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?

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.

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. 

Fr. Feeney was surrounded by heretics.  I am reminded of the story when Fr. Feeney sat at the breakfast table and in came Fr. de Chardin.  Fr. Feeney told him that he would go to hell unless he recanted his heresy.  I wonder how many other Jesuit priests had the gumption to remind Fr. de Chardin of his heresy?  

 

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? 

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. 

Yeah, but that doesn't work either, where you claim that V2 wasn't infallible (and it strictly wasn't), but the scope of the damage and error from V2 and from the Papacy, to the point where it harms the faith and permits, even requires, Catholics to sever communion with and submission to the hierarchy, that guts the indefectibility of the Church.  This Conciliar Church is substantially different from the Catholic Church, so you can't simply argue from the infallibility of any given statement in Vatican II, that this is just a difference of degree with regard to the possibility of error, when this represents a difference in kind ... which Trad Catholics recognize in having broken from it and finding it irreconcilable with their own faith and their own practice thereof.

So the error of R&R in this regard, a practical denial of the Church's indefectibility, has been countered by the SV exaggeration of infallibility.  Both sides need to read the balanced treatment by Msgr. Fenton.

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?

The answer is simple: The Spirit of God is Omniscient, He knows all things, and He informs His Bride of it, and She declares it on earth. God said, "whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven", and that means the Spirit of God will always guide such binding. Also, notice the way St. Alphonsus frames this: "To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.” It is the Holy Spirit Himself who is infallible. The Roman Pontiff simply participates in the Holy Spirit's infallibility when canonizing Saints.

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.

Miracles are so certain a sign of divine testimony that they have converted unbelievers. Therefore, they most certainly can lead someone to certainty. Christ blamed the Pharisees for obstinacy mainly because they refused to convert even after seeing His miracles. Jehovah blamed Pharoah in the OT for the same reason; He saw miracles but refused to convert. But for faithful Catholics, it is not a miracle itself, however certain, that assures us of the supernatural, although a miracle like e.g. the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, or a Eucharistic miracle, or a healing miracle worked by a canonized Saint or a Saint to be canonized, may convince unbelievers - it is the Church's authority to bind and loose that convinces Catholics. Christ assures us such a binding and loosing is bound by Him Himself in Heaven, so 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]


Ok. Read the Saints and Catechisms cited here. https://reasonstobechristian.com/f/are-canonizations-infallible-popes-saints-and-doctors-say-yes I hope they answer your question.

The Baltimore Catechism confirms this, saying: "
#3. Q. 82. Why does the Church Canonize Saints?
A. The Church Canonizes Saints (1) to honor them, and (2) to make us certain that they are in heaven, and may, therefore, be invoked in our prayers.

Q. 83. Can the Church err in the Canonization of a Saint?
A. The Church cannot err in matters of faith or morals, and the Canonization of a Saint is a matter of faith and morals."

Things will be easier and simpler, both for Feeneyites, and for others, if we accept the Church is infallible. We are not. May God and His Holy Spirit guide us to all Truth. In Lord Jesus' Name. Mother Mary, pray for us sinners.

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.

Since all SV's maintain that that body defected, all SV's explicitly deny the indefectibility of the Church.

If it applied to "that moral body" then you have a valid point, the problem here I will address below.  

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.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. We know the conciliar church is substantially different than the Catholic Church. I mean let's be real here, it is obvious to everyone that they are two different Churches, whether or not some would admit to that not withstanding. But we cannot honestly say that they are not two substantially different churches because of "that moral body" when they certainly are, that would be blatantly wrong, if not an outright lie, the same lie fed to us since V2 by that moral body. 

The fact is that that moral body has created it's own church, corrupted itself and all those who have joined them. This is indisputable, and yet, the Church has not been destroyed, nor has it defected.  By any measure that moral body has indeed defected, but the Church has not defected, nor can it ever defect. Ergo, that moral body is not the Church that Christ promised to be with all days, but if it is (which it isn't), THEN the Church has indeed defected. There are no other alternatives.

The idea that Christ's promise applies strictly to "that moral body" is the mistake. I mean, that moral body is not here just for the sake of being here till the end of time, it's purpose of being here is to feed and nurture the whole Church, right down to the very last soul till the end of time, but the way that we know that they are not the Church is precisely because they, as one body, have indeed defected from the true faith for the new faith.

Two quetions:

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?

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.

2) Why would I reject a de fide teaching of the Church? But you will never prove that the "moral body" is the Church, the reason I can say this with confidence is because what you call the moral body, has indeed defected, which is how we can be certain that they are not the Church - there may be an exception here and there where a faithful bishop may remain, but not likely because the conciliar church seeks these kind out and does away with them, but overall, they're all a bunch of heretics.