twice-per-century solemn dogmatic definition, the SVs have exaggerated the scope of papal infallibility to the point of absurdity, and to an extent that NO THEOLOGIAN between Vatican I and Vatican II ever taught. Many popes made errors, even in the docuмents they promulugated as Pope (vs. private theologian). There was much debate about whether Honorius' letter to Sergius was meant as an ex cathedra pronouncement. Another famous case had Innocent II proclaming, in a Magisterial docuмent, that the Mass was valid even if a priest merely thought the words of consecration. St. Thomas took him to task for that error.
Finally, the SVs engage in confirmation-bias-driven appeal to authority, where they puff up the authority of docuмents they like (that promote things they agree with) but then simply ignore the ones they don't like. So, for instance, a teaching of the Holy Office clearly taught that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary by a necessity of means for salvation, but that doesn't stop most SVs (ignoring that ruling) from continuing to claim that infidels who believed merely in the "Rewarder God" can be saved.
Apart from the CMRI, the rest of SVs reject the Holy Week Rites promulgated by Pope Pius XII because they were defective, tainted with Modernism, etc. ... despite from the other side of their mouths preaching that Popes are infallible in doctrine and discipline pretty much every time they pass wind.
This self-serving confirmation-bias-based filtering leads to self-contradiction and inconsistency, aka hypocrisy.
If Ladislaus were a real faithful Roman Catholic, he would say something like, "The Church has spoken. I am, or want to be, a faithful son of the Church. I retract my own erroneous opinions, owing to my ignorance, and I submit to the judgment of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I want to pass from this life."
In the typical R&R understatement, 99% of the Magisterium could turn to garbage and lead souls to Hell, and that's OK as long as those handful of solemn definitions are protected. There's a balance to be had between these two opposites, and Msgr. Fenton deal with it brilliantly.Your idea of R&R is altogether wrong. R&R know with certainty that the Church's Magisterium is always infallible (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg867612/#msg867612), can never "turn to garbage and lead souls to hell." Deo Gratias for the Church's Magisterium! That you think that R&R think that such a thing is possible can very likely be attributed to Fr. Fenton.
Your idea of R&R is altogether wrong. R&R know with certainty that the Church's Magisterium is always infallible (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg867612/#msg867612), can never "turn to garbage and lead souls to hell." Deo Gratias for the Church's Magisterium! That you think that R&R think that such a thing is possible can very likely be attributed to Fr. Fenton.
I think part of the problem is that the term magisterium has been understood in two differnt ways. Magisterium just referrs to the authority to teach. Anytime a bishop with jurisdiction teaches, he is exercising his teaching authority, but when a pope or council teaches in a definitive way, they are not only doing so authoritatively; they are, at the same time, binding the faithful to assent to that teaching.Yes. And the term 'magisterium' had to be expanded, so that V2 could be forced down catholic's throats through "obedience". V2 is the definition of the modernist-magisterium: authoritative but not doctrinal. It's a total oxymoron. The Modernists got their cake and ate it too.
Prior to Vatican I, and even after Vatican I, the theologians only considered the pope to be teaching as pope when he taught definitively (ex cathedra). In all other cases - even when he was responding to a dubia in the exercise of his office, or promulgating a docuмent for the universal Church, his non-definitive teachings were considered to be from the pope "as a private doctor." It is strange, because they agreed that such teachings were authoritative, yet they nevertheless referred to them as comining from the Pope only in his capacity of a private doctor. They also distinguished two ways that a pope could teach as a private person: on was writing a private book, and the other was teaching the Church non-definitively.
The point being, in the second way the term magisterium is used (definitive, ex cathedra teachings) it is true to say everything from the magisterium is infallible. But not if the term is used to refer to any authoritative, but non-definitive, teaching.
There are some very real limits to papal infallibility, and yet the protection of the Holy Ghost over the Church is not limited to the once-or-twice-per-century solemn dogmatic definition.Ok, but what does the "protection of the Holy Ghost" mean, in relation to the Magisterium? Such a phrase is too general to be useful.
I think part of the problem is that the term magisterium has been understood in two differnt ways. Magisterium just referrs to the authority to teach. Anytime a bishop with jurisdiction teaches, he is exercising his teaching authority, but when a pope or council teaches in a definitive way, they are not only doing so authoritatively; they are, at the same time, binding the faithful to assent to that teaching.Simply, "The Magisterium" is nothing other than the Church teaching us, that is what the Church does. The Church is the authority. This is what the papal (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg867612/#msg867612) quotes (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg867612/#msg867612) are testifying to and this is what the popes say. The reason why the Magisterium is always infallible is because; "the Church is a sharer in the Divine Magisterium, and by His Divine benefit is unable to be mistaken." - PPXI Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929
Prior to Vatican I, and even after Vatican I, the theologians only considered the pope to be teaching as pope when he taught definitively (ex cathedra). In all other cases - even when he was responding to a dubia in the exercise of his office, or promulgating a docuмent for the universal Church, his non-definitive teachings were considered to be from the pope "as a private doctor." It is strange, because they agreed that such teachings were authoritative, yet they nevertheless referred to them as comining from the Pope only in his capacity of a private doctor. They also distinguished two ways that a pope could teach as a private person: on was writing a private book, and the other was teaching the Church non-definitively.
The point being, in the second way the term magisterium is used (definitive, ex cathedra teachings) it is true to say everything from the magisterium is infallible. But not if the term is used to refer to any authoritative, but non-definitive, teaching.
One of the many errors of Bishop Sanborn is equating authoritative teachings with infallible teachings. No, infallibility and authority are distinct. Another error is imagining that a person must have the intention of promoting the common good to have authority, even if he legally holds an office to which jurisdiction is attached. That has to be the most absurd novelty I have ever heard, yet he has adhered to it for decades.
But the Church teaches through men; the authority of the Church is exercisd through the Pope and bishops. But authority can be exercised at different levels. When a pope teaches non-definitively, it is still authoritative, even if it is not infallible. The same goes for the other bishops when they teach their diocese.Yes, the true teachings of the Church come to us through men, i.e. popes, bishops, priests, saints etc., and we know they are infallible teachings of the Magisterium because these teachings have been taught by the Church always and everywhere since the time of the Apostles, this is the Church's Universal Magisterium and are all de fide. And yes, on rare occasions the pope will declare one of the de fide doctrines ex cathedra, at which point we call that doctrine "a dogma."
That being said (and here is where I think we agree), a teaching is only considered to be an actual teaching of the Church - of the faith - if it is proposed as de fide; and only teachings that are proposed definitively (infallibly) are de fide.
So, all the teachings of "the Church" (all de fide teachings) are infallible. The teachings of the pope and/or bishops, on the other hand, are not - even if the teachings in question are taught authoritatively.
One of the many errors of Bishop Sanborn is equating authoritative teachings with infallible teachings. No, infallibility and authority are distinct. Another error is imagining that a person must have the intention of promoting the common good to have authority, even if he legally holds an office to which jurisdiction is attached. That has to be the most absurd novelty I have ever heard, yet he has adhered to it for decades.Yes, we agree completely here. One thing V2 has done is create a constant confusion between our primary obligation which is to adhere to truth even with our life if need be, and our secondary obligation to obey authority.
If I were to become entirely convinced baptism of desire is actually heretical, I would have no other choice but to declare Pope Pius XII to be a heretic who ipso facto lost his office (or never had it) without need for any further declaration. Even Br. Dimond says that if Pope Pius XII had personally signed the Holy Office letter, he would be a heretic. Therefore, the only two possibilities are (1) Pope Pius XII is a heretic (2) baptism of desire is not heretical. Tertium non datur (there is no third option). Pius XII's holy office clearly said in the letter quoted earlier that denying bod is "very harmful both to those within the Church and those without". Also, Pius XII taught the same doctrine as the holy office letter in other places. For e.g. he said: "In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of Baptism". So do any other sedevacantists want to go that far, that Pius XII was also a heretic just like John XXIII and Paul VI were?And Abp. Lefebvre never went to Rome, what are you talking about? Bp. Williamson told us many times at seminary that Abp. Lefebvre never had permission to consecrate four bishops, and it was made abundantly clear to the Abp. that he had permission from Rome to consecrate "one" bishop. No one blames Lefebvre for consecrating four bishops. One might make the argument that he should have consecrated 8 or 10. All theologians must know that "disobedience" is mandated when salvation is at stake.
Again, Fr. Feeney should have gone to Rome. Archbishop Lefebvre went when Rome summoned him. Even Our Lord Jesus Christ went before Pontius Pilate to testify to His Gospel. If Fr. Feeney was genuinely convinced, as some of his followers here believe, that Pope Pius XII would have supported him, and that it wasn't the Pope, but only Archbishop Cushing, and also at least Cardinals Selvagianni and Ottaviani (who signed the letter) who were teaching BOD, he would have gone to Rome and clarified the matter. In fact, this would have been an exceptional opportunity to present the Gospel and the Catholic faith before the Roman authorities. This is the reason Fr. Pagliariani also gave recently for discussion with the Roman authorities. Even if Rome were not 100% convinced by the Society's theological arguments, it was an excellent opportunity to present the Gospel (i.e. the orthodox Catholic faith in its fullness) to the Roman authorities.
So I think Fr. Feeney missed a golden opportunity. Next, here is Fr. Fenton explain that Suprema Haec Sacra is indeed authoritative Magisterium, ordinary Magisterium about which Pope Pius XII says, "these things are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, about which it is true to say, "he who hears you, hears Me". Thus, again, if Pius XII was a Pope, it is Christ Himself whom we hear to teach us bod. Thus if bod is heretical, it clearly follows that Pius XII was every bit a heretic as Paul VI and John XXIII and therefore either never pope or ipso facto losing office for bod.
Fr. Fenton: "One of the few good results that followed from the unfortunate debates centering around Father Feeney's group at St. Benedict's Center was the issuance of the Holy Office instruction Suprema haec sacra, dated Aug. 8, 1949, and published officially with its authorized English translation in the Oct., 1952, issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review. This docuмent made it very clear to the men of our own time that the Church had by no means abandoned or modified the age old dogma to the effect that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact this Holy Office letter put the magisterium itself on record as asserting what had been, since the latter part of the sixteenth century, the teaching of the best theologians of the Church: the doctrine that the Catholic Church itself is definitely and actually necessary for the attainment of eternal salvation with the necessity of precept and with the necessity of means." https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2013/10/questions-about-membership-in-church.html The Church of course still teaches EENS. She just rejects the Feeneyite interpretation of it. Either that, or if the Feeneyite interpretation is correct, the Church defected at this time by teaching heresy. That's if Pius XII is a legitimate Pope.
No question about it, and it can be very frustrating. I remember arguing with an SV via email and text for a several months over infallibility. He was convinced that anything that was taught authoritatively was necessarily infallible. The debate finally ended when I sent him the definition of papal infallibility, which explicitly states - three times - that the Pope (and Church) are only infallible when they teach definitively. Turns out he had never even read that definition! But instead of admitting defeat, he just stopped replying.
No question about it, and it can be very frustrating. I remember arguing with an SV via email and text for a several months over infallibility. He was convinced that anything that was taught authoritatively was necessarily infallible. The debate finally ended when I sent him the definition of papal infallibility, which explicitly states - three times - that the Pope (and Church) are only infallible when they teach definitively. Turns out he had never even read that definition! But instead of admitting defeat, he just stopped replying.Are canonisations infallible?
Yes, that's rare, but councils also teach infallibly when they teach definitively. For example the dogmatic canons that end with an "anathema sit" are infallible. That happens more often than a pope defining a dogma on his own.In the case of the canons, they are infallible because the canons deal with morals.
Dogmatic canons are also infallible. Infallibility extends to faith and morals.Right, doctrines defined ex cathedra are infallible, as are canons condemning with anathema the act of saying something contrary to the faith. V2 did neither, what V2 did was teach new doctrines that were sprinkled among true doctrines. New doctrine = heresy.
Yes absolutely.
Personally, I don't believe they are infallible for one specific reason. If you want to hear it, let me know.
As typical of your water-logged brain (caused by your bad will), you're once again conflating one issues.
In terms of whether Honorius erred, which wasn't my primary point, it's disputed. Some say he erred, but wasn't trying to define anything (therefore did not meet the notes of infallibility) ... that's in fact the majority opinion, as laid out by Cardinal Franzelin. But I guess Honorius did nothing wrong, right, so the Third Council of Constantinople anathematized him for no reason, just because somehow they misunderstood what Honorius was really trying to say, and Pope Leo II erred in confirming the Council and its sentence against Honorius.
You make a mockery of the Church and the Papacy by constantly promoting the notion that a Pope is infallible every time he passes wind ... which, I repeat, NOT A SINGLE CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN between Vatican I (when the dogma was defined) and Vatican II every held. This is precisely the notion that the Fathers at Vatican I wanted to avoid by laying down the notes of an infallible definition.
There are other examples of papal error throughout history.
Of course, you all contradict yourselves by claiming that a Pope can never err in any context, whether in a long-winded 2-hour speech to a group of midwives or whether in any decision of the Holy Office ... except that you all hypocritically ignore the various decision of the Holy Office that you don't like. I know of no SV who agrees with the Holy Office (and Bellarmine) that you're committing error proximate to heresy in denying geocentrism. And I know of no SV who does not hold "Rewarder God" soteriology, despite its having been condemned by the Holy Office. Finally, the majority of SVs (only CMRI are consistent on this point), refuse to use the Pius XII Holy Week Rites because they're contaminated by Modernism (despite claiming out of the other side of their mouth that Liturgy that's defective in any way is not possible). You can throw the term "epikeia" out there all you want, which is their legalistic attempt to justify their actions (well, since Pius XII is dead, we no longer have to follow his directives) ... the fact of the matter is that they MUST hold there's something WRONG (wrong enough) with the 1955 Holy Week Rites for them to have to invoke "epikeia" in the first place ... since why would you bother if the Rites are perfectly good. That's one of the many elephants in the room for the hypocritical self-serving self-contradictory bad willed SVs such as yourself.
Secondly, the main point about Honorius was that you accused me of heresy for making the statement that "Since the Church anathematized Honorius, they would owe him an apology if they don't do the same for Pius XII." Evidently Popes are capable of being so negligent and derelict in defending the faith as to be worthy of anathema, and again, due to your lack of reading comprehension, you fail to realize that this statement just means that what Honorius did PALES in comparison to what Pius XII did in terms of allowing a shipwreck of the faith.
What's most absurd is that you're actually backing this up by minimizing the error of Honorius, since the more you minimize it, the less reason there was for the Church to have anathematized him, strengthening my point even more, that if he was anathematized evidently for "so little", then Pius XII clearly did far worse.
Your brains are mired in a swamp of self-serving self-contradictions because you have overreacted to the errors of R&R by exaggerating the scope of papal infallibility to the point of absurdity.
What is certain is the fact that YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN’T READ Saint Robert Bellarmine’s argument!
I posted a text from a Doctor of the Church that answered your accusation and you completely ignored it.
No, the only thing certain is that you don't even understand my "accusation", since St. Robert's opinion on the matter has nothing to do with the main point.
The problem I have is this: how can the Church know that a person is in heaven? Public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostles, and the Church has never taught that the Pope receives a private revelation confirming that they are in heaven. If the Church can't know the person is in heaven, how can she infallibly declare it?
Miracles can serve as a divine testimony that the person is in heaven, but the Church is not infallible in judging if a miracle is legit or not. Therefore, the indirect way of knowing if the person is in heaven (by miracles) is itself not infallible.
In my opinion, that is a serious problem for the infallibility of canonizations and I have never heard a satisfactory answer to it.[/quote]
But anyone who holds that the united body of bishops who are in charge of the episcopal and apostolic sees, which is numerically one morally body with the bishops that were in charge of those same sees during the Pontificate of Pius XII, has defected from the faith, has expicitly denied the indefectibiity of the Church, since Christ's promise - "I will be with you all days," etc. - applies to that moral body, which is one and he same juridical person as the Apostolic college, which was established by Christ, and to which he made that promise.If it applied to "that moral body" then you have a valid point, the problem here I will address below.
Since all SV's maintain that that body defected, all SV's explicitly deny the indefectibility of the Church.
But the Conciliar Church is the Church governed by the united body of bishops who form numerically one moral body with the bishops before, during and after Vatican II. If that is a substantially different Church, it follows that Christ failed to keep his promise and the indefectible Church defected. We know by faith that that is not possible.
Two quetions:1) Who knows? I would guess that at some point during the council was the beginning of the defection for some, for others it occurred much earlier and for some a bit later. But it did happen, all anyone has to do is look at what they've done to the Church since V2.
1) When did the moral body defect? What is the date?
2) If I can prove that it is de fide that the moral body cannot defect, will you change you position, or will you insead reject a de fide teaching of the Church?
These are some questions I have about BOD.If you read some of the things written in various catechisms etc., a BOD happens to everyone not baptized, even if they never heard of the existence of the sacrament of baptism. It's crazy.
1. Can someone with zero knowledge of Jesus Christ obtain a BOD?
2. Can someone with animosity towards Jesus Christ say a Jew or Muslim obtain a BOD?
3. Where does the contrition come from? Is it formed internally? Is it actual graces?
4. Does the person getting the BOD have to have a firm purpose of amendment to not to repeat their sins or is this only an end of life situation?
5. Whom do they offer their contrition to if they don’t know the True God?
6. Does the BOD have anything to do with immanence? We all have a little piece of God in us, therefore God resides in every soul.
Not yet, no. Thinking every one of the 8 billion people on Earth has access to the net is mistaken.It is a bit silly to imagine that those who have not the internet have somehow not had the truth preached to them. As Fr. Wathen said long before the days of internet, "These pagans in far off lands know what Coco Cola is, but they do not know the Church?" When Noe preached the truth to all nations, it was mainly by word of mouth. He had presumably no writing, in terms of communication, practically nothing but the spoken word. Even today most truth is by word of mouth. When I tell a guy, "Unless you die a good Catholic, you will be damned," he may or may not research the internet, or he may or may not do any number of things. If he is damned, he is not going to have some lousy, pathetic excuse.
Statista: "As of July 2024, there were 5.45 billion internet users worldwide, which amounted to 67.1 percent of the global population." So over 3.5 billion people don't have or use the internet yet.
Estimates of the unevangelized population of the globe differ, but most would put it around 2-3 billion.
"Of the 55 least evangelized countries, 97% of their population lives within the 10/40 Window. Unless something changes, huge numbers of these unreached people groups will go out into eternity never having heard the Gospel. Why? Well, researcher Justin Long has estimated that only about 10% of the global missionary force is working there. One reason is that in many 10/40 Window countries, open evangelism is difficult and even impossible because of governmental restrictions." https://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/1040.htm
What Catholics need to do is pray and work to reach the unreached and share with them the good news of the gospel in love. If we pray well and work hard, Christ's commission to preach the Gospel to all can be accomplished in maybe about 10-15 years, after which indeed no one would not have heard of Christ. If we have love for souls, we will do that. Not only them, but even their descendants will then be born in regions of the globe that have heard the Gospel. As of now, they dont have it. Condemning vast billions for being in the wrong place is not of God and is Feeneyite idiocy.
These are some questions I have about BOD.
1. Can someone with zero knowledge of Jesus Christ obtain a BOD?
2. Can someone with animosity towards Jesus Christ say a Jew or Muslim obtain a BOD?
3. Where does the contrition come from? Is it formed internally? Is it actual graces?
4. Does the person getting the BOD have to have a firm purpose of amendment to not to repeat their sins or is this only an end of life situation?
5. Whom do they offer their contrition to if they don’t know the True God?
6. Does the BOD have anything to do with immanence? We all have a little piece of God in us, therefore God resides in every soul.
As Lad said, these questions depend on who you ask, but I can answer the others:
Yes, it is a response to actual grace, which comes from God.
Yes, because "baptism of desire" is perfect contrition of one who has not been baptized, and perfect contrition requires a firm purpose of amendment.
Contrition is directed to the true God. Keep in mind that the true God can be known by the light of reason, per Vatican I, whereas the Trinity can only be "known" by revelation. From this it follows that a person can believe in the true God without believing in the Trinity.
No, it doesn't have anything to do with that. BOD is simply an act of perfect contrition - combined with an act of supernatural faith - made by one who has not been baptized. The reason it is called baptism of desire is because it has the salvific effect of baptism, namely, sanctifying grace. Simply "desiring" baptism will not produce the effect.
But the question is not when did this or that person defect. The question is, when did the moral body - Apostolic/Episcopal College - defect by becomming a new Church?I answered that - no one knows the exact time, perhaps because the new faith was perpetrated on the world more like a blanket being thrown over it starting at one end, than someone flipping a light switch.
One reason is becaue you could be completely convinced that something was true, which, in fact, is not. For example, you could be convinced that the universal Church based in Rome - the same visible organization that has existed since the time of the Apostles - became "substantially different" than what it was sometime around 1965ish, and therefore cannot now be the true Church. In that case, you could end up denyining the indefectibility of the Church, which is de fide. That's one example.
But if the moral body defected, it doesn't only mean it is not the true Church now; it means it was not the true Church then (i.e., before Vatican II), because the true Church is indefectible. If the moral body had the four marks before Vatican II, it also had the attribute of indefectibility, and therefore must have the four marks now. If it does not have the four marks now, it logically follows that it didn't have them then, since the Church with four marks is indefectible.You are correct, the conciliar church is not now, nor was it ever the true Church. To put it plainly, we had our Pentecost at, well, Pentecost, the conciliar church had it's pentecost at V2. Pope John Paul II even said that it is the church of the new pentecost and the church of the new advent.
But a faithful bishop or two within a false Church does not make the false Church true. He doesn't give a false Church the four marks, infallibility, or indefectibility, which are necessary properties of the true Church.
My final question is: If the moral body is no longer the true Church, where is the rue Church? Where is the infallible, indefectible Church with four marks and unity of government, that was estblished as a visible society by Jesus Christ, and which has existed since that time, according to His promises - "the gates of hell shall not prevail"? Where is that Church?Fr. Hesse gave a great answer to this, essentially he said that because Christ and the Church are one and the same (quoting pope Pius XII I think), where Christ is in the Holy Eucharist, there is the Church visible.
Stubborn, you were talking about Divine Providence. BOD itself is Divine Providence, both for those I mentioned above, whom Christopher Columbus discovered (after centuries/100s of years of them not hearing the Gospel), and those in many regions of the globe even today who don't have much presence of Catholic missionaries or churches. God will judge them according to the little you have. You don't need to worry about that other than by striving to preach the faith to as many non-Catholics as possible and inviting them to come into the Church.I disagree that BOD itself is Divine Providence. If anything a BOD is a hopeless, faithless and dying soul first desiring, then corresponding to certain graces, but this is not Divine Providence, if anything this is salvation through faith....which the Church condemns, not to mention that this requires a faith that the BOD recipient does not have. Remember, without the faith it is impossible to please God no matter how contrite one is.
I disagree that BOD itself is Divine Providence.
Foolish. God gave you, I presume, baptism from your cradle. If you were born to Catholic parents, you have a blessing about 7 billion people around the globe do not have.Why do I even need the blessings if it is possible to get to heaven without them?
Otherwise, if Catholics are lazy and don't do God's work and don't send or support missionaries, that is not their fault. That is the fault of Catholics, and of those who should have been missionaries but preferred to do something else......If you disagree, be prepared to call Pius IX, Pius X, Leo XIII and Pius XII all as heretics for allegedly contradicting Trent and teaching baptism of desire. Oh, and add Pope St. Pius V as well.Well, now you're just being ridiculous blaming Catholics for those who die unbaptized.
God is not bound to work continual miracles ...
The extraordinary means are known to Him alone. He will reveal all secrets when we get to Heaven.
Sure, but God is bound by impossibility.God is not constrained by any impossibility. God foresaw everything before He created the world. And therefore, He provided perfect contrition as the perfect means for all to attain to grace and sanctification who could not receive the ordinary means of justification. You Feeneyites are willfully blind and persist even after the Church has condemned you. When the prophesied Angelic Pastor comes, he will condemn you even more strongly and likely anathematize you if you refuse to submit. Will you submit, then, when he commands you to believe and profess bod, or rebel?
Stubborn, multiple Popes and Catechisms and Councils have in fact taught BOD. Not to mention Encyclicals and Holy Office docuмents. That you don't want to admit this is your own issue.Some Catechisms taught it, yes, the ones that teach it are in need of correction, no pope or council ever taught it. BODers read words in papal docuмents that the words do not say while they avert to what the words do say. This is not intended as an insult, it is just real.
Pope St. Pius V also condemned one of the propositions of the Jansenist Michael Baius which also proves denial of bod is condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. If you want to be a faithful Roman Catholic, you will believe in bod.:jester::facepalm:
Pope St. Pius V also condemned one of the propositions of the Jansenist Michael Baius which also proves denial of bod is condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. If you want to be a faithful Roman Catholic, you will believe in bod.
Even Br. Dimond admits the Catechism of Trent teaches bod though he absurdly pretends the Council didn't.
That's like pretending a Council can teach Mother Mary was without any sin and then a Catechism released after the Council can state matter of factly that she supposedly had some sins. It makes a mockery of the Church totally.
God is not constrained by any impossibility. God foresaw everything before He created the world. And therefore, He provided perfect contrition as the perfect means for all to attain to grace and sanctification who could not receive the ordinary means of justification.
The Dimonds just uploaded a new video once again showing that salvation in invincible ignorance is false, with NEW material.Thanks. I'll give it a listen. The Dimonds have some good material, though I may not agree on every point. As I said, if they were consistent with their own extreme beliefs, they would declare Pius XII was a manifest heretic who ipso facto lost office after he signed the AAS docuмents condemning Fr. Feeney, if he ever was Pope in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UexFXtc9Rck
Quote The possibility of salvation for such a person [i.e., a non-Christian with supernatural, yet implicit, faith] is not ruled out by the nature of the case; moreover, such a person should not be called a non-Christian, because, even though he has not been visibly joined to the church, still, interiorly he has the virtue of habitual and actual faith in common with the church, and in the sight of God he will be reckoned with the Christians. (De virtute fidei divinae, disp. 12, no. 104, cited in Sullivan, p. 97)" https://windowlight.substack.com/p/salvation-outside-the-church-the
Thanks. I'll give it a listen. The Dimonds have some good material, though I may not agree on every point. As I said, if they were consistent with their own extreme beliefs, they would declare Pius XII was a manifest heretic who ipso facto lost office after he signed the AAS docuмents condemning Fr. Feeney, if he ever was Pope in the first place.They wouldn't because not everything a Pope says is infallible, he also didn't sign the docuмent against Fr Feeney. The Dimonds do not hold an extreme position on infallibility like some other sede groups do.
Quote It does not appear that the Christian religion has been preached to [the indigenous] with such sufficient propriety and piety that they are bound to acquiesce in it, even though many religious and other ecclesiastics seem both by their lives and example and their diligent preaching to have bestowed sufficient pains and industry in this business, had they been hindered therein by men who were intent on other things. (De Indis et de Iure Belli, cited in Sullivan, pp. 72-73)Continued: "Melchior Cano, O.P. (1509-1560), Domingo Soto, O.P. (1494-1560), and Andreas de Vega, O.F.M. (1498-1549). All three, drawing on medieval scholastic conclusions, argued that even those indigenous peoples who had not heard the Gospel could live their life in accord with the natural law, with the assistance of God’s grace. Cano concluded that someone who lived such a life could experience justification, that is, the gracious remission of original sin, and develop implicit faith (this conclusion was based on Cano’s interpretation of an somewhat obscure passage from Aquinas’s Summa; see ST, I-II, q. 89, a. 6). Without explicit faith in Christ, however, this person could not experience salvation. (On Cano, see Sullivan, pp. 74-75 and Moralis, p. 78)
As I mentioned earlier, it was the discovery of the native Indians by saintly Christopher Columbus that prompted a more extensive review of the matter by Catholic theologians and the Magisterium of the Church herself. The article above goes into some of that: "In addition to Aquinas, the aforementioned video also turns to the sixteenth-century Spanish theologian Francisco de Vitoria, O.P. (1493-1546) as an authoritative voice on this question. A disciple of Aquinas teaching at the University of Salamanca, Vitoria largely mirrors the conclusions of Aquinas. Vitoria’s views are especially significant, however, because he was writing just as the Spanish conquest of the Americas was unfolding. In his writings, Vitoria not only responded to the injustices being conducted by the Spanish in the name of Christ, but also to the question of how the indigenous Americans, oblivious to the Gospel for centuries after the coming of Christ, could be saved, given their “invincible ignorance”?"Both the missionary Saints and the Holy Office refute this. The Saints were extremely concerned and moved to preach the Gospel because they understood that without accepting the truths of faith and baptism those natives could not be saved.
Two answers were given: one, that these people were in the same conditions as the OT just, because the Gospel had never been promulgated among them. Two, that God would have miraculously brought some of them to explicit Christian faith. Both answers are permissible. What is certain is God condemns no one without their own fault (as Pope Pius IX teaches) and now, after hearing, all are bound to receive Baptism. Whoever refuses Baptism has no desire for Baptism and thus cannot be saved. It is clear, very clear, in the traditional theologians.
They wouldn't because not everything a Pope says is infallible, he also didn't sign the docuмent against Fr Feeney. The Dimonds do not hold an extreme position on infallibility like some other sede groups do.Pope Pius XII didn't sign the docuмent against Feeney? Why live in denialism? See this: https://www.baptismofdesire.org/feeney.html Pope Pius XII gave his approval to the decision: "The Acta Apostolicae Sedis announced the excommunication of Father Leonard Feeney, which was recorded in docuмent AAS 45-100."
Pope Pius XII didn't sign the docuмent against Feeney? Why live in denialism? See this: https://www.baptismofdesire.org/feeney.html Pope Pius XII gave his approval to the decision: "The Acta Apostolicae Sedis announced the excommunication of Father Leonard Feeney, which was recorded in docuмent AAS 45-100."
Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for failing to submit. It is the definition of a schismatic to fail to submit to the Pope.Man, you are hell bent on stupidity. If you knew wth you were talking about at all, you would know how ridiculous you're being.
"1) It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and bloodYou called Fr. Feeney a schismatic for "failing to submit." I just showed you that you do not even know what you're talking about. Why in this day and age do you insist on calumniating a good priest?
Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation. Justification is useless for purposes
of the Beatific Vision unless submission to Christ's Vicar has been added to it in essential complement."
Fantastic. So why didn't he do this in the reign of Pius XII itself, as he should have? As for the modern SBC, they accept Vatican II, and the new catechism as consistent with their understanding of EENS. Do you?
"Do as I say, but not as I do" won't work. Do as I say, i.e. submit to the Roman Pontiff, but not as I do, i.e. do not go to Rome when called by the Holy Father. Was Pius XII not Christ's Vicar? Of course he was.
Mark M - who are the righteous Gentiles of the past? The OT just would have known who Jesus was , since they were watching and waiting for him.They did not know Him explicitly by name. They knew the Messiah would come, but they did not know He would be called Jesus for e.g. Thus St. Thomas says they had implicit, not explicit faith, in Our Lord Jesus Christ. St. Thomas says:"
If, however, some [Gentiles] were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth. (ST, II-II, q. 2, a. 7, ad 3)"
Not only was Fr. Feeney correct about the liberalism in the Church, but many of us personally feel like he has a rather high place in heaven. It would not surprise some of us to find Fr. Feeney judging in heaven his accusers. It should be recalled that St. Patrick was given the right to judge the Irish, and, if we are not mistaken, God granted this wish to Patrick when the saint fasted forty days and nights on Croagh Patrick. The late Mike Malone, a scholarly layman, told us in a talk years ago that Fr. Feeney was credited with the conversion of nearly 100 Jєωs; and Fr. Feeney did not accomplish this by preaching some watered-down, liberal, "anonymous-Christian" nonsense.We will find out in heaven. Recall we are not defending any watered down version of bod which we do agree is a grave problem. We are defending the position that (1) implicit desire is sufficient for individuals who've not heard the Church (2) all such implicit desire MUST BECOME EXPLICIT DESIRE to enter the Church once a person has received missionaries from Christ like e.g. venerable Mary of Agreda or heard of the Church. The Church has rejected the heretical Feeneyite views of the dimonds that all non-christians are necessarily not in a state of a grace or outside the Church, which is false. All who have rejected the Church, granted. All who are invincibly ignorant of the Church, denied.
Recall we are not defending any watered down version of bod which we do agree is a grave problem. We are defending the position that (1) implicit desire is sufficient for individuals who've not heard the Church ...
The Church has rejected the heretical Feeneyite views of the dimonds that all non-christians are necessarily not in a state of a grace or outside the Church, which is false.
bad willed moron like you who can't debate without resorting to insults
The only one in schism, for rejecting Pope Pius XII, is you.
Feeney the nut job
Feeney was responsible of operating a cult of personality. Be careful you're not in one.