This past week, a Feeneyite came and engaged me on a recent post regarding Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB). The exchange can be read at the bottom of the comments section at the following post:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/07/feeneyite-follies.html. Besides the same old script I've come to expect from the followers of Fred and Bobby Dimond's "Most Holy Family Monastery" (MHFM), there is another disturbing error they propagate which causes no small amount of angst among married Traditionalist couples; the absurd notion that the married are bound (by the natural law and Divine positive law) to have the most children possible. In response to the Feeneyite's attack on BOD and BOB, I cited Pope Pius XII's 1951 Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives:
"If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..."(Emphasis mine).
In response, the Feeneyite had this to write: "Pope Pius XII was wrong in his Address to Midwives, it's normal, he was not protected by infallibility. Pius XII and theologians considered "limiting children" using natural family planning even though Pius IX wrote against this. Even though this is not natural. It's not natural to limit the number of children, but Pope Pius XII thought it was, he also thought in that case BOD could fit his desire to explain what he wanted, but he was also wrong."
This is so loaded with errors, it's sad. First, they believe it possible for a pope in his official capacity to teach error as long as it's not ex cathedra. Second, the followers of MHFM don't follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion: If Pope Pius XII taught heresy as a private theologian, he would by Divine Law fall from the pontificate; yet Fred and Bobby consider Pope Pius XII a true pope.
What I really want to revisit is Church teaching on the use of periodic abstinence ("PA") sometimes called "the rhythm method," or "Natural Family Planning" (NFP). I am talking about authentic Church teaching and not the NFP taught by the Vatican II sect. In Genesis 1:28 we read about Adam and Eve: "And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth." (Emphasis mine). However, does this mandate require married couples to have as many children as physically possible? Was Pope Pius IX against PA? Is it "unnatural" to use PA, and a mortal sin as claimed by Fred and Bobby Dimond? The answers to these questions will be examined.
Church Teaching on Marriage
1. Marriage is of Divine Institution
"God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." (See encyclical Arcanum Divinae para. # 3; Emphasis mine).
2. Marriage was Raised by Jesus Christ to the Dignity of a Sacrament
From the Council of Trent:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the New law, instituted by Christ the Lord; but that it has been invented by men in the Church; and that it does not confer grace; let him be anathema.
3. The Primary Purpose of Marriage is the Procreation and Education of Children
The Code of Canon Law (1917), Canon 1013 section 1 states, "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. It’s secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence."
4. The Secondary Purpose of Marriage is Mutual Help and Allaying of Concupiscence
In addition to the Code just cited, we have the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Arcanum Divinae:
"Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity." (para. #11)
Is Periodic Continence The Same As Artificial Contraception and Thereby Evil?
Periodic Abstinence (or "PA" as above) is the practice of purposefully limiting the marital act to sterile periods. Feeneyites, and others who hold to the absurd idea that PA is the moral equivalent of contraception, fail to make various distinctions. First and foremost, they reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). The unanimous teachings of the approved theologians is to be discarded, and only private interpretations of ex cathedra statements is to be believed. They fall under the condemnation of Pope Pius IX in the 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.
The UOM is equally infallible to the Extraordinary Magisterium. Nevertheless, we are bound in conscience to believe e.g., teachings of papal encyclicals, decrees of Roman Congregations, etc., with reverential acceptance. Pope Pius IX taught in Tuas Libenter :
The Church has always held artificial contraception to be intrinsically evil. Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii:
"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." (para. #54; Emphasis mine).
The dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church guarantees that the Church cannot give to Her members that which is evil or erroneous. Hence, if PA was equivalent to artificial contraception, it would indeed be against both the Natural Law and Divine Positive Law. The Church would be incapable of sanctioning PA if it were intrinsically evil. Yet, as will be shown below, the Church has sanctioned PA, therefore it is not the equivalent of artificial contraception, nor in any sense "intrinsically evil."
1. Three Times the Holy Office of the Sacred Penitentiary Approved PA
The Sacred Penitentiary, the official Church body that decides definitively questions of morality, especially as they pertain to the sacrament of Penance, rendered three decisions on PA under three different popes.
March 2, 1853. During the reign of Pope Pius IX, the Sacred Penitentiary was asked, "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?"
Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation."
This gives the lie to the Feeneyite who claimed Pope Pius IX condemned PA.
June 16, 1880. During the reign of Pope Leo XIII, two pertinent questions were submitted to the Sacred Penitentiary:
1. Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin?
2. Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism (i.e., "withdrawal") of her husband but cannot correct him; or to either spouse who shrinks from having numerous children?
Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism."
June 20, 1932. Under Pope Pius XI, the Sacred Penitentiary was asked, "Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons."
Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880." [It reaffirmed the 1880 decision in full].
2. The Teachings of the approved theologians give the green light to PA
The decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary should end the matter. However, we also have the testimony of the approved theologians who teach in favor of PA. None of them were ever censured for their teachings. Had PA been against Natural and Divine positive Law, the popes would have an obligation to condemn those teachings and the theologians who taught them. What good is a Magisterium that can't teach and allows error to go unchecked? The Church would be allowing Her children to believe and practice something evil; but the Indefectibility of the Church will not allow such. Here is a sampling of some of the major approved theologians of the 20th century before Vatican II:
According to theologian Jone:
"Abstaining from intercourse during this [infertile] period has come to be known as the Rhythm Method of Birth Control [later NFP]. For a proportionate reason and with the mutual consent of husband and wife it is lawful intentionally to practice periodic continence, i.e., restrict intercourse to those times when conception is impossible...[it is subject to three conditions] (1) Both parties must freely agree to the restrictions it involves; (2)The practice must not constitute an occasion of sin, especially the sin of incontinence; (3) There must be a proportionately grave reason for not having children, at least for the time being." ( See Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 542).
According to theologian Prummer:
"To make use of the so-called safe period has been declared lawful..." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1955], pg. 413).
According to theologians McHugh and Callan:
"(b) If birth control refers to a means of family limitation, it is lawful when that means is continence or abstinence from marital relations, not if it is onanism or the use of mechanical or chemical means to prevent conception." (See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:604; Emphasis in original).
The primary theologian who drafted the monumental encyclical Casti Connubii (1930), which condemned artificial contraception, was Fr. Arthur Vermeersch. The encyclical was a response the the Anglican sect which became the first denomination calling itself "Christian" to allow artificial contraception among married couples. I mention Vermeersch because one of the biggest complaints by MHFM supporters against PA is that the intention and purpose of PA is the same as artificial contraception.
Let us remember that the intrinsic end of an action is that which tends towards it's very nature. (For example, almsgiving has the intrinsic purpose of giving relief to one in need). Extrinsic motives don't change the nature of an action. For example, someone might engage in the act of almsgiving to flaunt his wealth and to receive praise from people rather than caring for the poor. However, the nature of the act is unaffected--the poor do indeed obtain relief. (See e.g., theologian Prummer, Ibid, pg. 5).
Vermeersch and canonist Bouscaren, in What is Marriage?(1932), a catechism based on Casti Connubii, point out:
"As long as the [marital] act takes place normally it remains objectively directed towards its primary end, which is generation; and since, according to the maxim that the purpose of the law is not within the matter of the law (finis legis non cadit sub legem), there is no obligation, while observing the law, to intend the end for which it was promulgated, it follows that the act is not necessarily vitiated by deliberately choosing a certain time with the intention of avoiding conception. (pg. 44; Emphasis mine)
Who better would understand the intent of the encyclical than the theologian who wrote it under the direction of Pope Pius XI? However, is it the purpose of marriage to have as many children as physically possible? In a word: No. This will be discussed in the next section.
3. The Practice of the Church
That the Church has not "defined" marriage as a Sacrament meant only and exclusively to be used as a vehicle by which the marital act must produce as many children as physically possible is proven by: (a) the fact that the Church does not prohibit couples past their fertile years from engaging in the marital act, and (b) She has never condemned or prohibited senior citizens (e.g., a 70 year old widower and a 68 year old widow) from getting married even though it is obvious the union cannot produce any children.
To those who object that married couples are required to have as many children as physically possible (usually citing St. Catherine of Sienna who was the 25th of 25 children), the Church teaches no such thing. Married couples should be generous and have many children. However, God's plan is different for each couple. According to theologian John O'Brien, "Contrary to the impression that prevails in some quarters, there is no obligation on any couple to beget any specific number of children, much less to give birth to the largest number possible." (See Lawful Birth Control, [1934], pgs. 61-62).
The proper principle is to use the sacrament of Matrimony as God intended; to bring the man and woman closer to each other and closer to Him; begetting children insofar as the couple may be able to do so under their circumstances in life.
Conclusion
Married couples should be as generous as possible in having and properly educating children. PA should be used for serious reason after consulting a Traditionalist priest. The reasons for using PA may be explored in a future post. For now, I want to dispel the errors of MHFM and their followers who reject Church teaching in yet another area, and burden the conscience of married couples unnecessarily. Married couples should multiply and fill the Earth with good Traditionalist Catholic children; but do so only after you add the true teaching and wisdom of the Church to your actions, divided from the errors of MHFM and their followers.
Feeneyism and the error that periodic continence is contraception have nothing to do with each other, and yet in practice the two almost always go together, and there are very few anti-NFP people who are not also Feeneyites. This has always puzzled me. Do you have any thoughts on this?
ReplyDeleteOh, and we could throw in home-alonism too. It seems that most home-aloners also confuse periodic continence with artificial contraception. But among normal trads of whatever type who go to church, the errors condemned in this article are almost entirely unknown.
@anon6:26
DeleteI think the basic problem with all of the sects claiming to be Traditionalist Catholics, (Feeneyites, Home Aloners, Apparitionists, etc. ALL REJECT HOW THE CHURCH TEACHES. They discard the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium and disparage the approved theologians. See my post
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-source-of-problem.html?m=1
In addition, I see cult-like behavior with Feeneyites. As a friend of mine said, “They have a certain sickness of soul.” I agree. Feeney himself built a cult with his “Slaves of the Immaculate Heat Of Mary.” Married people lived as “nuns” and “brothers” raising their children in a whacky commune like “older siblings.” This not only runs contrary to Natural and Divine Positive Law, it’s a form of child abuse as children have a right to be raised by authoritative parents not wannabe brothers and nuns.
The followers of MHFM all have the same “script.” Verbatim parroting Of Fred and Bobby Dimond, refusal to read or consider anything that opposes them, and unhealthy obsessions with bizarre topics (such as UFOs and claiming people are possessed because of the shape of their head [James White] or because they move a pencil around like a magic wand [Michael Voris]).
The errors are more prevalent than you might imagine. I’ve come across a couple of Feeneyites in Traditionalist Chapels spreading error. Thank God the “normal trads” as you put it are the clear majority!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
I see cult-like behavior with the CMRI sect.
Delete@anon5:39
DeleteWhat “cult-like” behavior would that be today (not in the time of Schuckardt)?
—-Introibo
While reading your post, I reached this point towards the end (reproduced below) that I had a small issue with.
ReplyDelete"The proper principle is to use the sacrament of Matrimony as God intended; to bring the man and woman closer to each other and closer to Him; begetting children insofar as the couple may be able to do so under their circumstances in life."
However, as you also demonstrated earlier in the post, the Catholic Church teaches that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation and education of children, with a secondary purpose being union and mitigating concupiscence. To me at least it seems as if your conclusion conflicts slightly with what the Church states on marriage, but perhaps there is something I'm missing? I agree that couples are not duty bound to have as many children as possible of course, and an even nobler station of marriage is voluntary celibacy among couples, but these are extraordinary cases, not the norm.
In short, it seems to me that saying couples begetting children as their own circumstances allows can conflict with the primary purpose of marriage, or not give it the proper consideration.
@neyoriquans,
DeleteI understand what you’re saying, so let me clarify. The “primary purpose” does not mean “indispensable” for if it did, sterile people and senior citizens would not be permitted to marry. To give something primary importance, means being as generous as the circumstances in which God placed you permit. Therefore, a woman who marries later in life and has serious medical issues, may only be able to bear one or two children, whereas a young and healthy woman who marries may have seven children or more. Is procreation and the education of children primary in both situations? Absolutely.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Got it, can't argue with that. Thanks for the clarification, God bless!
DeleteDear Anonymous @ 6:26
ReplyDeleteFeeneyism seems like Jansenistic thought, to me. Pride of mind can cause some people to make up ever more strict "rules" that neither Christ nor the Church ever taught. It seems to appeal to the very scrupulous, who need to get a handle on their condition as it tends to be so suffocating in its strictures that they often end up seeking relief by throwing off the entirety of Catholic Doctrine and going straight back to pure naturalism, leaving them worse off than before.
...IMHO
Jannie,
DeleteYou make an excellent point!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
You omitted the sections from Pope Pius XII’s Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession most relevant to your topic, and you provided no link to the address. The most relevant portions are these:
ReplyDelete“The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. THEREFORE, TO EMBRACE THE MATRIMONIAL STATE, TO USE CONTINUALLY THE FACULTY PROPER TO SUCH A STATE AND LAWFUL ONLY THEREIN, AND, AT THE SAME TIME, TO AVOID ITS PRIMARY DUTY WITHOUT A GRAVE REASON, WOULD BE A SIN AGAINST THE VERY NATURE OF MARRIED LIFE.
“Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called ‘indications,’ may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.”
The address is located here: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12midwives.htm
While the point that periodic abstinence is not always prohibited and couples are not required to have as many children as possible is taken, I think you insufficiently emphasize that a couple must have a GRAVE REASON to practice periodic abstinence, as Pope Pius XII stated, or else they are in a state of SIN. If one believes Pius XII was the last true Pope, one must obey his guidance that a GRAVE REASON must be present to use periodic abstinence, since he had the last Catholic word on the matter. I think it is safe to say that the great bulk of traditionalists are either abusing periodic abstinence or are on artificial contraception, because so few of them have large Catholic families.
Additionally, periodic abstinence was only to be taught only “cautiously” and under certain circumstances (although the cat is now out of the bag with the widespread dissemination of information through the internet, the secular media, and the secular educational system).
The context of this debate is covered in more detail here, pages 67-97 (Note: I do not support sedevacantist clergy operating under invalid or doubtfully valid orders and without Papal jurisdiction): https://archive.org/details/ContraCrawfordBoD/page/n79
@anon10:59
DeleteI agree with you that there must be sufficiently grave reason for PA. That’s the teaching of the approved theologians as well as Pope Pius IX through Pope Pius XII.
I would not be so fast to judge Traditionalist couples. Only God knows if they are abusing PA without grave reason. I know many couples who want children very much but can’t conceive for various reasons, none of which are sinful.
Lastly, I don’t know what you mean by Sedevacantist clergy invalidly or dubiously ordained without papal jurisdiction. I can only guess you’re either a Home Aloner or R&R
—-Introibo
MHFM goes off the rails in so many areas and they always seem to know more than Popes, theologians, etc. I guess MHFM has some kind of gnostic cult going on as they always seem to have "special" knowledge that only a few "special" people possess and, therefore, are the only "real" remanant
ReplyDeleteleft. Legalism without being tempered with Grace is as determintal as all grace without works. "The truth lies in the middle" is something totally foreign to MHFM and Fenneyites. Just my 2 cents worth.
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteYour observation is very true!
—-Introibo
I believe Pius XI taught in Casti Connubi #53, at least in the translations I have seen. He even went so far as to call it virtuous.
ReplyDeleteDavid.
David,
DeleteThank you for bringing this to my attention. Casti Connubii #53 reads,
“And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through VIRTUOUS CONTINENCE (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.” (From the Modernist Vatican website; Emphasis mine).
PA or “periodic continence” is indeed called “Virtuous” by Pope Pius XI.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Wasn't Pope Pius XI referring to in #53 permanent abstinence rather than periodic abstinence?
Delete@anon4:42
DeleteNo. Theologian Vermeersch tells us differently. He wrote the encyclical under the direct supervision with Pope Pius XI.
—-Introibo
What is the exact source that Pius XI meant periodic continence? He doesn't qualify it by mentioning that it is only allowed through grave reasons. He simply says that the couple may practice it when both parties consent.
Delete@anon6:15
DeleteIt is in the unanimous teachings of the theologians (including Vermeersch) and was expressly declared by Pope Pius XII in his Address to the Midwives.
—-Introibo
There is no dispute that a couple may avoid, without sin, having children by practicing complete, permanent abstinence provided both parties consent, and they do not need grave reasons to do so. I believe this is what Pope Pius XI was referring to.
DeleteIs there a specific source that says Pope Pius XI was referring to period continence in #53? Perhaps a quote from Vermeersch?
@anon6:39
DeleteAccording to Theologian Sutherland in “Laws Of Life (1936), “... [Vermeersch] who drafted the text of Casti Connubii did not want the popularization of the rhythm method except to couples who would otherwise use contraception...it ‘should not be the ordinary state of conjugal relations’...”
Pope Pius XII made this principle very clear.
—-Introibo
I am still not seeing how the continence referred to in Casti Connubii was periodic and not permanent. The phrase "carefully avoided" would seem to indicate permanent continence since, by your own admission, periodic abstinence leaves open the possibility of conception.
DeleteRegarding Vermeersch's opposition to the "popularization of the rhythm method," the modifier "except to couples who would otherwise use contraception" renders any attempt to restrict the teaching meaningless, particularly in today's world, since the vast majority of people (other than those who are infertile, etc.) practice artificial contraception. Even back in the 1920s and 1930s, before the Pill, large numbers of people were using other forms of artificial contraception. By teaching sinning contraceptors to use periodic abstinence but not teaching it to the good people who are not contracepting, one would effectively be rewarding sin and penalizing virtue, since the ex-contraceptors would be allowed to reduce licitly their chances at pregnancy through periodic abstinence, while the non-contraceptors wouldn’t. That doesn’t seem right to me.
In Vermeersch’s defense, his view was in line with the Holy Office of the Sacred Penitentiary statement of 1880 that confessors could recommend periodic abstinence to couples practicing forms of contraception, without the restriction of grave reasons being necessary. Casti Connubii was given in 1930, before the “grave causes” restriction, which came in 1932.
I’ll ask it again in another way. Since the 1880 Holy Office statement said that periodic continence should be recommended only “cautiously,” why would Vermeersch and Pope Pius XI give it such prominence by mentioning it in an encyclical and characterizing it as “virtuous”? Wouldn’t the label “virtuous” make people want to practice it, in order to be virtuous?
Delete@anon9:13
DeleteTelling contraception-using couples to use PA is seen as a way to get the couple back on the right path. As Vermeersch said “it should not be the ordinary state of conjugal relations.”
Furthermore, let us not forget that Pope Pius XII And the approved theologians made “grave causes” very clear. This was true during the reign of Pope Pius XI, and he certainly would have censured or corrected any theologians who taught a restriction that does not exist.
—-Introibo
@anon10:00
DeleteSomething may be virtuous in itself at all times (such as almsgiving), and something may be virtuous under certain circumstances (such as going cold turkey to kick a drug habit). It doesn’t logically follow that one should become addicted to drugs in order to stop.
In Holy Matrimony, spouses have rights over each other’s bodies. They have a right to use marital relations whenever they wish (as long as contraception is not employed). There is even a positive duty to render marital relations to one’s spouse (called the marriage “debt”). Yet serious circumstances may arise in which e.g., the woman has health issues and should not get pregnant. Rather than using artificial contraception, they virtuously limit themselves by PA.
According to the eminent theologian Vermeersch and canonist Bouscaren, in “What is Marriage?,” a catechism based on Casti Connubii, points out: "Let us observe that there is a great difference between the practice of birth control and the restricted use of marriage of which we speak. The abuses of birth control can be practised constantly, they give free reign to passion, they do not demand the exercise of any moral force whatever; whereas this limited use of marriage requires, for voluntary abstinence on certain days, a moral force the exercise of which is not without social value." (pg. 44).
That moral force may rightfully be called virtuous.
—-Introibo
If the "marriage bed is undefiled" why all the talk among Trads that married people abstaining from sex is something to be lauded? While the Vatican II Priests and many before Vatican II can't keep their hands and body parts off little children. It is pathetic and nauseating to say the least.
ReplyDelete@anon4:20
DeleteThe marriage bed is indeed undefiled. It is permitted for spouses to voluntarily renounce the marital debt as penance to God, for celibacy and virginity are superior states, but it is not necessary (and in 99% of all cases, not advisable).
As to pedophiles, yes, there have always been some horrific clergy, starting with Judas Iscariot. The sheer numbers of them increased exponentially due to (a) the infiltration perpetrated by the Communists who put sodomites into the seminaries, and (b) the acceptance of those same sodomites and the allowing of others to freely enter by the Modernists.
—-Introibo
@anon6:52
DeleteI agree with you on the V2 sect and sodomites. I’m not certain who you mean by “you” preaching celibacy to married couples. Let me be clear that I have not and do not preach that; and for the record I’m a married man.
—-Introibo
I always refer people to this: http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.html when the subject is brought up. All the isms, ites, and nist out there suffer a sickness of some type. It seems like the our position (St. Peter's chair being vacant) draws them all in. I wish it would draw more sound minded people in. At this point I'm tired of all of them.
ReplyDeleteLee
Lee,
DeleteYes, I grow weary of them too. Many Millennials are drawn to what they perceive to be extreme positions. Two young men in their late teens contacted me via the comments wanting to be priests, yet just discovering Traditionalists. They quickly moved on; one became an atheist/Marxist and the other became a Neo-Nazi. Scary times!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Referring to isms, ites, etc., there was no one sicker than Francis Schuckardt the founder of CMRI and have also read he was the one who came up with the idea of Sedevacantism!
Delete@anon8:44
DeleteSchukardt was sick without a doubt. However, the CMRI purged themselves of him and are today a respectable Traditionalist order. Sedevacantism is taught by the Church pre-Vatican II. It is a theological principle not something someone invented. Those who correctly applied that principle to Vatican II from the outset include theologian Gerard des Lauriers, theologians Moises Carmona, And Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, author of “The New Montinian Church.”
—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI suppose the following link is bogus regarding Schuckardt?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schuckardt
@anon9:18
DeleteI read the Wikipedia article and don’t see anything bogus, although Wikipedia is not to be considered a reliable source. It never claims Schuckardt “invented” Sedevacantism.
—-Introibo
If Schuckardt didn't invent Sedevacantism, he implemented it.
Delete@anon10:32
DeleteThat distinction goes to the three clerics I named above.
—-Introibo
Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga book the New Montinian Church is a great book. I have a copy in English. Our world has come to the point of going to Wikipedia. Might as well watch NBC and CNN news "the most trusted" and reliable news networks.
ReplyDeleteLee
Lee,
DeleteGreat book! And, yes, disinformation is at an all time high.
—-Introibo
I could come up with other cites beside Wikipedia, even articles by people who personally knew Schuckardt, but it wouldn't do any good as people only want to see what they want to see, and then blame news media,journalists, etc., whoever doesn't agree with them.
Delete@anon5:30
DeleteI agree that Schuckardt was evil and sick. However, he isn’t the “inventor” or “implementor” Of Sedevacantism.
—-Introibo
Anon. 5:30
DeleteThe CMRI conditionally re-ordained their priests by Bp. George Musey back in the 80's and they got rid of Schuckardt because he was a scandal and a fraud. They've had nothing to do with him for the last 35 yrs or so. They profess the Catholic faith. If the Novus ordo renounced everything including Vatican II and re-did all their Holy Orders etc. and professed the Catholic Faith I would consider them Catholic as well, but the problem is it's not going to happen unless the greatest miracle of all time happens.
What do you suggest we do Anonymous 5:30 AM since your so worried about trying to expose others?
Lee
Anonymous 10:22
DeleteI'm not sensitive at all for exposing Schuckardt for what he was. I even said he was a fraud. You shouldn't throw guilt by association with those who now have nothing to do with him though. I don't guilt all Novus ordos by association because of the numerous pedophile priests, but I do go after what they believe and it's not Catholicism any longer.
My question to you the first time was simple. If you don't think the CMRI or possibly any of the other sedevacantist clergy are okay to go to, then who do you suggest we go to and why?
Lee
From 10:22 AM: "The V2 sect covered up and made excuses for pedophile Priests too and didn't want them exposed."
DeleteYour use of the word "too" indicates two parties did the action you described. Since the only two parties in this conversation are the CMRI and the Novus Ordo church, this means you are saying that the CMRI also "covered up and made excuses for pedophile priests." This is a slander, and nothing could be further from the truth. The CMRI exposed Schuckhardt for the scumbag that he was, expelled him in disgrace, and re-ordained the priests whom he had ordained, just in case. This happened several decades ago, so it's really old news.
Maybe you should read the article published by half of the CMRI nuns that left the convent.
DeleteIntroibo, On the subject of contraceptives such as "the pill", I have noticed that alot of women who take the pill are obese. The pill alters a women's hormones substantially and that altered state is not normal. I have noticed that women from before the pre-pill era were slim and obesity was a rarity. Also, could the alteration of a woman's hormones for prolonged periods of time while on the pill be the cause or contribute to the feminization we see in the men born to these women?
Delete@anon5:49
DeleteMaybe you should be more careful in making accusations. I’m highly reticent in calling any group a cult, unless they use a type of force to keep people in or prevent people from leaving. Scientology is a bona fide cult. The V2 sect is a false religion or “sect” not a cult; even though the practice of systematic raping children and hiding the perpetrators makes them an abomination.
I’ve been a Traditionalist for 38 years and I’ve seen much. Fr DePauw was calumniated many times by disgruntled people who left the Chapel when he did something with which they would disagree. One member of the V2 sect, a former V2 “priest” called the Chapel a cult and anyone who attended (including me) was “brainwashed.” I gave him a strong rebuke that he probably still remembers to this day.
The sickness under Schuckardt is undeniable. A letter written by nuns who apostatize to the V2 sect and which allegations are denied by CMRI hardly rises to the level of believability. Feeney’s “Slaves” literally devolved into a cult and their practices were confirmed not only on multiple lines of evidence, but freely admitted by all involved.
You clearly have an axe to grind.
—-Introibo
Joann,
DeleteThe pill has been linked to all manner of evil, including an increased risk of breast cancer. Your question about it contributing to the feminization of men is an excellent one. I actually never thought about it until you brought it up. You’ve given me something to consider. I learn much from my readers!
Thank you, Joann!
—-Introibo
Introibo, From what I understand the birth control pill, when it was first approved by the FDA in 1960, had alot of Estrogen. The side effects were supposed to be terrible due to the high Estrogen. Later, the Lo-Estrogen pill was formulated to decrease the side effects. I have known several women who got brain tumors on their hypothalamus. The one thing they all had in common was taking the birth control pill for years! The hypothalamus is affected greatly by Estrogen.
Delete"The hypothalamus regulates a number of homeostatic functions including reproduction, temperature, energy balance, stress, and motivated behaviors. Estrogen targets all of the major hypothalamic neuroendocrine and autonomic cellular groups to activate multiple signaling pathways."
Whenever I tell people my theory that birth control pills may be causing tumors on the hypothalamus, I am looked at like I have 3 heads, as people need their pills regardless the consequences. I believe the pill causes a multitude of disorders, which would never be acknowledged by the medical community as the multitudes have to have their poisioness contraceptives. There probably would be riots if they were taken off the market!!
Joann,
DeleteYes, the “sexual revolution” began with contraception and now wants us to accept everything perverse.
—-Introibo
Relevant links on the Pill:
DeleteAbortifacient Brief: The Birth Control Pill
#1. The Pill can cause abortion.
#4. The high-dose pill was replaced by a pill that causes frequent abortion.
#5. The mini‑pill is usually an abortifacient.
https://www.hli.org/resources/abortifacient-brief-birth-control-pill/
Effect of oral contraceptive progestins on serum copper concentration.
“OBJECTIVES: Recent epidemiologic studies have shown an INCREASED MORTALITY FROM CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES IN PEOPLE WITH HIGHER SERUM COPPER LEVELS. Even though higher serum copper concentration in women using oral contraceptives is well known, there is still uncertainty about the influence of newer progestin compounds in oral contraceptives on serum copper concentration. This issue is of particular interest in the light of recent findings of an increased risk of venous thromboembolism in users of oral contraceptives containing newer progestins like desogestrel compared to users of other oral contraceptives.”
“CONCLUSION: WHILE ELEVATED SERUM COPPER CONCENTRATION WAS FOUND IN USERS OF ALL TYPES OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES, elevation was more pronounced among women taking oral contraceptives with antiandrogen effective progestins like antiandrogens or third generation oral contraceptives containing desogestrel. Further investigation is required to shed light on the possible role of high serum copper concentration in increasing cardiovascular or thrombotic risk of women using oral contraceptives.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9805216
Women's Brains on Steroids: Birth control pills appear to remodel brain structure
“…birth control pills have structural effects on regions of the brain that govern higher-order cognitive activities, suggesting that a woman on birth control pills may literally not be herself -- or is herself, on steroids.”
“The researchers found that males have considerably larger areas of gray matter in brain regions associated with learning and memory, known as the parahippocampal gyrus and hippocampus, as well as an area associated with emotional regulation, the amygdala. These data are consistent with many studies that provide evidence for gender differences in brain and behavior.”
“…women using hormonal contraceptives showed larger gray matter volumes in the prefrontal cortex, pre- and postcentral gyri, the parahippocampal and fusiform gyri and temporal regions, when compared to naturally cycling women.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/womens-brains-on-steroids/
If you wonder why women today act so masculine and aggressive, these chemicals from the Pill most of them take probably have a lot to do with it. While the article tries to take an agnostic stance on it, suggesting it may improve performance but that there may be negative side effects and claiming more research needs to be done, I am sure that the Talmudists who developed and sell the Pill know exactly what effects it has and health and behavior and consider them a feature, not a bug.
So oral contraceptives accomplish three goals of the Antichrist. First, and primarily, they reduce the number of people being brought into the world. Second, they help undo the differences that God created between men and women by making women act like men. (Genesis 1:27: And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.) Third, they apparently reduce the lifespan of women.
By the way, the “father of the Pill,” Carl Djerassi, was a “Jew,” as was his colleague George Rosenkranz.
@anon7:08
DeleteThank you for the information!
—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThe birth control pill was FDA approved in 1960. Fast forward to 1998 and "the little blue pill", Viagra,received FDA approval.
"At the time of its approval, Viagra had the fastest initial sales growth following its launch of any prescription product, reaching 2008 sales of close to $2 billion. Pfizer promoted Viagra and ED awareness via direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising, which prompted men to seek medical advice and a prescription from their doctors".
https://www.drugs.com/slideshow/Viagra-little-blue-pill-1043
Just as there are repercussions of "the pill", Viagra is not without it's repercussions. However, not much is discussed or published regarding it's dangers. "Men who take Viagra 'put their fertility at risk'".
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/24/medicalresearch.health
There is much abuse of Viagra and, men who find they can't conceive need to take a good look at their use/abuse of "the little blue pill"!
I find it ironic that in 1960 the birth control pill which contributed to free sex without getting pregnant was followed up in 1998 by "the little blue pill". Men, therefore, could perform the sex act whenever they wanted, however, Viagra is leading them to become infertile!
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteThank you for pointing this out. Another testament to the sick world in which we live.
—-Introibo
Introibo, Can you tell me where the idea of "Universal Salvation" originated? Does it have it's origin in Masonary? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteJoAnn
Joann,
DeleteUniversalism has a long history. It predates Masonry by at least 1,500 years. The early Theologian Origen (d. Circa 250 AD) was a proponent of that heresy. It’s been around a long time and does not have a single “founder.”
—-Introibo
You said: "Most Holy Family Monastery" (MHFM), there is another disturbing error they propagate which causes no small amount of angst among married Traditionalist couples; the absurd notion that the married are bound (by the natural law and Divine positive law) to have the most children possible."
ReplyDeleteI've never seen MHFM say that married couples are bound to have as many children as possible. Rather, they say that NFP is wrong because it takes positive steps to avoid a pregnancy while the couple intends to have relations. You have therefore misrepresented their position by making it seem as if MHFM says Catholic teaching requires a couple to have relations as much as possible, so that they can have as many children as they can; but MHFM doesn't say such a thing. You are a very dishonest person - a liar. You lie about others repeatedly. Why do you feel the need to lie and misrepresent other people's positions? It's because you are evil, and your arguments are so weak that you feel the need to construct strawmen.
By the way, NFP is not "virtuous continence". It is a selfish scheme to avoid the primary purpose of the marriage act while having relations, and you probably wrote this dishonest article because you commit that sin of birth control and you are trying to justify yourself.
Hi Fred! (Or is it Bobby?)
DeleteNice of you to visit my blog and make your latest rounds of ad hominem attacks! If by off chance it’s not either of you, the syntax of your followers is so cult-like as to be positively frightening!
It’s hard to misrepresent two idiots who like to play “Benedictines” and change their doctrines more frequently than their underwear. The undynamic duo used to frequently use the example of St Catherine Of Sienna and ask “Imagine if her parents stopped at 24 children? We wouldn’t have a great saint!” Many MHFM followers said the same about “maximal children.”
Perhaps, their doctrine has changed to what you state—which is still against Church teaching.
Some examples of their hypocrisy and ever changing “dogmas”:
* You can attend the Mass of a Traditionalist priest who is a “heretic” for believing in BOD and BOB as long as you don’t contribute money. This was discarded without admission of being wrong, and replaced by an equally wrong conclusion. Stay Home Alone.
* An Una Cum Mass is one of the most evil sins you can commit; you may NEVER attend. Yet Fred and Bobby attended an Eastern Rite V2 sect church that uses the name of the false pope in the Anaphora (their Canon)
* citations to non-ex cathedra sources can only be used if it supports something with which MHFM agrees
* If one of the many theologians, such as Doctor Of The Church St Alphonsus Liguori, believed in BOD and BOB, it was an “innocent mistake.” However, if you believe what St Alphonsus taught in conformity with the Church, you are a heretic going to Hell.
*Praying 15 decades of the Rosary is most laudatory, but it has been elevated to the status of some “requirement to save your soul.” The MHFM followers pretty much make that claim.
So who knows what Fred and Bobby are teaching today? One thing is certain: it’s not Catholic.
For the record, my wife and I do not practice contraception. PA is not a sin as confirmed by the decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary under three popes and the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians. The Church disagrees with you. So if there’s someone guilty of sin—-it’s YOU!
—-Introibo
This is a good article that exposes the kinds of difficulties one runs into when one's "trad intuition" runs amok, when people begin to pore over any and all teachings and measure them against some personal rule of orthodoxy. An awareness and appreciation of how the Church teaches (not just WHAT the Church teaches) is absolutely critical if you don't want to become a Protestant with sacraments.
DeleteSomething I would like to draw into sharper focus is the fact that that precept to procreate is a positive precept. It is, in that respect, like the precept to go to mass. Positive precepts are, in principle, dispensable. That is opposed to negative precepts (for example, the negative precept in Casti Connubii against violating the natural law by means of contraceptive devices) which, of their very nature, are binding on all people at all times and in all places and under all circumstances.
As such, the Church's insistence on the intrinsic lawfulness of PC is simply a recognition that positive precepts do not always bind, combined with the fact that (in the case of marital relations) there are lawful, secondary ends which can be pursued (indeed, the marital contract *itself* is nothing other than the perpetual giving of one's body to another, as St. Paul tells us, and therefore it carries its *own* sort of positive obligation). The reason I bring this up is that people often operate under the assumption that married people are inalterably obliged to have children to the degree that it is within their biological power. That is a wholesome intuition, and I appreciate its counter-cultural commitment to the importance of having a large family. But it isn't technically correct, and it is a view that is bound to lead one to struggle mightily to accept the teachings of these popes and theologians.
Dylan,
DeleteA very good and important point! I like your term "Protestants with sacraments." You've done God's work in your fight against the Feeneyites, and those who refuse to understand and submit to HOW the Church teaches us!
God Bless,
---Introibo
MHFM said many times having many children is a blessing of God
DeleteMany Saints and Popes were born from large families, and they cited them
Feeneyites: those who believe that BOD is a man made theological speculation and those who reject speculation/confusion taught by Pius XII in his address to midwives. Even if the Address to Midwives were an encyclical, it wouldn't matter since it implies that "adults can be saved without baptism".
DeleteTo imply or say that adults can be saved without water baptism goes against Church dogmatic definitions (ex cathedra), Encyclicals, Bulls and Papal decrees such as this:
"Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Himerius, 385: As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired...."
-------------------------------------
Also it should be noted many believers of BOD and BOB (CMRI priests, SSPX priests, list goes on) hold that jews, pagans, muslims and even the abominable protestants can be saved outside of the Catholic Church. BoD and BoB are man made heresies but many "traditional" priests go as far as to deny Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation and that "a good muslim" or "a good jew" can be saved.
This leave BOD defenders with only two arguments: either misquoting Trent or quoting modernist theologians. For even Saints were wrong on many things but they were validly canonized and their work is good to read and their lives are source of inspiration (people of good faith will realize many Saints wrote or taught things in which they weren't certain). God didn't promise infallibility to Saints, theologians or even to the great doctor St. Thomas Aquinas which taught at least 3 propositions contrary to the dogma of the Church. Still St. Thomas Aquinas is in Heaven for he wasn't an obstinate heretic and he always said he could err but the Church didn't so his work was to be subjected to the Church. BOB/BOD want to put St. Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine work on the same place as the Bible or ex cathedra.
Remember: The Pope can err in encyclicals, especially when they trusted modernist theologians in the 30s, 40s and 50s.
P.S: the greatest error of Fr. Cekada just like earlier theologians is that they not only consider St Thomas Aquinas just as infallible as the Bible but they consider the body of 15 or 16 modernist theologians to have "de fide" authority just like ex cathedra! This is like the mother of all heresies; for the Church never allowed theologians or even Saints to declare and profess dogmas of the Church
If God wanted BoD and BoB to be hold as a dogma he would have allowed a Pope to do this using the power God granted him. God will provide water to every single human being on earth if he wants water Baptism. God won't leave any human being "desiring" for Baptism.
St. Robert Bellarmine Book II, Chap. 10: "We have, as a witness to the fact that Councils of this sort could err, the Council of Carthage under Cyprian, which was national, famous, legitimate and of 85 Bishops, of which many were martyrs or confessors, as is clear from the letter of Cyprian to Jubaianus, and still it erred."
@anon7:00
DeleteYour entire case falls apart. You admit that Pope Pius XII said something that went against dogma. If true, he would have fallen from office for profession of heresy. Delusional Richard Ibranyi is consistent. You are not.
You quote the letter from Pope St Siricus, but wait! It’s not ex cathedra! How do you know he didn’t make a mistake? (It doesn’t even teach what you think, but no matter)
You don’t understand BOD/BOB. Jews, Protestants are not saved as such. God infused both faith and sanctifying grace into the soul just prior to death placing them within the Church as Catholics.
St Thomas Aquinas NEVER taught anything contrary to dogma. The Immaculate Conception—to give but one example—was open to debate by the Church.
The pope cannot err in teaching something of Faith and morals to the whole Church. The Holy Ghost prevents it. You deny the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church. You would need to “pick and choose” what to accept and could never follow an encyclical. Condemned proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors condemns your contention.
The Vatican Council Of 1870 dogmatically decreed that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) is equally infallible as the extraordinary Magisterium. It has defined the truth of BOD/BOB by the unanimous consent of the approved theologians which you reject, like all heretics do.
Feeneyites are non-Catholic heretics who reject how the Church teaches and end up denying the truths of Faith. They are Protestants with Sacraments (credit to Dylan Fellows for that great line)
—-Introibo
@anon4:31
DeleteLarge families are wonderful and I don’t disagree. That doesn’t mean that PA can’t be used for serious reasons and it is not sinful to use it.
—-Introibo
Vatican I criteria for ex cathedra does not match for Pope Pius XII "encyclical" to midwives.
Delete"However, such opposition to the pope must on no account be directed against the Papacy itself. One must never use a disorder, an error, or the passing human weakness of the man himself as an excuse to attack the authority and the institution that he represents, the office that he assumes"
That's the case of Pius XII: we ignore his fallible teaching on BoD. He wasn't a public and notorious heretic. No case against him being Antipope even if you consider he taught heresy on the dogma of Baptism of water.
Is Casti connubii by Pius XI more authoritative than Speech to Midwives? Yes. Is Speech to Midwives ex cathedra? No.
intercourse for pleasure is a sin according to Pius XI and it's logical that people shouldn't care about infertile periods. God will give the couple children if God wants it
@anon12:57
DeleteYou just outed yourself as a "recognize and resister" just as all Feeneyites. YOU decide what you will and will not accept from the popes.
1. If Pope Pius XI forbade intercourse for pleasure, please explain why he approved the use of PA and even called it "virtuous" in paragraph #53
2. Please explain why the Church allows sterile people and the elderly who can't conceive to marry?
If Pope Pius XII endorsed something heretical (which you allege id BOD) then as St Alphonsus and all approved theologians teach:"If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."Oeuvres Completes. 9:232.
---Introibo
Wow, you are an amazing liar, very much in the grip of Satan. You really should meditate upon the commandment: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor, for your violation of it, among other things, places you on the path to Hell.
ReplyDeleteAlmost everything you wrote in your response is a lie. It was also an interesting attempt to divert from your blatant misrepresentation of MHFM's position. You lied about MHFM. That's a fact. You also lied about them in the past when you presented them as believing that pleasure in marital relations is sinful (when they hold no such thing). You really have a problem telling the truth.
With regard to your most recent lies, you say that they "change their doctrines more frequently than their underwear." That's another absurd lie. MHFM's positions on sedevacantism, baptism, salvation, the Catholic faith, core dogmatic teachings have been the same for more than 20 years. Were you always a sedevacantist? I don't think so. So then you changed your position. Were Sanborn and Cekada always sedevacantists? No. You are ridiculous.
Also, you say that MHFM believes "An Una Cum Mass is one of the most evil sins you can commit". That’s a lie. You just made that up, at the instigation of Satan. MHFM has never said that being present at an una cum Mass is in itself off limits. They hold that whether one receives Communion from a priest depends upon how the priest acts and what he believes.
A refutation of your other lies could be given. You commit the grave sin of bearing false witness against your neighbor a lot. It's also pretty obvious from your response that you do use NFP, which is a sinful birth control scheme. A dishonest lawyer who uses NFP, who has no problem lying about others, who is petrified to give his real name yet constantly and hypocritically focuses on what he perceives to be the personal status and credentials of others, is certainly not a person who should be writing on these matters. Such a man rather becomes an instrument of error and the Devil.
Bobby, Fred, or sycophant of same,
DeleteYou write: Wow, you are an amazing liar, very much in the grip of Satan.
Reply: You mean the way MHFM claimed Protestant minister James White was "possessed" because the shape of his bald head "seems to show devil horns"? How about Michael Voris being possessed and a "wizard" because he "waves his pencil like a magic wand"? I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried!!
You write: Almost everything you wrote in your response is a lie.
Reply: It's all true. ALL of it.
You write: You also lied about them in the past when you presented them as believing that pleasure in marital relations is sinful (when they hold no such thing). You really have a problem telling the truth.
Reply: You twisted my words out of context. Richard Ibranyi did hold that position. I never claimed MHFM did. Bring up the quote and cite my exact post. I'll show the twisting.
You write: MHFM's positions on sedevacantism, baptism, salvation, the Catholic faith, core dogmatic teachings have been the same for more than 20 years. Were you always a sedevacantist? I don't think so. So then you changed your position. Were Sanborn and Cekada always sedevacantists? No. You are ridiculous.
Reply: I've outlined above how the Dimonds change position on Mass attendance, and everything I outlined above is true. Moreover, sedevacantism is not a dogma but a logical conclusion. I do not go around calling people "liars" and "heretics" for disagreeing with me on my opinions. Nor do I claim that people commit MORTAL SIN if they disagree. Fred and Bobby have Magisterial authority to declare things sinful??
In a post I wrote about the Dimonds a couple of years ago (http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/05/do-it-yourself-theology.html)
Here is what I wrote in the comments to Fred, Bobby or one of their closest sycophants:
Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, they change positions and either try to explain away inconsistencies or attempt to revise what they previously wrote (much easier to do online than in magazines that may still be circulating, as was the case with the JWs).
The Dimonds believe that you can't go to ANY Mass at all unless (their own made up) list of "requirements" or "conditions" is met. On their website they profess, " I would respond by saying that virtually every Mass that has been offered anywhere for the last century has been offered by a priest who prayed in union with a bishop who was clearly heretical." What was heretical? Belief in Baptism of Desire (BOD) and of Blood (BOB)--or rather their mis-characterization of the issue. This would entail all the bishops since the 1917 Code of Canon Law being heretical. So how could Cardinal Ratti become Pope Pius XI? Or Cardinal Pacelli become Pope Pius XII?
From their website: "My present position on this issue would be that a Catholic may go and receive the sacraments from a validly ordained priest who accepts Benedict XVI as the pope under the conditions explained below. My personal position on this issue, at this point in the apostasy, is that you are not going for the Mass. You are merely going to the church to receive Communion and confession." Note well what he said; "My PRESENT position..." clearly implying he held previous positions at odds with this one! And on what do Fred and Bobby base this "position" ? Why, there own private interpretations of selected quotes, which is not the science of theology! This is "extremely consistent"?
(Above quotes from http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/can-catholics-go-anywhere-to-receive-sacraments-today/#.WST1gtQrKt9)
CONTINUED BELOW
You write: [I'm] A dishonest lawyer who uses NFP, who has no problem lying about others, who is petrified to give his real name yet constantly and hypocritically focuses on what he perceives to be the personal status and credentials of others, is certainly not a person who should be writing on these matters. Such a man rather becomes an instrument of error and the Devil.
DeleteReply: I do not use NFP. This is further proof that MHFM does not follow Church teaching. The Sacred Penitentiary under three true Popes declared PA not sinful. Yet, they were all wrong because it wasn't ex cathedra. This condemns them under proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors. Moreover, two high school graduates with no formal ecclesiastical training or education supersedes the judgement of three popes and all approved theologians who were not only erudite by had authority to teach from the Magisterium. St Alphonsus Liguori wrote about BOD and BOB, and Pope Gregory XVI declared his works "free from the slightest error," yet Fred and Bobby saw the error a pope and his theologians ALL MISSED!!
I keep anonymous because I don't want my family and friends to be antagonized because of my beliefs, and who I am is not important; all glory to God. It is a fact that Fred and Bobby have no Magisterial authority and no formal or ecclesiastical education beyond high school yet they pontificate as to what is and isn't mortal sin. They DARE to called PA a sin when three popes said it WAS NOT SINFUL. It is these two heretical dolts causing error and leading others astray.
As to the charge that I'm under the power of the devil, didn't the Jews make the same claim about Christ Himself being "demon-possessed" because He spoke the Truth? (See St. John 8:48).
It says a lot more about YOU than about me!
---Introibo
Do you draw a distinction between NPF and periodic abstinence or do you consider the terms interchangeable?
Delete@anon7:16
DeleteI draw a distinction as V2 NFP and PA as the former is taught by the V2 sect as if having a family is not important and there not need be serious reason to refrain from having children. It encourages people not to have children in many instances.
—-Introibo
Introibo, you hit the nail on the head with the dimonds. Another point that has now struck me is they hold essentially the R+R position subconsciously. It's a fact that Pius XII taught BOD among other things they disagree with but they say they can just ignore that cause he was "wrong". But wait, isnt he a true Pope? You dont get to just recognize Pius XII as Pope and then disregard and ignore his teachings, that's what the SSPX do whom they rip as schismatic.
ReplyDeleteIt's also funny that they rip on Richard Ibrayni when he at least is consistent with that belief. If what they say is true then at least all the most recent Popes would be heretics but they would lose all credibility if they continued in that train of thought like Richard did, so they just say they are wrong instead of heretics.
I'm so glad I have been woken up from their fog. Another point or too since I'm on it, lol, peter dimond says that Benedict XV explicitly taught the earth may not be the center of the univers(as proof that popes could be wrong on BOD). The quote he gives ironically starts with the word "IF". Its a hypothetical question and Benedict XV is just saying it doesnt matter either way cause it doesnt change the faith, he is not teaching a doctrine on the earth.
They also rip people for not giving them credit, I recently just read "the 4 last things" and found entire pages of that book being used in their "death and the journey into hell" video with zero credence given to the author, I mean almost whole chapters verbatim.
Thanks again for this blog and info. Now Just formally debate them and end this already:)
God bless,
David.
David,
DeleteYou make excellent points--every one the truth! Neither Fred nor Bobby will debate on a neutral forum. They know they will lose followers if they do. However, if they change their minds, I'm willing and ready!
God Bless,
---Introibo
First you are confused
ReplyDelete"First, they believe it possible for a pope in his official capacity to teach error as long as it's not ex cathedra"
Popes did teach heresy in private letters or encyclicals.
It's part of the Church history
This is Catholic Theology 101. Even liberal theologians will agree with this.
Some Saints, bishops and Popes taught heresy in the first 4 centuries. Some of them wrote letters and books of retractions, while others died before having an opportunity to do so.
the rhythm method is modernist nonsense. That's why only modern theologians full of heresy in their minds expanded this theory.
@anon4:30
DeletePopes never taught heresy in encyclicals. If such was true you could never trust the Magisterium of the Church. You have a teaching authority that can't teach.
Feeneyites will only believe in ex cathedra decisions, and ONLY THEIR PRIVATE INTERPRETATIONS OF THOSE DECISIONS. They fall under the condemnation of the Syllabus of Errors; Condemned Proposition #22.
You fail Catholic Theology 101, as does every Feeneyite.
---Introibo
Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation."
ReplyDelete"provided they do nothing that impedes generation"
It's saying that
Question: the doctor said women in day X and Y can't have children, so can we have sex?
Their answer: Do not disturb your wife, "providing you do nothing that impedes generation". So do not have sex with your wife if she the doctor she can't have children X and Y days
No. Using marital rights during infertile periods is not sinful. The Church never taught that it was sinful. What of sterile and elderly couples? Theologian Vermeersch who wrote for the pope makes clear what the pontiff meant.
Delete—-Introibo
Which Pope said couples can have sex during infertile periods?
DeletePope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius XI ALL OF WHOM APPROVED THE DECISIONS OF THE SACRED PENITENTIARY.
Delete---Introibo
Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI said couples can engage in marital rights during infertile periods? canyou please cite them?
Delete@anon11:03
DeleteI just did. The decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary must be approved by the Roman Pontiff.
See also paragraph #53 of Casti Connubii;
53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act.
It was further explained by theologian Vermeersch who wrote the encyclical for the pope.
—-Introibo
virtuous continence = abstinence from sex
DeleteIt is NOT having sex during certain days of the month!
Vermeersch called what you describe as having sex as pleasure on infertile days as "periodic continence". The Pope was talking about virtuous continence (sex self-restraint by the married couple)
Please don't misuse quotes next time, thank you.
@anon9:40
DeleteI misuse nothing. As you no doubt didn’t read/choose to ignore what I wrote in my post above, I’ll reprint it here;
Vermeersch and canonist Bouscaren, in What is Marriage?(1932), a catechism based on Casti Connubii, point out:
"As long as the [marital] act takes place normally it remains objectively directed towards its primary end, which is generation; and since, according to the maxim that the purpose of the law is not within the matter of the law (finis legis non cadit sub legem), there is no obligation, while observing the law, to intend the end for which it was promulgated, it follows that the act is not necessarily vitiated by deliberately choosing a certain time with the intention of avoiding conception.“
Got that? What part of “deliberately choosing a certain time with the intention of avoiding conception” don’t you get?
How about the Sacred Penitentiary and it’s 1932 decision approved by Pope Pius XI? Go read it above.
Then come back and tell me what the pope “really meant” like a good Feeneyite.
—-Introibo
What part of Pius XI encyclical you don't understand?
DeletePius XI: "Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin"
"deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life" = NFP/rhythm method
Clement of Alexandria: "Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the word of Ezekiel: 'Put away your fornications' [Eze. 43:9]. Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor."
"Men who are avaricious and desirous to avoid children as a burden “mutilate nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live. " –St. John Chrysostom, Homily 28 on Matthew 5
@anon5:37
DeleteAs a typical Feeneyite, you think you understand better than the Magisterium. All heretics do. "Frustrated" and "avoided" don't mean the same thing. Rather than discuss scholastic terminology you wouldn't even understand, I difer to POPE PIUS XII in his ADDRESS TO HEMATOLOGISTS in 1958:
We have spoken on this subject in Our address of October 29, 1951, not to expound on the biological or medical point of view, but to allay the qualms of conscience of many Christians who used this method [PA]in their conjugal life. Moreover, in his Encyclical of December 31, 1930, Pius XI had already formulated the position of principle:"It must not be said that those spouses act contrary to the order of nature who utilize their rights properly and in a natural manner, even though a new life cannot be engendered thereby, for some natural reason, such as the time or some defect."
We stated in the discourse delivered in 1951 that married couples who make use of their conjugal rights have a positive obligation; in virtue of the natural law governing their state, not to exclude procreation. The Creator, in effect, wished human beings to propagate themselves precisely by the natural exercise of the sexual function. But to this positive law We applied the principle which holds for all the others: that these positive laws are not obligatory to the extent that their fulfillment involves great disadvantages which are neither inseparable from the law itself nor inherent in its accomplishment, but which come from another source and which the law-maker did not intend to impose on men when he promulgated the law.
Pope Pius XII is thus either a heretic and not Pope, or he spoke the truth.
No! MHFM and other Feeneyites will protest. The Pope was "mistaken" He didn't understand.
Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius XI all didn't understand the truth of Periodic Abstinence.
THEY ALL GOT IT WRONG! UNTIL....FRED AND BOBBY DIMOND GOT IT ALL FIGURED OUT!
(Sound of angelic choirs singing above)
---Introibo
Periodic abstinence is contraception since it's primary goal is to avoid children.
DeleteCase closed. It's against Pius XI Casti Connubii and against the teaching of early fathers.
@anon5:24
DeleteYou prove your adherence to the Feeneyite cause at all cost--including substituting your ipse dixit for the hard and cold FACTS.
PA is NOT contraception as explained by theologian Vermeersch who wrote the encyclical for the pope.
We also have Pope Pius XI approving personally (as all popes must) the decree of the Sacred Penitentiary in 1932. I guess he didn't understand IT WAS AGAINST HIS OWN ENCYCLICAL. That same encyclical clearly states, "It must not be said that those spouses act contrary to the order of nature who utilize their rights properly and in a natural manner, even though a new life cannot be engendered thereby, for some natural reason, such as the time or some defect."
Pope Pius XII TWICE defended PA and explained Casti Connubi never condemned it. How is he not a heretic and fallen from office if your false interpretation were actually true?
Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII,Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII all didn't understand the truth of Periodic Abstinence. Only....FRED AND BOBBY DIMOND HAVE THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING. (REVERENTIAL SILENCE AS A BEAM OF LIGHT SHINES DOWN FROM HEAVEN OVER MHFM).
No amount of evidence will persuade a good little cult-follower like you. As you said, "Case closed." I will not disturb you with the annoying FACTS nor will I try and dissuade you from supplanting the Church's teaching with Fred and Bobby's lunacy.
---Introibo
contraception = avoiding children during sex relation
DeletePA = avoiding children during sex relation
Pope Pius XI never taught periodic abstinence. He said "virtuous abstinence" in his encyclical.
You have the cultist mentality by following fallible theologians. You are not even Catholic; you belong to something that we should find a name. Something like The church of Learned Theologians
@anon9:08
DeleteContraception= unnatural frustration of the marital relations. PA= Use of God-given natural infertile periods to avoid (not prevent) Conception for serious reasons.
Pope Pius XI himself confirmed what he meant when he approved the decision of the Sacred Penitentiary in 1932. Pope Pius XII explained it in detail in his Address to Hematologists in 1958.
Yet YOU know better! Fred and Bobby know best!!
You are a Feeneyite and non-Catholic.
I’d much rather belong to the “Church of the Learned Theologians” than the “Church Of the Mentally-Challenged Dimond Brothers.”
—-Introibo
How to win the BOD/BOB debate against Introibo
ReplyDelete1) Popes can teach heresy in encyclicals. This is not incompatible with encyclicals being "partially heretical". Pope Pius XII wasn't obstinate in "teaching" BOD since he only spoke once to midwives, probably influenced by a liberal theologian. Theology manuals are very detailed when considering the case of Pope's personal opinion, error in good faith, simple mistaken advice and finally a heresy that the Pope thought it wasn't heresy. Pope Pius XII Midwives Adress is heretical and has no binding authority because of this, not binding because he wasn't speaking for the whole Church. Not binding because it was a matter of advice, "comfort" and things like that. Vatican I theologians found heresies in St Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. Were they AntiSaints? Obviously not. They were great Saints. They are not protected against error by the Holy Ghost like the Pope when speaking for the whole Church in matters of faith and dogma. Since Address to Midwives not infallible and since Pius XII did not reject Jesus Christ, did not promote judaism or cited anti-Christian values to the whole world or using his full authority in this regard, we cannot say Pope Pius XII was an heretic although his teaching on this occasion is clearly contrary to Trent and other Councils. Some Pius XII encyclicals are very good, clearly 100% alligned with the 20 centuries of Catholic teaching.
5) Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
5) Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’
6) Ecumenical Councils issue dogmas - not Saints or Theologians
7) Popes issue dogmas
8) Pope Pius XII said in Humani generis encyclicals can only help to end debates/confusion on already established dogma they don't issue dogmas
9) No Ecumenical Council or Papal Decree teaches BOD/BOB
10) "De fide" (dogma which reject = heresy) requires continuous teaching among early fathers (note: BoD and BoB is basically taught by some and the same people who said BoB existed later on rejected it (St Ambrose). Since BOD/BOB was rejected by 4 Saints, since it was promoted in ambiguity by 3 Saints (one of them Saint Augustine wasn't sure about either but he wrote in favor of it but we could prove at least denied later in his life), since no Papal decree or Council teach BoD/BoB... we end up with
11) Easily refuted. Case closed.
12) The Church declared only one Baptism and it's called Baptism of water (de fide) in Trent, Florence and even in the 6th century. Trent never said "Baptism of water BUT water can be replaced with desire or blood". Not even a single Papal Decree teaches anything other than baptism of water.
13) Describing BoD/BoB and NFP speculators: "The dogmas of the Church are immutable. Modernists theologians hold that religious dogmas, as such, have no intellectual meaning, that we are not bound to believe them mentally, that they may be all false, that it is sufficient if we use them a guides to action; and accordingly they teach that dogmas are not immutable, that they should be changed when the spirit of the age is opposed to them, when they lose their value as rules for a liberal religious life."
Fulter,
DeleteIf you want a formal debate on a neutral site, I'd LOVE to oblige!! Let me know. Your sophistry will be made apparent to all!
1. It doesn't matter if his address was binding or not. It is his opinion as a PRIVATE THEOLOGIAN that would cause the loss! If it was binding (it is), then it's proof the fall from office already took place. If not, then it caused the fall. St Alphonsus Liguori (1787):
"If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."Oeuvres Completes. 9:232.
The fall from office is NOT a matter of Canon Law, but even if it were, Can Law gives as mitigating excuses against heresy; lack of reason, habitual inculpable ignorance, actual inculpable inadvertence or error, involuntary intoxication, physical force, uncontrollable passion preceding an act of the will, and legitimate self defense. (See Canon 2199ff.) None of these apply, especially not ignorance. “If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all ensure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him.” (See theologian McDevitt, “The Delict of Heresy,”[1932], pg. 48)
You write:Some Pius XII encyclicals are very good, clearly 100% alligned with the 20 centuries of Catholic teaching.
Reply: Glad you cite Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis! You like that encyclical, using your private judgement! Try this part of that document:
"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine." Paragraph #20
CONTINUED BELOW
You write: Vatican I theologians found heresies in St Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine.
DeleteReply: Pure baloney. Name the theologians, the "heresies" and your source.
2. (rendered #5; guess you’re no better at counting than theology)
You cite: Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
Reply: Absolutely! The pope was here referring to those theologians and Doctors taken individually, not as a corporate body. Pope Pius IX wrote, "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. Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683
3. (Rendered #5 again) You write: Ecumenical Councils issue dogmas - not Saints or Theologians.
Reply: You are correct that theologians are not the Magisterium nor do they define dogmas OF THEMSELVES. They are ORGANS OF THE MAGISTERIUM WHEN APPROVED. The corporate body of the approved theologians is therefore an extension of the Magisterium but not themselves the Magisterium.
Theologians do not ‘determine’ whether some doctrine is ‘de fide’ or ‘certain’ or ‘Catholic.’ They merely demonstrate, or manifest or give witness that a particular doctrine is ‘de fide’ or ‘certain’ or ‘Catholic’ which judgement is adopted by the Magisterium.
“Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, "Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.'" (Scheeben,A Manual of Catholic Theology 1:89)
CONTINUED BELOW
4. (rendered #7) see above
Delete5. (rendered #8) I notice you didn’t cite THE REST OF PARAGRAPH #20! I will repeat it: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine." Got that? Encyclicals DEMAND CONSENT.
6. (rendered # 9) You write: No Ecumenical Council or Papal Decree teaches BOD/BOB
The Council of Trent correctly interpreted by the Church does indeed!! I could also cite “The Catechism of St. Pius X.” Feeneyites have a fairy tale to tell that St. Pius didn’t read it, approve it, etc. Yeah. He merely allowed a Catechism bearing his name to teach hersy and never stopped it. Makes sense.
7. (rendered #11)You write: Easily refuted. Case closed.
Reply: I have no idea what you are allegedly “refuting.” So far you can’t even properly number your paragraphs let alone “refute” anything.
CONTINUED BELOW
8. (rendered #12) You write: The Church declared only one Baptism and it's called Baptism of water (de fide) in Trent, Florence and even in the 6th century. Trent never said "Baptism of water BUT water can be replaced with desire or blood". Not even a single Papal Decree teaches anything other than baptism of water.
DeleteReply: Council of Trent (16th century): Decree on Justification, Session VI, Chapter 4: "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration,OR THE DESIRE THEREOF, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." (Emphasis mine)
Pope Innocent III (13th century): From the letter "Debitum pastoralis officii" to Berthold, the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206: "You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: 'I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.' We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: 'Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.," the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another...If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith."
9. (Rendered #13) You write: Describing BoD/BoB and NFP speculators: "The dogmas of the Church are immutable. Modernists theologians hold that religious dogmas, as such, have no intellectual meaning, that we are not bound to believe them mentally, that they may be all false, that it is sufficient if we use them a guides to action; and accordingly they teach that dogmas are not immutable, that they should be changed when the spirit of the age is opposed to them, when they lose their value as rules for a liberal religious life."
Describing Feeneyites: Pseudo-intellectual dolts who refuse to understand how the Church teaches, and fall into every error, making up sins and doctrines that don’t exist.
If you want a formal debate, just ask!!
---Introibo
Are you aware that Dr Ludwig Van Ott in his Fundementals (pages 356-357) declare BOD and BOB to be "Sententia fidei proxima" which means they are close to certainty when it comes to doctrine but not dogma?
ReplyDeleteHe puts BoB/BoD below de fide and Fides ecclesiastica.
Do you know any theologian that cite BOD/BOB as dogma (i.e Fides ecclesiastica or fides ecclesiastica)?
Btw Baptismus flaminis (that's how St. Alphonsus called it) means baptism of blowing (spirit). How does anyone translate Baptismus flaminis to baptism of desire?
@anon10:54
DeleteYes I’m very aware of theologian Ott. Are you aware that collectively ALL theologians agree BOD/BOB are “in conformity with the truths presented in the Sources of Revelation and the Universal Magisterium” or they wouldn’t teach them?
Individually, theologians may assign different “theological notes” (e.g., theologically certain, Catholic doctrine, de fide, etc.) However, any of these categories place BOD and BOB among those teachings Catholics MUST BELIEVE. The idea of only adhering to ex cathedra dogma was condemned in proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors.
Theological notes have a corresponding theological censure which indicates the degree of error you are in if you deny the doctrine. (Theological error, error in Catholic doctrine, or heresy).
St Alphonsus in “Theologia Moralis” states directly what he means: “It is de fide that men may also be saved THROUGH BAPTISM OF DESIRE...” (3: 96-97)
—-Introibo
" #22 of the Syllabus of Errors condemened ex cathedra teaching only"
DeleteFalse. Read the letter which is written next to the #22: Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
In that letter the Pope is talking about a total different subject. I believe you didn't even read the letter
I'll quote Pius IX #22 final part: "But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure."
The Pope is teaching that men who engage in what he calls "higher studies" (philosophy, speculative science, speculative theology) must "obey also to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations".
Your argument about Syllabus #22 talking about "those who are only adhering to ex cathedra dogma" is a complete fabrication.
@anon9:24
DeleteI’ve read Tuas Libentur and it is not only absurd to think that only those engaged in higher studies must assent to teachings other Catholics do not.
Here is Tuas Libentur again:
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 Pon- tiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordi- nary 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.
Was that only for certain Catholics and not others? You and your fellow Feeneyites are the fabricators Of nonsense.
—-In
"Was that only for certain Catholics and not others"?
DeletePope Pius IX in that same letter answered your own question earlier:
"SOME Catholics who devote their time to cultivating the higher studies, trusting too much in the powers of human ability, have not been frightened by the dangers of errors, lest, in asserting the false and insincere liberty of science, they be snatched away beyond the limits beyond which the obedience due to the teaching power of the Church, divinely appointed to preserve the integrity of all revealed truth, does not permit them to proceed."[2875]
"or, although those natural disciplines rely on their own proper principles, apprehended by reason, nevertheless, Catholic students of these disciplines should have divine revelation before their eyes as a guiding star, by whose light they may guard against the quicksands of errors, when they discover that in their investigations and interpretations they can be led by them (natural principles)--as often happens---to profess those things which are more or less opposed to the infallible truth of things which have been revealed by God." [2877]
"We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]" 2879 Dz 1683
@anon4:48
DeleteYour contention that Tuas Libentur only applies to “Catholics devoted to higher studies” is completely without merit. It was addressed to them but not limited to them. It extends to all Catholics:
1.According to theologian Scheeben (1835-1888), a contemporary of Pope Pius IX and highly esteemed by the Pontiff, wrote, “The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are NEARLY ALL SET FORTH IN THE BRIEF TUAS LIBENTER, ADDRESSED BY PIUS IX TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF MUNICH.” (See “A Manual of Catholic Theology” 1:89; Emphasis mine)
2.It is quoted in the Syllabus of Errors which condemns as false no less than eighty (80) propositions. Are they only false for certain classes of Catholics, or are they not OBJECTIVELY FALSE FOR ALL? Condemned proposition # 2, “All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied” Is this false for some and true for others? May some believe it and some reject it? Or in Fred and Bobby’s wacky world of made up theology, are we supposed to look at the original writing of Pope Pius IX to decide if its false for all or just some group of Catholics? “True for me but not for you” Sounds like Bergoglio’s moral relativism.
3.Pope Pius XII condemned abortion in his Address to Midwives. Is abortion. Does that mean abortion is only condemned for midwives? There is no ex cathedra papal or ecumenical council decree against abortion so maybe the Church is wrong about that too?
4.The reason“Catholics devoted to higher studies” is put on guard above all is because they will become the theologians and canonists that must teach the Faith to the priests and faithful. It does not mean it is not applicable to all. That would mean some Catholics must believe certain teachings that others are free to reject. The Church has never taught such heretical nonsense.
---Introibo
Answering to your arguments
Delete2) The Pope was talking about those who engaged in higher studies reject the authority of "Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound". Are Catholic priests allowed to declare dogma? Are Catholic teachers allowed to declare dogma? Are Catholic bishops allowed to declare dogma? No. They aren't. But they are allowed to correct and teach those who are involved in liberal science, since quite often theologians trust more in their own minds than in what the Church teaches. I believe in what Vatican I declared with full authority; not what theologians speculate.
3) Pope Pius IX is not telling us to consider ex cathedra AND what theologians consider "de fide". Robert Bellarmine thought geocentrism was de fide just like other theologians. The Pope is protected by the Holy Ghost thus when the Popes declared later that geocentrism wasn't 'de fide'. This shows Popes have more authority than Doctors of the Church.
4) A few or hundreds of theologians cannot declare BoD/BoB de fide since BoB/BoD not only it's not a continuous teaching of the Early Fathers but also because even Dr. Ott realized it was a speculation and it wasn't remotely close to being de fide. Great Saints like St. Alphonsus considered BoB/BoD (Correctly called Baptism of blowing[spirit]) but they were wrong just like St. Robert Bellarmine was wrong on considering geocentrism 'de fide'
@anon5:20
Delete1. You have no answer to the FACT that theologian Scheeben a contemporary of Pope Pius IX and greatly esteemed by that Pontiff clearly shows the principles set forth in Tuas Libenter do NOT apply only to a certain set of Catholics but to all.
2. Nice Red Herring. The Syllabus of Errors applies to all and quotes Tuas Libenter. You REJECT VATICAN I (1870.According to theologian Van Noort: "The subject-matter of divine- Catholic faith are all those truths proposed by the Church's Magisterium for our belief as divinely revealed...The principle laid down above is contained almost verbatim in this declaration of the [First] Vatican Council: 'Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.' [Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith]" (See Dogmatic Theology, Newman Press 3:220-221[1960])
As theologian Van Noort further explains: "Clearly if a truth is capable of being declared an object of Divine-Catholic faith through the force of this ordinary and universal teaching, there is required such a proposal is unmistakably definitive........The major signs of such a proposal are these: that the truth be taught throughout the world in popular catechisms, or even more importantly, be taught by the universal and constant agreement of theologians as belonging to faith." (Van Noort, Ibid, pg. 222)
You reject the Vatican Council of 1870 as you reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.
3. You never answered my questions. Another Red Herring. Feeneyite fallacious arguing. Geocentrism was OPEN TO DISCUSSION AMONG THE THEOLOGIANS. For more on how the Church did not condemn heliocentrism see http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/10/galileo-papacy-and-modern-science.html
4. Asked and answered. All the theologians since Trent's definition agree that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are “in conformity with the truth presented in the Sources of Revelation and the Universal Magisterium” — otherwise, they would not teach the doctrines. 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.
Church Fathers? How about t. John Chrystostome, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century):
Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily I: "But why does Christ say, "Ye shall be baptized," when in fact there was no water in the upper room? Because the more essential part of Baptism is the Spirit, through Whom indeed the water has its operation; in the same manner our Lord also is said to be anointed, not that He had ever been anointed with oil, but because He had received the Spirit. Besides, we do in fact find them receiving a baptism with water [and a baptism with the Spirit], and these at different moments. In our case both take place under one act, but then they were divided."
Bottom line: The greatest minds of the Church approved by many popes who raised some to the status of "Doctor of the Church"--ALL GOT IT WRONG.
UNTIL..FRED AND BOBBY DIMOND WERE SENT BY GOD TO TELL THE TRUTH LIKE A VOICE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS
(SOUNDS OF ANGELIC CHOIRS SINGING ONCE MORE)
---Introibo
"You have no answer to the FACT that theologian Scheeben a contemporary of Pope Pius IX and greatly esteemed by that Pontiff.."
DeleteI do have an answer for that only (since the rest of your post irrelevant)
The answer is: Scheeben and theologians can't declare or profess dogma (de fide).
@anon9:11
Delete“The rest of your post is irrelevant”
Translation: I have no answer.
Scheeben and the theologians don’t declare dogma as such, they demonstrate it as organs of the Magisterium. But what you wrote is another Red Herring. I cited Scheeben to prove Tuas Libentur applies to ALL Catholics, and you clearly fall under Condemned Proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors.
If you want a formal debate on a neutral forum let me know. It will help expose the fallacious and un-Catholic reasoning/teachings of MHFM.
—-Introibo
You would need a source on this
ReplyDelete"ALL theologians agree BOD/BOB are “in conformity with the truths presented in the Sources of Revelation and the Universal Magisterium"
Not all of the 12~14 modern theologians consider part of the dogma. Besides, they misquote Trent which already invalidates at least half of them. BoD/BoB can't be a Church Dogma according to Dr. Ott. They mostly place BoD/BoB under "doctrine" and not dogma, because those who don't misquote Trent knows the Church never taught it
@anon9:07
DeleteThat’s from theologians Salaverri and Shultes who explain the duty of the Church and Her theologians.
I hate to break the news to you, but there are many more than 14 theologians of the modern era prior to V2. There is moral unanimity that BOD and BOB are part of Revelation. It must be believed.
Prior to November 1, 1950, belief in the Assumption Of Mary was not “optional.” There were theologians who assigned different theological notes to it, but they were unanimous that it’s denial was mortal sin against the Faith.
Of course the erudite theologians and Doctors Of The Church (including St Alphonsus who did not hesitate to call BOD de fide) misquoted Trent. The popes who allowed their works taught in the seminaries were all wrong too. And then...God sent Fred and Bobby Dimond to set us all straight. (Angelic music plays from the Heavens)
—-Introibo
The quote in Latin by St. Alphonsus is different from your english translation
ReplyDelete@anon9:08
DeleteYes, the “incorrect translation” arguments like the erudite Dimonds with their high school education and total lack of ecclesiastical training and education.
How about THIS from St Alphonsus;
Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
—-Introibo
You cited above:
Delete"St Alphonsus in “Theologia Moralis” states directly what he means: “It is de fide that men may also be saved THROUGH BAPTISM OF DESIRE...” (3: 96-97)"
in the original writing of St. Alphonsus, it reads instead:
"de fide autem est per baptismum flaminis homines etiam salvari: ex cap. Apostolicam, dep reb. non bapt.; et Tridentino[Session 6, Chapter 4], ubi dicitur neminem salvari posse sine lavacro regenerationis aut ejus voto."
Translated: "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of spirit[blowing] according to Trent Session 6, Chapter 4...."
St. Alphonsus a few lines earlier explained:
"Baptism of Spirit[blowing] is called flaminis [wind, blowing] because: "it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing"
The original words of St. Alphonsus in latin cited above are here: http://www.santalfonsoedintorni.it/Libri/Morale3/3Mor6-02-01a.pdf
It would be interesting to discuss Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4 since Saint Alphonsus uses Trent Session 6, Chapter 4 to support "de fide" authority on Baptism of Blowing[Spirit]
@anon4:35
DeleteHow about this:
Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'
How about this:Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: "Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious."
How about this translation of Liguori by Latin Scholar Duffy:
On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."
But, no, Fred and Bobby want us to think St Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, did not understand and wrote about something strange. The Holy Ghost is responsible for the grace of BOD, so it's not unusual to use such a phrase.
---Introibo
At least for the first time you didn't use an incorrect translation of St. Alphonsus quote but you incorrectly translated one small bit
DeleteI'll quote yours:
"Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam...."
The correct translation is: "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of blowing [spirit], by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam..."
According to modern BoD 'theologians', BoD removes all debt of punishment and replaces baptism of water. Even St. Alphonsus rejects BoD in the fashion BoD believers do today
Conclusion on St. Alphonsus:
1) He taught that only BoB is comparable to water baptism. (" it remits both guilt and punishment...")
2) He taught that Baptism of blowing [spirit] is not a substitute of baptism of water.
P.S: When St. Alphonsus says about the desire for Baptism he is talking about people who desire to receive water baptism, which follows his conclusion: "explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment"
The thing is the Church never issued a dogmatic statement about BoB or BoD but has issued on 3 Ecumenical Councils and in 2 Papal Decrees that there is only 1 baptism and never declared the blood of martyrs can replace water baptism.
@anon5:07
DeleteGive it a rest. Your the same guy who doesn't understand Tuas Libenter on the other thread and now you're an ersatz "Latin scholar."
Your "argument" (I'm being kind by calling an unsupported assertion by that name)is so wrong I don't know where to begin. All modern theologians ("modern" meaning from circa 1870-1958) agree BOD DOES NOT remove all punishment from sin.
That's one reason Feeneyites attack BOD, because if it does not remove all debt of temporal punishment, it can't be the same as Sacramental Baptism of water.
I respond to this objection in an entire post:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/08/more-feeneyite-follies.html.
There is only one Baptism. BOD and BOB ARE EXTRA-SACRAMENTAL WAYS GOD CAN GIVE THE GRACE OF THE SACRAMENT APART FROM THE ACTUAL RECEPTION OF THE SACRAMENT.
All the Church Fathers declared BOB does replace water baptism. To give but one example:
St. Cyprian, Church Father (3rd Century): The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXXII: "Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood".
Please give it a rest.
---Introibo
"There is only one Baptism[of water] which is the only way to enter the Church. BOD and BOB ARE EXTRA-SACRAMENTAL WAYS"
DeleteInteresting but St. Alphonsus said Baptism of blowing[Spirit] does not replace Baptism of water, this is does not provide the same effect as Baptism of water regardless of "EXTRA-SACRAMENTAL WAYS "
BoD believers think BoD(just like many modern theologians) can have the same effect as Baptism of water but at the same time St. Alphonsus rejected this
@anon9:15
DeleteYou’re obtuse beyond belief. You’re WRONG about the theologians on BOD. They believe the SAME as St Alphonsus. Your idiotic repetition shows you did not read my post I cited that gives an in-depth response.
Fred and Bobby don’t want you reading anything that disagrees with them. You are clearly not of good will or you would have read it.
I’ll be praying for your conversion and I’m ending comments as the week draws to a close. Other posts I always keep open, but Feeneyites just keep repeating the same nonsense as if by repetition what’s false will become true. If Fred or Bobby want to debate on a neutral forum, I will gladly oblige.
—-Introibo
Great article, but it’s worth adding that Pope Pius XII taught this same teaching again n 1958 in his address to the Hematologists. Here is a link to the address: http://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1651/pope-pius-address-hematologists-1958
ReplyDelete@anon9:19
DeleteSimply phenomenal! Thank you for the information, which I will most certainly use!!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Has the Church ever anathematized BoD or BoB? I didn’t think so. Has she ever come out and absolutely condemned the position as heretical? Nope.
ReplyDeleteCan BoD and BoB "clean us from original sin, makes us Christians, Children of God, and members of the Church"? No
DeleteHow do we know it? Because the fancy idea of BoD and BoB are speculations and not dogma, especially considering believers of BoD undesrstand correctly understand that BoD does not remove temporal punishment - since it's a theological speculation it has many logical flaws in its theory.
@anon9:21
DeleteYou never answered Tom’s question. Why didn’t the Saintly Pope Pius X Infallibly condemn the very notion of BOD and BOB as opposed to allowing a Catechism bearing his name to explicitly teach BOD/BOB??
Yes, BOD and BOB cleanse Original Sin, bring you into the Church, and make you children of God as the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium clearly teaches. The UOM is equally infallible as the Extraordinary Magisterium as per the Vatican Council of 1870.
—-Introibo
"John O'Brien, "Contrary to the impression that prevails in some quarters, there is no obligation on any couple to beget any specific number of children..."
ReplyDeleteIn other words: he is saying a healthy married couple may have no children and engage in marital rights. This is obviously against the primary purpose of marriage. Not sure why quote such liberal and irrelevant theologian
@anon3:38
ReplyDeleteTypical Feeneyite spin on an approved theologian. Example: A woman gets married later in life and has many medical issues. She may end up only having one or two children. A woman marries very young and healthy may have seven children or more. There are many reasons of a serious nature that may impede child bearing.
“Primary” does not mean “indispensable.”
If that were the case, the Church would not allow people who are sterile (through no fault of their own) and the elderly to get married as She always has done.
—-Introibo
You are twisting my words and bearing false witness: for that I stated a healthy couple avoiding children for their entire marriage is natural according to John O'Brien.
DeleteNo, it is you who calumniated theologian O’Brien. He does not support a healthy couple remains barren. There is no obligation of a married couple to beget any SPECIFIC number of children. A “magic number” of at least “X” number of children is not taught.
DeleteHe never advocated for a healthy couple avoiding children for their entire marriage.
—-Introibo
I think it is pretty obvious all Catholics should reject the word of O'Brien. Let me give some interesting information to you and to all people interested:
Delete"Until 1927, O’Brien had also served on the progressive and social science-oriented National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC), an organization that has been characterized as tied to the turn-of-the-century Americanist and Modernist movements" [1]
"Certain Catholic officials concluded that O’Brien
was guilty of religious indifferentism and a host of them complained to the NCWC’s overseer of committees, Father John Burke. Having publicly questioned O’Brien’s theological orthodoxy, Archbishop Curley even went to
Rome to indict O’Brien. Denouncing him to Vatican representatives. He said O’Brien and the NCWC had created an atmosphere “redolent of unbelief and sheer materialism” and that O’Brien’s attitudes were “liberalising and un-Catholic".[2]
"America magazine had strongly criticized Latz and the rhythm method in general throughout the 1930s. Francis LeBuffe, S.J., conservative science editor of America magazine, complained to Reiner that O’Brien had damaged the integrity of Catholic teaching in the public square by giving fodder to artificial contraception advocates who made use of O’Brien’s excessive material on rhythm to support their own cause."[3]
Source:
[1] Catholic Birth Control: Father John O’Brien, Rhythm, and Progressive American Catholicism in 1930s Contraception Discourse, page 56.
[2] Douglas J. Slawson - The Foundation and First Decade of the National Catholic Welfare Council, p. 273-274
[3] Catholic Birth Control: Father John O’Brien, Rhythm, and Progressive American Catholicism in 1930s Contraception Discourse, p 71.
@anon8:49
DeleteThank you for a well-Sourced response.
Two replies:
1. O’Brien’s writings were never censured, nor was he excommunicated. Origen’s writings are considered orthodox until he left the Church.
2. If you want to discount O’Brien, let’s not forget that he simply teaches the same as the other theologians at the time, all of whom were quite orthodox, such as McHugh and Callan, Jone, and Prummer. No theologian taught that a woman is required to have a certain number of children.
—-Introibo
I don't think anybody in his right mind would call his teaching orthodox, even if someone regard he was well trained in social theology. All notes about his activity indicate he was sided with liberals and progressive "Catholics" in the 20s and 30s. Let's not forget "Americanism" is a heresy and it appears that's how people saw his writing and activity in the 30s. The writing of O'Brien is very liberal and it's also interesting he considered rhythm method a "natural" form of birth control; not "natural family planning".
DeleteAnd as a final note there was reaction against birth control in the 30s and 40s among theologians, priests and Archbishops.
@anon11:19
DeleteHis teachings that match other orthodox theologians, I would not question. Who has the final say as to whom is (and remains) an approved theologian? The bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction and the Holy See.
The Archbishop Curley could have banned his writings in his diocese and declared them in error. He did not. The Holy See did not take action.
Nevertheless, you have given me enough evidence that I will not quote him again. There are enough theologians who teach that same principle regarding PA as O’Brien. The reaction of which you speak was on the popularizing it needlessly in the media—as you need serious reason.
The final word comes from the decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary and Pope Pius XI And XII
—-Introibo
Was Fr. Feeney excommunicated for his teaching on "Outside of the Chuch there is no Salvation"? No
DeleteTwo cardinals sent a letter to Richard Cushing (who later approved-supported wicked anti-Christian Vatican II documents). This letter (the two Vatican cardinals signed "Private" in the end, meaning not to be read by anyone other than Richard Cushing). Richard Cushing leaked some parts to the press... and there was scandal. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for not going to Rome and still we all know it was a retaliation because Richard Cushing not only had influence among jews but he was involved with politics (John F. Kennedy), influential people among other things. As we know someone who was preaching jews, muslims and pagans are lost wouldn't be welcome in the spirit of John F. Kennedy politics and american television/radio.
Fr. Feeney book "Bread of Life" was never censured. It's also interesting that Robert Kennedy asked Cushing to censor Fr. Feeney for his defense of Catholicism and for his rejection of "Americanism".
Politicians and "Americanism" would crush any other priest who would publicly affirm "Jews and pagans must convert to catholicism". This is still true today
@anon11:15
DeleteYou misrepresent the factual background of your heretical founder.
1. Despite the claims of many of his followers that he was some learned scholar, Fr. Feeney never held either a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD), or a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). His early writings were devotional works. In 1934 he published a collection of essays entitled Fish on Fridays which became a best seller. In it, he made it known he believed that it was possible for a Protestant to be saved (but not as a Protestant, of course, but as a Catholic received in the Church by that rare miracle of BOD). Feeney was ACCEPTED BOD until circa the early 1940s.
2. His later works, most notably "Bread of Life" (1952), set forth his false teachings. Since he was not a theologian or canonist, his works were not subjected to the same scrutiny because they are not used in seminaries to train priests.
CONTINUED BELOW
3. On pg. 25 of his book we read: "...Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved." Finally, as a "Q and A" format, Feeney presents his heretical teaching very clearly:
Delete"Q. What does 'Baptism of Desire' mean?
A. It means the belief in the necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation, and a full intent to receive it.
Q. Can 'Baptism of Desire' save you?
A. Never.
Q. Could 'Baptism of Desire' save you if you really believed it could?
A. It could not.
Q. Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification?
A. It could.
Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of 'Baptism of Desire,' and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never."
In other words, you can have sanctifying grace, but die and go to Hell unless you receive Baptism by water! A person in sanctifying grace is a child of God with the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in his soul. How could such a person go to Hell? They can't. Even Fred and Bobby reject Feeney's original position and "improve" upon it. The Dimonds teach that without Baptism of water, no one is saved or justified. While more logically consistent (although totally false), they do not believe as Fr. Feeney did.
4. To say he was excommunicated for disobedience is not completely accurate. In the letter from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing, it states:
"After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports IN WHICH THE ASSOCIATES OF 'ST. BENEDICT CENTER' EXPLAIN THEIR OPINIONS AND COMPLAINTS, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, THE SAME SACRED CONGREGATION IS CONVINCED THAT THE UNFORTUNATE CONTROVERSY AROSE FROM THE FACT THAT THE AXIOM 'OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION' WAS NOT CORRECTLY UNDERSTOOD AND WEIGHED, AND THAT THE SAME CONTROVERSY WAS RENDERED MORE BITTER BY SERIOUS DISTURBANCE OF DISCIPLINE ARISING FROM THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE ASSOCIATES OF THE INSTITUTIONS MENTIONED ABOVE REFUSED REVERENCE AND OBEDIENCE TO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY." (See "The Catholic Church in Action" by Michael Williams [1958], pg. 93; Emphasis mine. Letter of Holy Office Reprinted in full).
The disobedience was due to EENS not being properly understood. No Feeneyite literature I've EVER read will reproduce THAT part of the letter. Fr. Feeney was summoned to Rome by Pope Pius XII to explain himself to the pope who would pass final judegement. All expenses would be paid for by the Vatican. Yet Feeney refused to go and explain his false teaching.
---Introibo
You say Father Feeney was in error for saying Baptism of desire COULD "put you into the state of justification". Alright, it's true that baptism of desire does not provide justification. However let's not forget St. Alphonsus said Baptism of desire does not clean actual sins, which is against your own view on BoD (alsothe view of many theologianswho believe in Baptism of spirit[blowing] in a different matter than St. Alphonsus].
DeleteYou said: "MHFM do not believe baptism of water can provide justification."
That's also correct.
Which proves they are not part of the cult of "Feeneyism" as your claim. I do believe however you are in bad faith when you accuse people for being "followers of Feeney". You are acting with the inspiration of the Devil when you accuse the faithful who accept Baptism of water only, as defined by three Councils.
Quoting you: "The disobedience was due to EENS not being properly understood."
I don't think that's the case. First because the part you quoted is the same 1949 letter was sent to the Arcebishop Cushing. They didn't formally accuse what part of Fr. Feeney was against Catholic teaching directly. In fact the letter has nothing to do with BOD if you read it: it has to do with the fact that Feeney held people outside the Church could not be saved - not by desire or ignorance.
The letter was sent from Rome to Boston [Cushing] with a sign of PRIVATE at the end. Cushing used this letter (by leaking parts to the press) to create controversy
Fr. Feeney wrote to Rome asking what charges were made against him. Rome never replied.
Cardinal Pizzardo didn't even sign the excommunication. It is quite clear they most worried about the "scandal" of Fr. Feeney refusing to be part of Cushing ecumenical jewish services (that is - not saying jews must convert in public) than in his doctrine.
"In a lesser-known case, Richard Cardinal Cushing excommunicated a Boston priest, Leonard Feeney, in 1953, for preaching that all non-Catholics would go to Hell. Even though Father Feeney’s words were based on the Gospel, Cardinal Cushing found them offensive, in large part because his sister had married a Jew, said Carroll, and the Cardinal had grown close to the family, sensitizing him to the Jewish perspective toward proselytization.” [1]
[1]http://web.archive.org/web/20040301124318/http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editcolcontent.php3?artid=2962
@anon8:41
DeleteMHFM is “Feeneyism 2.0” —a new and more hellish error! All approved theologians teach as St Alphonsus does; BOD does not remit temporal punishment for sins, but it does remit sins. You have not cited any approved theologians they say what you claim.
Feeney was a madman—a certified nutcase—who dared to start his own “congregation” made up of married people who wanted to play “nuns” and “brothers” while raising their children in a wacky commune. The children came to see their parents as “older brothers and sisters.” The whole thing is reported by Feeneyite Gary Potter in his book “After the Boston Heresy Case,” as well as in many other sources.
What he did to those children is against both Natural and Divine Positive Law. Today, he would have been arrested (correctly) for child abuse. One of the survivors grew up and wrote a book entitled “Walled In.” The sick behavior caused him to lose all Faith. Way to go Fr Feeney.
Of course, it’s not Feeney’s fault! No! It was a wild-eyed Jewish Conspiracy!
Feeneyites (those who deny BOD and BOB), suffer a sickness of soul and a cultist mindset.
—-Introibo
1) Fr. TANQUERY, Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II - 1945 (1024-1) "....Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace"
DeleteContrary to St. Alphonsus
2) MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931
" 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."
This does looks quite different... doesn't it?
3) Fr. Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II, 1948
"Baptism of spirit...Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; ...but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty"
Contrary to St. Alphonsus
4) Fr. Dominic Prummer, O.P. Moral Theology, 1949:
"Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire... both cause sanctifying grace. ...Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial and temporal punishment"
"Usually"?St. Alphonsus said BoB had the same effects of Baptism of water. Another contradiction here.
5) Dr. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pg. 356: "In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood"
St. Alphonsus didn't teach BoD replace Baptism of water or blood.
Regarding all I said about Fr. Feeney and Cushing (the ecumenical cardinal who said Vatican II should teach jews don't need to convert) you didn't reply to this.
Regarding what I said "Fr. Feeney wrote to Rome asking what charges were made against him. Rome never replied." you also didn't write anything about this. The 1949 private letter to Cardinal Cushing is clearly teaching "People can be saved outside the Church" which everybody knows is heresy - which is why I believe it was not only signed with (Private) sign at the end but also that both cardinals in the Vatican didn't write this liberal interpretation directly to Fr. Feeney. The two cardinals who wrote the 1949 protocol knew this liberal interpretation would do good to Cardinal Cushing because he was not only promoting the sin of "Americanism" but also hanging out with famous jews.
@anon10:28
DeleteThank you for proving my point. All those theologians teach as St Alphonsus:
Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'
Oh, yes, “Latin Scholars” Fred and Bobby think there’s a “defective translation! It’s amazing what they taught them in high school! The “blowing of the Spirit” is the Holy Ghost who imparts the Faith and sanctifying grace to recipients of BOD!
Was Cushing a Modernist? Yes. So Feeney goes off the deep end and DENIES Catholic truth rather than properly stating the doctrine which he himself once believed.
Rome gave him the chance to explain himself. He chose not to go. He wasn’t being put on trial, the pope was being generous in giving him this chance.
Instead, he chose to be one of the first priests to openly abuse children in Boston.
If you want a formal debate on a neutral forum, fine. Otherwise, please don’t bother me with Lenny Feeney and his looney successors of heresy, Fred and Bobby. I’ve proven more than enough to my readers thanks to you!
—-Introibo
The theologians I cited don't agree with this part of St. Alphonsus on BoD
ReplyDelete"but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment."
It must also be noted St. Alphonsus only considered BoB equivalent to Baptism of water, which is another point of contradiction
@anon11:46
DeleteThat’s what I’ve been telling you. I told you to read my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/08/more-feeneyite-follies.html?m=1
Which explains and fully answers the alleged contradictions. Btw once more, the approved theologians agree that BOD does not imprint the Baptismal character and removal temporal punishment.
I notice no Feeneyites are willing to debate on a neutral forum. Why expose themselves as second rate heretics(at best) or followers of lunatics (at worst).
—-Introibo
Introibo, It seems to me that proponents of BOB, BOD are so hung up on these issues that everything else regarding salvation is secondary. They are obsessed! Save your breath trying to rationally and intellectually appeal to their senseless meanderings. They need an exorcism!
ReplyDeleteHowever, an exorcism would require a valid Priest which, according to them, none exist, therefore, their reason for staying home alone. I guess we are stuck with them and their senseless obsession!
@anon10:35
DeleteI know you meant “opponents” of BOD/BOB, my friend, and you are correct!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Is using NFP to avoid children without any reason sinful?
ReplyDeleteI don’t understand why a grave reason or any reason is necessary if following the law and if the intent of the married couple is irrelevant.
Is I don’t feel like more children a grave reason?
@anon2:13
DeleteUsing PA without a serious reason is sinful because people must be generous in having children. "I don't feel like having more children" is not a grave reason.
---Introibo