Monday, June 22, 2015

Strange Bedfellows: Vatican II And Fr. Feeney


One of my readers has a blog of his own entitled "Eucharist and Mission" (See http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com) and sent me tweets to some of his posts. The blog's owner, one Lionel Andrades, is representative of a peculiar ideological opinion: he adheres to the Vatican II sect and claims that Feeneyism (denial of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood) and the documents of Vatican II are compatible. Fr. Feeney was a Jesuit from Boston excommunicated by Pope Pius XII for his denial of Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB), hence the heresy's name.  Actually, there are most probably more Feenyites in the Vatican II sect than there are sedevacantists, which seems counter-intuitive. After all, doesn't "Pope" Francis tell us "proselytism is nonsense" and "atheists can get to Heaven"?  Before I delve into it any further, some initial principles and definitions need to be considered first.


I) The Absolute Necessity of Church Membership For Salvation

Pope Eugene IV infallibly proclaimed in Cantate Domino (1441):


[The Catholic Church]"...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Pope Boniface VIII infallibly proclaimed in Unam Sanctam (1302):

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

II) The Church Teaches That The Sacrament of Baptism Is Absolutely Necessary for Salvation Under Ordinary and Usual Conditions

 The Gospel of St. John 3:5--"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

The Council of Trent infallibly teaches:
 "CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for Baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

III) The Church Recognizes Two Extraordinary Means Of Attaining Church Membership and Salvation: Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB)

In the case where someone has (a) explicit Catholic Faith and Desire for the sacrament but no opportunity for Baptism, or (b) implicit Catholic Faith where explicit Faith is impossible, or (c) if someone sheds his Blood for Christ's One True Church yet has been prevented from getting baptized, God can  perform a miracle of Grace whereby He infuses Faith and Sanctifying Grace into the soul immediately prior to death. The person dies Catholic and in God's friendship, thereby being saved apart from the sacrament of Baptism in extraordinary conditions.

The proof is in the very sources cited by the heretical followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney. Many of the popes, saints, catechisms, and Biblical verses refer to the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism (by water) and they also include exceptions in extraordinary cases. BOD and BOB are therefore taught by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of Christ's One True Church.

IV) Vatican II Teaches Salvation Outside The Church

The new and heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II found in Lumen Gentium teaches that the Church of Christ "subsists in" (not "is") the Roman Catholic Church. This means there is an entity known as the Church of Christ which is distinct from the Roman Catholic Church and it subsists in its fullness in the Catholic Church, but it subsists in other sects according to how many "elements" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is equally good and leads to salvation.

The Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio states in paragraph #3:
"It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church." (Emphasis mine)

BOD and BOB means that individuals are brought into the Church and die as Catholics. It does not deny the dogma of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" (EENS) or "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation." See principle I above. Vatican II states that people in sects can be saved as members of those sects.  That's a world of difference.


 Now let's get back to the blog "Eucharist and Mission" (hereinafter EAM). According to Mr. Andrades (his writing in red), "When a Catholic says not every one needs to enter the Church he is expressing theology. How does an average Catholic know theology? He has probably heard it.He repeats it. For him this is the teaching of the Church.Usually the theology he repeats without knowing what it is- is Cushingism. He condemns Feeneyism.He is told it is condemned.He can only choose between Feeneyism and Cushingism and generally he does not know the difference.

Cushingism is a popular theology.It is accepted by the Magisterium. So the average Catholic repeats it.He  assumes it is de fide. Instead it is something foreign to the Faith.It is heresy.It has come into the  Church in the 1940's.It is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. It is an irrational theology, a compromised theology.It denies the basic teachings of the Church on salvation and the proclamation of the Good News.

Feeneyism says every one needs to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, for salvation and there are no exceptions.

Cushingism says everyone needs to enter the Church with faith and baptism for salvation but there are exceptions; there are known exceptions, so really every one does not need to enter the Church.

Cushingism is irrational.It says all need to enter the Church but those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire do not need to enter the Church.It assumes that we can know these cases in real life.So all do not need to be Catholic in the present times for salvation, since there are exceptions.People in Heaven are exceptions on earth!" (post of 4/8/15)

 Wow. So the dogma of EENS has two "theologies": that of Feeney and that of "Cushingism" --so named by the blog's author after Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston who condemned Feeney and upheld BOD and BOB. The idea of BOD and BOB go way back to times Apostolic, not to the 1940s. The other errors are manifest. If the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium teaches "Cushingism" then it must be accepted. The Church rejects the idea that only de fide pronouncements must be believed. Feeneyism is the heresy. BOD and BOB (or "Cushingism" according to EAM--as if the Cardinal invented the Catholic teaching!) does NOT teach "all need to enter the Church but those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire do not need to enter the Church." As explained above, those who receive BOD are infused with both Faith and Sanctifying Grace, this precludes ignorance at that point and they are members of the Church! There are no people in Heaven who were "exceptions" (i.e. non-Catholic) on Earth. He either completely misrepresents or doesn't understand the principles involved.

It may strike many as strange, that a sect which proclaims universal (or near universal) salvation outside itself, would be home to those who hold the heretical views of Fr. Feeney where almost no one gets to Heaven. The Vatican II sect will tolerate anything except the Truth! The false popes and their teachings are a bundle of contradictions. Many who follow Francis and Vatican II refer to the Feeneyite heresy as "the restrictive interpretation" as opposed to the "liberal interpretation" (universal salvation where everyone becomes an "anonymous Christian" as per the heretic Fr. Karl Rahner). Notice the CORRECT interpretation is jettisoned. One of the biggest apologists for the Vatican II sect, Pete Vere, employed by them as a "canon lawyer,"  has defended the Feeneyite position as acceptable to be held by "Catholics"(!)

According to Vere (his writing will be in red):

"What of those, like the spiritual descendants of Fr. Feeney, who hold to a more restrictive understanding on these issues? Are they Catholics in good standing with the Church? The answer is yes for a number of reasons:

1) There is no question Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI lifted Father’s excommunication while Father was still alive, and there is no evidence that Father recanted his understanding of EENS, BOB, or BOD. The actual lifting of Father’s excommunication was executed by Fr. Richard Shmaruk, a priest of the Boston Archdiocese, on behalf of Bishop Bernard Flanagan of Worcester. While visiting Boston about ten years ago, I spoke with Fr. Shmaruk and he personally corroborated the events that led to him reconciling Fr. Feeney with the Church.On pages 259 to 262 of his book They Fought the Good Fight, Brother Thomas Mary Sennott diligently chronicles the reconciliation of Fr. Feeney, as well as the subsequent reconciliation of several of Father’s spiritual descendants. Brother Sennott quotes from two respectable Catholic news sources (The Advocate and the Catholic Free Press). I have independently confirmed the quotations and context of the primary sources.


Brother Sennottt also notes that Father’s memorial mass was celebrated by Bishop Bernard Flanagan in the Cathedral of St. Paul, Worcester. This would have given rise to scandal had Father not been fully reconciled with the Church. Br. Sennott’s book received an imprimi potest from Bishop Timothy Harrington of the Diocese of Worcester, meaning the book is free from doctrinal or moral error. Thus unless one is willing to declare oneself sedevacantist or sedeprivationist, the evidence is overwhelming that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church without recanting his position. (Emphasis mine)

2) Most of Fr. Feeney’s spiritual descendants have been reconciled with the Church without having to renounce or recant their interpretation of BOB, BOD, or EENS. This was the case with those who reconciled in 1974 and would go on to found St. Benedict Abbey in Still River, as well as the sisters of St. Anne’s House in Still River who reconciled in 1988, and most recently with St. Benedict Centre in Still River who reconciled under Br. Thomas Augustine, MICM. Regarding the last group, I should note they had achieved a sacramental reconciliation long before their juridical reconciliation. This was the subject of the first paper I ever wrote as a young licentiate student in canon law. While researching this paper in 1997, I visited the various communities descended from Fr. Feeney and the Harvard student movement, noting with interest how despite no formal reconciliation at the time, Br. Thomas’s community had an in-residence chaplain appointed by the Bishop of Worcester. I also noted with interest that the Bishop visited the community regularly, and that he also confirmed the community’s children. In reading canon 844, sacraments should only be shared with non-Catholics under the most strict and extenuating of circumstances. It is clear, that in keeping with canon 213, the Diocese of Worcester was ensuring for the pastoral and sacramental care of Brother Thomas’s community as if they were Catholics.

It was similarly clear from talking to Br. Thomas Augustine, as it was from talking to Mother Theresa next door at St. Anne’s House, that each of these communities still held the same interpretation of BOB, BOD and EENS as Fr. Feeney. With regards to the 1988 reconciliation of Mother Theresa, MICM and the sisters of St. Anne’s House in Still River, Fr. Lawrence A. Deery, JCL, at the time the Diocese of Worcester’s Judicial Vicar and Vicar for Canonical Affairs and acting in his official capacity, wrote the following: “1) The Sisters were asked to ‘understand’ the letter of the then Holy Office dated 8 August 1949. They were not asked to ‘accept’ its contents. 2) The Sisters were asked to make to make a Profession of Faith. Nothing else was required [...] In our discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views. Summarily, Mother Theresa and her community in no manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings.” Need I remind you that the man who was Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of this consultation is now Pope Benedict XVI, the Church’s Supreme Pontiff? (Emphasis mine)

3) In 1988, Mr. John Loughnan, a layman from Australia who happens to be a friend of mine, wrote the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) requesting clarification on several controversies surrounding the SSPX. Mr. Loughnan also inquired as to the status within the Church of Fr. Feeney’s followers.

Concerning this last question, Msgr. Camille Perl, secretary of the PCED, replied to Mr. Loughnan as follows in N. 343/98 dated 27 October 1998: “The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.”

While not wishing to engage in this controversy, Msgr. Perl clearly confirms that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church, and that several of his spiritual descendants who hold his same doctrinal interpretations are in full communion with the Church. Such a statement is clearly within the mission of the PCED as this commission was established by Pope John Paul II to oversee the reconciliation and well-being of Traditionalists within the Church. [N.B. Vere seems to equate Feeney's heresy with Traditionalists when the major Traditionalist groups--SSPV, SSPX, SSPX-SO, CMRI--as well as most independent Traditionalist Bishops and Priests REJECT the heresy of Feney.---Introibo] On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of EENS, BOB and BOD. (Emphasis mine)
Pax Christi,
Pete Vere"

(This was a letter dated 5/29/07 having been mailed to the Feeneyite "St Benedict Center" in New Hampshire and addressed to Brother Andre Marie. Vere wrote, "...given that I do not hold office with a tribunal or ecclesiastical entity that has been asked to investigate this question -what follows is my professional opinion as a canon lawyer.

To recap our last exchange, you wrote: 'I'm wondering if you are able to put in writing something testifying to the lawfulness of holding Father Feeney's position as a Catholic in good standing with the Church. Back in January, you agreed to do this. Again, I'm not asking you to vouch for our canonical situation here in the Manchester Diocese; I'm simply asking for the expert opinion of a canon lawyer on the larger question.'" See http://catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf)

Let's get one thing straight: the goal of Vatican II is, and always has been, the creation of an ecumenical One World "Church" where everything is accepted but the Truth. They will have a "Gay mass" with practicing sodomites in one place and they'll give you a "Latin Motu Mass" condemning unnatural practices in another. "Sister Mary Marxist" will tell you everyone goes to Heaven regardless of belief, and "Brother Feeney" will tell you almost no one gets there unless the person is enrolled on a parish register, and probably not even then. You can have any view you wish and do anything you like, as long as you submit to Francis and the ecumenical heresies of Vatican II.  The Feeneyites are constrained to hold communion with a man who is a total apostate preaching salvation for atheists while giving their own warped view on EENS. To spin an old aphorism: The bedfellows heretics make are never strange. It just seems that way to those who have not watched and understood the courtship. 



23 comments:

  1. Thanks for your blog IAAD.

    I would like to know your view on Lumen Gentium 14. Doesn't LG 14 contradict the claim made by some prelates that heretics in heretical sects need not enter the Church? In view of LG 14, can it really be argued that heretics can be saved in their heretical sects without the qualification that they need be ignorant of the fact that the RCC was made necessary (really indispensable) by Our Lord for salvation? If they are aware of this claim/fact as many adult heretics undoubtedly are, and they do not enter the Church, how can a VII partisan really argue that an heretic can be saved in their heretical sect without significant qualification?

    My point is that there is no doubt that NO prelates have interpreted the VII documents in the manner you suggest, but aren't those prelates rendering LG 14 a dead letter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The pertinent part of Lumen Gentium, the heretical document of Vatican II to which you refer states: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved" Modernism loves the ambiguous. In what sense of the word is "knowing" used? Is it simple awareness of the claim which you must then investigate or be guilty? (This is the traditional notion, but when was the last time some V2 sect "priest" ever preached that claim?) "Knowing" can also mean "accepting it as true." This is the sense most V2 clerics give to it, so as to excuse virtually everyone from having to convert due to "invincible ignorance."

      Moreover, it's important to note that the idea that false sects can be a "means of salvation" was taught be John Paul The Great Apostate in "Catechesi Tradendi" of 10/16/79 using the near word for word verbiage of Vatican 2:
      "It is extremely important to give a correct and fair presentation of the other Churches and ecclesial communities, that the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using as means of salvation." As Pope Pius IX taught in "Ubi primum": Let those who wish to be saved come to this pillar, to this foundation of the truth which is the Church, let them come
      to the true Church of Christ which, in her Bishops and in the Roman Pontiff, the supreme head of all, possesses the uninterrupted succession of apostolic authority...We will never spare either Our efforts or Our labors, to bring back,
      by the grace of the same Jesus Christ, to this unique way of truth and salvation, those in ignorance and error."
      Non-Catholic religions are not a "means of salvation", since the Roman Catholic Church is the unique way of truth and salvation. V2 is heretical at face value, and its heresy affirmed by the post-V2 "popes." LG 14 is nothing more than confusing Modernist claptrap to deceive people that the Council didn't really teach error.

      Delete
  2. You write:
    "Fr. Feeney was a Jesuit from Boston excommunicated by Pope Pius XII for his denial of Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB), hence the heresy's name."

    I thought Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience. What's your evidence for saying it was because of his denial of BOD and BOB?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was excommunicated for disobedience, and that disobedience was for his refusal to appear and give submission for the Church's teaching on BOD and BOB. This can be summed up by the pertinent parts of the 1949 letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Richard Cushing of Boston.

      This Supreme Sacred Congregation has very carefully followed the beginning and the continuation of the serious controversy raised by certain associates of the St. Benedict Center and of Boston College, concerning the interpretation of tie maxim: "Outside the Church, no salvation".

      "After having examined all the necessary and useful documents on this subject — among others the file sent by your chancellery, the appeals and reports wherein the associates of the St. Benedict Center expound their opinions and objections, besides many other documents referring to this controversy, collected through the official channels, — the Sacred Congregation has reached the certitude that this unfortunate question was raised because the principle "outside the Church no salvation" has not been well understood or examined and the controversy has become envenomed as a result of a serious lack of discipline on the part of certain members of the aforementioned associations, who have refused to give respect and obedience to the legitimate authorities. ...

      These things are clearly expressed in the dogmatic letter published by the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII 29 June 1943 "on the mystical Body of Jesus Christ" (A.A.S., vol. XXXV, 1943, p. 193 and sq.). In this Letter, the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are presently incorporated into the Church as members and those who are united with her through desire only.

      Speaking of the members who form here below the mystical Body, the same august Pontiff said: Only those are members of the Church who have received the Baptism of regeneration and profess the true faith and who are not, to their misfortune, separated from the Body as a whole or cut off from her through very grave faults by the legitimate authority.

      Towards the end of the same Encyclical, he affectionately invites those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church to enter into her unity, and he mentions those who "by a certain desire and unconscious longing have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer". He does not in any way exclude them from eternal salvation, but he goes on to affirm that they are in a state "in which they cannot be sure of their eternal salvation" and that "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church".

      With these words, the Pope condemns those who exclude from eternal salvation men who are united to the Church only through implicit desire as well as those who wrongly affirm that all men can be saved equally in all religions (cf. Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, Denz. 1641 and sq.; Pius XI, Quanto conficiamur moerore, Denz. 1677). "

      The act of disobedience was the failure to report to The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office regarding his denial of Church teaching. It was not simply failure to do as his superiors instructed in mundane matters.

      Delete
    2. Right. So you admit that he was excommunicated for disobedience and not for heresy.

      Next question. Has the position of Fr. Feeney ever been condemned as "formally heretical" by the popes? If not, where has it been explicitly condemned, and what is the theological note given to this condemnation?

      Delete
    3. You must believe those teachings of the universal ordinary magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith (Pope Pius IX).
      • “For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the Ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1683.

      Furthermore:
      a) All pre-Vatican II theologians taught BOD and BOB

      (b) All pre-Vatican II catechisms taught BOD and BOB

      (c) And the "clincher:" The 1917 Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedict XV, and adhered to by Popes Pius XI and XII teaches in Canon 737: "Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually OR AT LEAST IN DESIRE is necessary for all for salvation." (Emphasis mine) This canon ends the debate on the Church's official interpretation of Canon 4 of the Council of Trent regarding the Sacraments in General. Further, canon 1239.2 of the 1917 Code teaches: "catechumens who through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized." (Emphasis mine).

      Conclusion: Therefore BOD and BOB are taught by the universal and Ordinary Magisterium and MUST be believed by all who wish to remain Catholic.
      In anticipation of the next query, Feenyites believe that ALL theologians would assign the same theological “categories” (“notes,” “qualifications,” etc.) to BOD and BOB if a Catholic were truly obliged to accept the teachings. This is false.
      Collectively, all the pre-V2 theologians agree that BOD and BOB are “in conformity with the truth presented in the Sources of Revelation and the Universal Magisterium” — otherwise, they would not teach the doctrines.

      Individually, the theologians may indeed assign different categories to the doctrines —theologically certain, Catholic doctrine, de fide, etc. But any of these categories still place the teaching on BOD and BOB among those teachings to which Catholics must believe and adhere.
      The specific category assigned is important for another reason. Each has a corresponding theological censure which indicates your degree of error if you deny the doctrines — whether your denial constitutes theological error, error in Catholic doctrine, or heresy.

      Lastly, no matter what category theologians have assigned to these teachings — theologically certain, Catholic doctrine or de fide — rejecting them has the same consequences in the moral order: you commit a mortal sin against the faith.

      You must reject the notion promoted in pro-Feeney circles that such teachings may be ignored because a Catholic’s obligation “is restricted to only those matters that the infallible judgment of the Church has proposed to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith” — for that is a principle the Church condemned in the Syllabus of Errors. (Dz 1722.)


      Delete
    4. Introibo,
      Right. So the popes have never condemned the absolutist position on EENS as heretical. In fact, they've never condemned it in any way whatsoever. That's why there's no theological note assigned to it, because it's never been condemned. Nor have the popes ever expressly taught either BOD or BOB. Nor have they ever even used those terms in their teaching. Nor have they ever even breathed one word against any Catholic who doubted them. So why call the Feeneyites heretics?
      True, the ordinary magisterium is infallible and must be adhered to. Nobody denies this. The problem is that unless or until the ordinary magisterium is defined by the popes, it’s often difficult to tell what exactly it is, especially if the alleged ordinary magisterium in question appears to directly contradict the infallible teachings of the popes. For if the defined dogma of the Church is that there’s no salvation outside the Church how can we accept the teaching that there is some salvation outside the Church? It’s completely illogical. And if one of those propositions must be rejected, surely it should be the one that contradicts the infallible teachings of the popes, no matter who is promoting it.
      But some may claim that if Saint Thomas and other theologians and the catechisms and other sources affirm both propositions, that proves that they are not, in fact, contradictory, and that to affirm both is the true Catholic position. This I deny. The way I see it, there are two proofs and only two proofs of either a contradiction or non-contradiction: 1) an infallible teaching of the pope or a council that there is or is no contradiction, and 2) the intelligibility of the contradiction or non-contradiction in the intellect. Now since the popes have never taught that some salvation outside the Church is compatible with the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church, proof number one does not apply. Therefore, if a contradiction or non-contradiction is to be proved, it is by proof number two. And since the intelligibility of a contradiction between the two propositions is as clear as day to the intellect, the imputed contradiction is thereby proved. Moreover, that the non-contradiction position is, on the other hand, completely unintelligible to the intellect becomes obvious when you ask someone who holds it how the apparent contradiction can be resolved, they immediately start talking about Saint Thomas, the consensus of theologians, the catechisms, etc., instead of defending their position according to logic or according to its inherent reasonableness, which, of course, it doesn’t possess.
      But some may say that the teachings of Saint Thomas, the theologians, the catechisms, etc., even though they are not infallible, should trump the private judgments of theologically untrained Catholics. This is true. But to hold inexorably to the infallible teachings of the holy popes and to utterly reject any opinion that contradicts them, no matter from what source, is not to hold to one’s private judgment, but rather to reject private judgment altogether, whether their own or anyone else’s, and to hold firmly to the pillar and ground of all truth.

      Delete
    5. I've never met someone who says "right" only to so invariably get it WRONG! You Feeneyites are SO predictable it would actually be funny if it wasn't so tragic; endangering your salvation and those of other who imbibe your disproven and heretical ideas.

      Here is a list of your errors above:

      Error #1. Nor have the popes ever expressly taught either BOD or BOB. Nor have they ever even used those terms in their teaching

      Answer: Pope Benedict XV expressly teaches BOD and BOB in promulgating the Code of Canon Law (1917). The Church is infallible. The proposition that the Church could err in Her universal disciplinary Laws was condemned by Pope Pius VI (Auctorum Fidei), Pope Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos and Quo Graviora), Pope St. Pius X (Pascendi Domenici Gregis), and Pope Pius XII (Mystici Corporis).

      Major Premise: The Church is Infallible and cannot err in Her universal disciplinary laws.
      Minor Premise: The 1917 Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law.
      Conclusion: The Church cannot teach error in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

      In Canon 737 and Canon 1239.2, the Church teaches BOD and BOB. Therefore, they cannot be wrong as they are guarded by the Infallibility possessed by Pope Benedict XV. If he taught error George, you would have to believe that there has been a state of sedevacante at least since 1914, since he would have lost his papal office! Do you believe that?

      Error #2: For if the defined dogma of the Church is that there’s no salvation outside the Church how can we accept the teaching that there is some salvation outside the Church? It’s completely illogical. And if one of those propositions must be rejected, surely it should be the one that contradicts the infallible teachings of the popes, no matter who is promoting it.


      Answer: There is no salvation outside the Church. Apparently, you have problems in reading comprehension. Read what I wrote above:

      III) The Church Recognizes Two Extraordinary Means Of Attaining Church Membership and Salvation: Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB)

      In the case where someone has (a) explicit Catholic Faith and Desire for the sacrament but no opportunity for Baptism, or (b) implicit Catholic Faith where explicit Faith is impossible, or (c) if someone sheds his Blood for Christ's One True Church yet has been prevented from getting baptized, God can perform a miracle of Grace whereby He infuses Faith and Sanctifying Grace into the soul immediately prior to death. The person dies Catholic and in God's friendship, thereby being saved apart from the sacrament of Baptism in extraordinary conditions.
      Ergo, those who receive BOD or BOB are members of the Church just prior to the moment of death and die within the Church. Secondly, do you believe that Pope Benedict XV and all those pre-Vatican II theologians were so stupid they wouldn't (didn't) see any contradiction when the declare EENS and BOD/BOB? It's illogical only because you don't understand it. The contradiction is one concocted in your heretical mind, not objective reality.

      Delete
    6. All your ramblings about contradictions and intelligibility are just that---mindless ramblings.

      Error #4: Moreover, that the non-contradiction position is, on the other hand, completely unintelligible to the intellect becomes obvious when you ask someone who holds it how the apparent contradiction can be resolved, they immediately start talking about Saint Thomas, the consensus of theologians, the catechisms, etc., instead of defending their position according to logic or according to its inherent reasonableness, which, of course, it doesn’t possess.

      Answer: It is you who are devoid of logic and reasonableness, as I've just explained those who receive BOB and BOD are members of the Church!

      Error# 5:But to hold inexorably to the infallible teachings of the holy popes and to utterly reject any opinion that contradicts them, no matter from what source, is not to hold to one’s private judgment, but rather to reject private judgment altogether, whether their own or anyone else’s, and to hold firmly to the pillar and ground of all truth.

      Answer: Pope Benedict's promulgation of the Code of Canon Law (1917) was infallible and teaches BOD and BOB. Therefore, you are rejecting the Church's Indefectibility; She cannot promulgate erroneous disciplinary laws to the whole Church as explained above. It is "universal" as it applies to all Latin right Catholics. It is even "Universal" in the non-technical sense, as the Eastern Rites all possess canons of discipline that state the doctrines of BOD and BOB as in the Latin Rite.

      In refusing to submit to all but infallible statements of the popes you are condemned by the pope!

      Pope Pius IX--Syllabus of Errors
      CONDEMNED PROPOSITION # 22
      "The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church."

      As Fr Cekada once said to a Feeneyite: By denying BOD and BOB, you have, ironically, placed yourself "Extra Ecclesiam" where we all know there is "Nulla Salus." Please repent and come back to the Church.
      --Introibo

      Delete
  3. Introibo,

    You keep saying that the 1917 Code of Canon Law infallibly teaches BOD, but don't you know that the ancient law and custom of the Church for the previous 1900 years was to deny unbaptized catechumens both Christian burial and the prayers of the Church? I guess it took the Church 1900 years to learn that you don't need water baptism, all you really need is desire, baby. I'm really glad that the Church wised up and changed that law. Things have gone so much better since she did, right?

    Also, you say that someone can become a member of the Church without the sacrament of baptism, so I guess you'd have to say that Pope Pius XI was wrong when he wrote in Quas Primas: "The gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by penance, and cannot actually enter except by faith and by baptism, which, though an external rite, signifies and produces an interior regeneration." How could the pope say that one cannot enter the kingdom except by the external rite of baptism? This is blatant Feeneyism. Pius XI must have been a heretical anti-pope, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously, you don't know the ancient law:
      "If they [Catechumens] died without Baptism BY THEIR OWN NEGLECT, OR BY THEIR OWN FAULT, they were disqualified for Christian burial. Where, however, there was no contempt, but only some necessity prevented the Baptism of Catechumens, the ancients treated them a little more favorably; not considering the mere want of Baptism under these circumstances to be of such consequence as to exclude men from Church-communion." (See Encyclopedia Metropolitana, {1820} pg. 387--Emphasis mine)

      So it was the practice to exclude those who by their own contempt and neglect failed to be baptized. The law hasn't changed, it's identical to ancient practice!! Once again, the Church is infallible when promulgating universal discipline as did Pope Benedict XV. What got worse were those who, not understanding the Catholic Truth distort it to where everyone receives "BOD" and goes to Heaven.

      Pope Pius XI was explaining the ordinary means. Did he not adhere and accept the Code of Canon Law which admits of BOD and BOB? You're setting up a false dichotomy. Wouldn't he have contradicted Pope Pius IX in "Quanto Conficiamur Moerore"?

      Paragraph # 7:
      "Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. 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. "

      Attain eternal light by divine light and grace. No mention of the external rite of Baptism. So which pope is the heretic? Neither, since Pope Pius IX was speaking of extraordinary means and Pope Pius XI of ordinary means.

      Example: If someone says, "You must eat in order to live. You will starve to death otherwise." He speaks the truth. This is the normal way we live under the biological laws created by God.

      Someone else says, "You don't need to eat if God allows you to survive and thrive by a miracle." This is also true. It does not contradict the first statement of ordinary means. However, I will eat and not depend upon God for miraculous intervention as in the case of some saints who lived many years only consuming the Sacred Host at daily Communion. BOD is a miracle of grace in the supernatural order, but it is rare and we cannot depend on it to save other. Hence, the Great Commission.

      Delete
    2. Here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about unbaptized catechumens:

      “IX NECESSITY OF BAPTISM: …A certain
      statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been
      brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens
      who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere.
      St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be
      a solitary instance…” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, 1913)

      Here's what the Second Council of Braga, 6th century had to say:

      “Canon 17. Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice nor the service of chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.”

      As for the statement of Pius IX, you're reading your own assumptions into his words instead of reading them in the light of the Catholic doctrine of EENS, which holds that outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no salvation. Notice that the Holy Father does not say that good men without baptism or the Catholic faith can be saved even if they die without those things, but only that they "are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." What his Holiness says is absolutely true, and no one denies it. But what, I ask, do you suppose the substance of that "divine light" is? Why surely it can be nothing other than the holy Catholic Faith, without which it is impossible to please God. So the good man, by the grace of God will come to know the true faith. And how about that "grace" which is "efficacious...to attain eternal life," is this not what is known as sanctifying grace? And how is sanctifying grace conveyed to men? By the waters of regeneration, of course. So there's no contradiction between the Holy Father's statement and the absolute necessity of water baptism.

      If you want to prove the a pope has bought into BOD, you're going to have to find an instance where he explicitly says that someone who dies without baptism can be saved. Everything else is just wishful thinking on your part.

      Delete
    3. The same catholic Encyclopedia states:
      "The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood. "

      Were the authors schizophrenic? Obviously, they are compatible, and the older sources confirm that only catechumens who were not baptized by virtue of their neglect or contempt.

      As to Pope Pius IX, you're correct insofar as divine light and grace come to humans through baptism, or in the words of the Council of Trent "the DESIRE THEREOF."

      Moreover, check out the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X which expressly teaches BOD and BOB. Feeneyites have tried desperately to show he didn't write it--but he GAVE HIS FORMAL APPROVAL. That would make him, like Pope Benedict XV, a heretic.

      None of this really matters. Because you, George, know more than St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, all the pre-Vatican II theologians, all the pre-Vatican II catechisms, and thereby reject the Ordinary Magisterium--and come under the condemnation of the Syllabus of Errors #22, seeking to obey only infallible pronouncements of the Pontiffs. Pity.

      Delete
  4. The saint's are mortal fallible men and women.Its possible someone in our present Era could be smarter than the Saint's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it is possible. However, it is not simply there intellect, but their sanctity and solemn approbation of their works by the Magisterium ensuring their works are free from moral and doctrinal error--esp. in undisputed matters

      Delete
  5. You write:
    "As explained above, those who receive BOD are infused with both Faith and Sanctifying Grace, this precludes ignorance at that point and they are members of the Church!"

    Don't you know, Introibo, that the (heretical) Holy Office Letter that condemned the Feeneyite position expressly denied that one has to become a member of the Church at all.

    Suprema Heac Sacra: "Therefore, in order that one may obtain salvation it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is required at least that he be united to by intention and desire."

    See? Membership is unnecessary. All you need is desire. This is why after this letter was published the newspaper in Worcestor, MA ran a headline saying: "Church rules that there is salvation outside the Church."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the Feeneyites themselves are quick to (correctly) point out, that letter was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) where all official acts of the Church are registered. Without such registration it has no magisterial force, and officially does not exist as far as the Church is concerned. I only use those parts that express the True teaching and explain why Feeney was investigated and ultimately excommunicated. It does a poor job (to say the least) of explaining the teaching of the Church. Heretic Fr Karl Rahner used that letter to distort the teaching and make way for his damnable "universal salvation" by being an "anonymous Christian." As my spiritual Father, the late, great Fr. Gommar DePauw used to say about clerics such as Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggianni who wrote that letter, "They didn't become bums overnight." The Modernists had been pushing toward V2 long before 1962.

      Delete
    2. With that statement, Introibo, I have to say that your position on BOD is pretty close to that held by St. Thomas, Saint Alfonsus, and others, which I cannot call heretical, although I am so bold as to disagree with it. No pope has ever condemned, although many, I believe, have taught contrary to it.

      Those Saints, however, all held that one must explicitly hold the Catholic faith in order to receive BOD. I believe you have said implied faith is sufficient. Correct me if I'm wrong.

      Delete
    3. Let me make clear: Invincible ignorance does not--indeed cannot---save anyone. However, those in such ignorance will be excused for not having the Faith. If they live honest lives, are always open to God's Grace and willing to please Him, God can avail them sanctifying Grace and infuse them with the Faith (therefore no longer ignorant) just prior to death in order to be saved. It is a miracle, it is rare, and we must not think every native in a backwards place will be saved like this so as to neglect the Great Commission.

      Delete
  6. Then what's the point of being catholic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BOD and BOB are rare and miraculous exceptions to entering the Church by sacramental Baptism. What you're asking is analogous to inquiring, "Then what's the point of eating?" Since God could miraculously allow someone to live without eating as was the case with certain saints who only received Communion and never took food there's no point in eating

      Delete
  7. I will just desire to be catholic, it's all good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In your case, you should desire to understand Church teaching. Then you would understand why your statement above is anything but good, and completely ignorant.

      Delete