Monday, December 12, 2016

The Strange Ideas Of Fr. Leonard Feeney


 After reading the title of this post, you might be thinking, "Not another discussion of Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB)." Not to worry, it's not really going to be a discussion of that topic, but a related matter. Most people may not be aware that heresy is rarely ever limited to one topic. Deny one doctrine of the Faith, and you fall away completely from the Church and God's protection from error. The so-called "Boston Heresy" case involving Fr. Leonard Feeney is a perfect example.

 In brief, Leonard Feeney was born on February 18, 1897, in Massachusetts. He entered the novitiate of the Jesuits in 1914 and was ordained a priest on June 20, 1928. In the 1930s, he was literary editor at the Jesuit magazine, America. He became a professor at Boston College, and soon became the chaplain at the Catholic Saint Benedict Center at Harvard Square in 1945. Reacting against the Modernist heresy that was beginning to surface after Pope St. Pius X had driven it underground, he began denying that BOD and BOB  were part of the Church's teaching regarding Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (i.e., "Outside the Church there is no salvation"). He gained a large following. His Jesuit superiors ordered him to leave the Center for a post at the College of the Holy Cross, but after initially going there, he returned to the Center and repeatedly refused to comply with the order. Feeney was summoned to Rome to answer for his teachings, but he staunchly refused to go. On February 13, 1953, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII for disobedience in refusing to go to Rome to answer the charges against him. Prior to his excommunication, Feeney set up a community called the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He was "reconciled" with Montini (Paul VI) and the Vatican II sect in 1972, but was not required abjure his errors, causing his followers to rejoice and claim "his teachings were vindicated."

 Interestingly, the heresy he left as his legacy, and which bears his name ("Feeneyism"), was never taught as 99% of his adherents teach it today. There are other disturbing facts about the teachings of Fr. Leonard Feeney, which will be the subject I address below.

Fr. Feeney was never a theologian or canonist

 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). His later works, most notably Bread of Life (1952), set forth his false teachings. Theologian Salaverri, makes it clear that to be considered a theologian, that cleric's works must be known for "...orthodoxy of doctrine...at least to this extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the schools, with the knowledge of and with no opposition from the Magisterium of the Church."(See Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Vol. IB, pg. 327, #857). Obviously, Fr. Feeney, a gifted writer, could not be considered either a theologian or canonist ( i.e., Church-approved expert in Canon Law).

 Justification and Salvation

Justification is the passage from the state of sin to the state of sanctifying grace; salvation is the passage out of this earthly life and persevering to the end in the state of sanctifying grace so as to merit Heaven (either directly, or after time in Purgatory). The Sacrament of Baptism imparts an indelible character on the soul, such that it cannot be repeated. Feeney taught that the character was necessary for salvation. This has never been the teaching of the Church. If a validly baptized person commits mortal sin, they retain the baptismal character, but not sanctifying grace. The two are distinct and separable. In Bread of Life, pg. 118, Feeney writes, "Justification is now being turned into salvation with the aid of water." 

 If someone is justified, they have sanctifying grace. Baptism cannot turn anything "into salvation." This would mean you are somehow assured of going to Heaven as "justification by faith alone" Protestants falsely teach. 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: 

"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. Fr. Feeney on pg. 125, "I myself would say, my dear children, that a catechumen who dies before Baptism, is punished." Really? The 1917 Code of Canon Law states in Canon 1239, section 2, "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without baptism, are to be treated as baptized." The commentary on this canon expressly states the reason. "The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through baptism of desire." (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 2: 493).  Moreover, the True Church has a special Mass for such catechumens. Fr. Feeney would have to reject such a Mass as impious. However, the Council of Trent infallibly declares, "CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema."

 Modern day Feeneyites, such as the Dimond "Brothers" realize the illogical position of Feeney, and so 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, but "improve" upon his teaching, a teaching demonstrably illogical as well as out of line with the teaching of the Church.

Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary--Serious Problems Abound

 Fr. Feeney established the "Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" (known by the Latin initials "MICM") without ecclesiastical approval and aided by a married laywoman, Mrs. Catherine Clark, on January 17, 1949. She took the name of "Sr" Catherine, and continued to live with her husband, Hank. Most of the members of the MICM were married and had children. They took vows of obedience and chastity. I'm sure you can see the problems already, without my commentary, but comment I will. Canon 542 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law makes it very plain that "Married persons for the duration of their marriage" "are invalidly admitted to the novitiate." (See Abbo and Hannan, op. cit., 1: 559, 558.) This means that they cannot become religious as long as their spouse is alive even though they may be "separated" and even if "the other spouse consents that his spouse may enter religion." (Ibid., 1: 560). And what of these ersatz "religious community's" children?

 According to Feenyite author Gary Potter, in his book After the Boston Heresy Case, "The children's parents effectively ceased to exist as parents to the children, and more so as a child grew from three to five to ten and older. Care was taken that the children had no direct or special contact with their parents, save on a half-dozen major feast days during each year when the entire community would gather for socializing. On these occasions the children might chat with their parents, but after a certain time, the parents were seen by the children as scarcely more than another Big Brother or Big Sister." (pg. 171; Emphasis mine). It would be interesting if a study were ever to be done on what became of these poor children when they grew to adulthood. What happened to them can justly be deemed child abuse. Children have a right by natural and Divine Law to be raised by their married parents, and not reared as "siblings" of wannabe "nuns" and "brothers." 

More Wacky Theology

 In Bread of Life, pgs. 97-98, Fr. Feeney writes these most disconcerting words, "I think baptism makes you the son of God. I do not think it makes you the child of Mary. I think the Holy Eucharist makes you a child of Mary. What happens to those children who die between baptism and the Holy Eucharist?...They go to the Beatific Vision. They are in the Kingdom of Mary, but they are not the children of Mary. Mary is their Queen, but not their Mother. They are like little angels. There was a strong tradition in the Church that always spoke of them as 'those angels who died in infancy.' They have the Beatific Vision, and they see the great Queen, but not move in as part of the Mystical Body of Christ...I say: If a child dies after having received baptism, he dies the son of God, but not yet as the child of Mary..."

Baptism makes you part of the One True Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, yet Feeney talks of infants who die after baptism as not moving in Heaven as "part of the Mystical Body of Christ"? They are not true Catholics? Isn't Fr. Feeney contradicting his so-called "strict interpretation" of "Outside the Church no salvation"? The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of Christ, the Invisible Head of the Church, and by extension, to each member of His Mystical Body. How dare Feeney call baptized infants who die before First Communion as "not a child of Mary." Note well he never cites to even one approved theologian, canonist, Encyclical, or other authoritative Church declaration in support of his novel ideas--and with good reason: there aren't any. More heresy.

Reconciliation with Montini and the Vatican II Sect

Fr. Feeney died "reconciled" to the false Vatican II sect under Paul VI (Montini). He was never made to recant his errors. This "hero" of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus refused to acknowledge that BOD and BOB are part of that very same dogma! He now finds favor with false pope Paul VI and was spoken of in glowing terms by arch-heretic "Cardinal" Avery Dulles. These heretics promulgated documents which, among other errors, declare false sects to be "a means of salvation." Yet just as Feeney could hold inconsistent views on other topics, so too, he was able to embrace the false sect of universal salvation and offer the Novus Bogus "mass." Leonard Feeney and the Law of Non-Contradiction, never were on speaking terms. ( The Law of Non-Contradiction maintains that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time, e.g. "It is raining in NYC right now" and "It is not raining in NYC right now"). 

Summary and Conclusion

Rarely does heresy stay isolated. Those who deny Catholic teaching on BOD and BOB hold up as a modern day "savior" the late Jesuit, Fr. Leonard Feeney. This is a priest who:
  • was never qualified as a theologian or canonist  
  • was disobedient to his lawful superiors and refused to report to the Holy See during the reign of Pope Pius XII and defend his teachings. He was subsequently excommunicated by Pope Pius XII. 
  • taught a strange, mixed-up notion of Justification and Salvation which is rejected even by his modern day followers
  • started a "religious order" consisting of married couples with children without ecclesiastical approval and in violation of Canon Law
  • abused the children of those "religious" by raising them communally and depriving them of their mother and father as God intended
  • taught that baptized infants were not somehow in the Mystical Body of Christ and could not be considered "children of Mary"
  • sought and received reconciliation in the false Vatican II sect which will accept ANY teaching as long as it isn't the teaching of the One True Church. 

Notice how their most ardent supporters, the so-called Dimond "Brothers" have many of the same problems, they:
  • Claim to be Benedictines, yet are sedevacantists. Having been born in the 1970s, they could not be members of the Traditional Benedictines, so they either are "self-appointed" or were made such by someone in the Vatican II sect they claim to abhor. More phony "religious."
  • Have no formal ecclesiastical training or degrees, yet pontificate on every topic and damning to Hell anyone who disagrees
  • Used to tell people they can attend the Mass of sedevacantist priests who are "heretics" (believe Church teaching on BOD and BOB), as long as they don't contribute money. By the same logic you could attend the Mass of an Eastern Schismatic/Heretic as long as you don't contribute money!
  • Claimed that a Mass with the name of the false pope in the Canon (such as by the SSPX) is a grave evil to attend, yet for years attended the "mass" of the Eastern Rite Vatican II sect which always puts the name of the false pope in the Anaphora (their Canon)
  • Currently tell people they can go to Traditionalist priests for Confession, but not for Mass and Communion, and of course, anyone who disagrees is damned to Hell. They are like the Jehovah's Witnesses sect whose teachings change frequently and often contradict prior teachings
  • Have claimed to know that certain people who died were in Hell (we cannot know, except by special revelation who is in Hell except for Judas Iscariot)
  • Have an unhealthy fascination with UFOs, and material that's fit to be published in supermarket tabloids

 A Traditionalist friend of mine said that Feeneyites have a certain "sickness of soul." I agree. This sickness is present in all who reject the Church, and wind up far removed from the truth. Fr. Feeney is said to have "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" inscribed on his tombstone. He died outside the Church in the false Vatican II sect. Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if, by a miracle of Grace, God saved Fr. Feeney and brought him back into the Church at the moment of his death by the very means he denied? 


68 comments:

  1. I had never heard of Bod-Bob until 2011.
    My local priest (Thuc line) told me bod-bob is consistent & the truth.He is literally currently explaining it to me little by little each week.
    I will trust him and leave it at that as this subject is much too complex for my simple brain.(no sarcasm intended its just too much for me I don't understand it yet)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No worries. Your priest is keeping you on the straight and narrow path! In time, you'll understand the issue better.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Interesting article. Accurate as usual. I mention only in passing that the Principle of Non-contradiction is also called the Principle of Contradiction by Hugon for example.

    A question, do you think it's time for true priests to start baptising converts from Novus Ordo conditionally? The tales we hear of the strangest manner of baptisms some receive is worrisome to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I think baptism in many cases should be done conditionally by Traditionalist priests. See my post "A Laver Of Regeneration No More."
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-laver-of-regeneration-no-more.html?m=1

      Delete
  3. I was reading the writings of some Feeneyites recently (I am not one myself) and I came across a strange fact. Apparently the letter from the Holy Office that condemned his teachings, known as Suprema Haec, or Protocol 122/49 was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the authoritative directory of the words of the magisterium. Wouldn't this be like a state passing a law against some behavior and not including it in the next edition of the penal code? I don't exactly know how these things work, and it doesn't really vindicate Fr Feeney, but I really am curious what that means that there seems to be no authoritative mention of it from Rome. I've heard it said that some bureaucrat in the Vatican forgot to include it, but I don't believe this first of all because it's hard to believe the people publishing the Acta Apostolicae Sedis are that incompetent, and -- for a much greater reason -- the document was never included in subsequent editions of the Acta, which probably would have happened if it had been left out by mistake.

    Again, I reject Feeneyism wholeheartedly, but this feature of the case has been bugging me since I heard about it. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Long story short, the decree has no binding force. Why it wasn't published in order to give it force of law is complex. It was fortuitous because I don't think it explained the issue as fully as it needed to be; Suprema Haec is by no means the best or only condemnation of Fenneyism.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Introibo, you write:

    "Moreover, the True Church has a special Mass for such catechumens."

    Are you saying that there is a Mass for unbaptized catechumens? Where can I find the Propers of this Mass?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George,
      I did indeed find a footnote reference to one sometime ago. I asked a friend (also a Traditionalist with a large theological library) to see if he could hunt down the text of the Mass. I will publish it immediately if it is located.

      Even if, ad arguendo, no such Mass exists (or can be sourced) what I wrote would still stand. As you are well aware, catechumens were dismissed prior to the Offertory. We find the terms "Mass of the Catechumens" and "Mass of the Faithful" in all hand Missals pre-V2. The offering of a Requiem Mass for a catechumen would be special, insofar as this is the first time Mass would be offered for them. Since Fr Feeney thinks catechumens who die without baptism by water are "punished," treating catechumens as baptized and with a Requiem Mass as described by the Code of Canon Law, he would find "impious." It would lead people to believe the very doctrine he explicitly rejected. Trent makes it clear that the Church cannot give or sanction incentives to impiety.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Nice work on Dimond. Has Dimond threatened to sue you yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol! No, and he'd be foolish because (a) I'm a lawyer, (b) he'd have a hard time trying to establish my identity and (c) telling the truth is an affirmative defense against alleged "deformation of character." Everything I've written about the "Dimond Brothers" is demonstrably true!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. What do you say to people who ask "where is the authority of the church?How can traditional priest have jurisdiction without being sent by an office of the church? Supplied jurisdiction is a ruse.Either you have jurisdiction or you don't,no in between. Trent says these traditional clergy are thieves who entered the gate by theft.(meaning no valid office gave them authority or permission for holy orders.)The Church teaches we will have apostolic authority and office till the end of time... I hold the supreme law of the church is salvation of souls.However,this subject is complex and they offer valid questions.
    You have any opinion on this subject?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please see my post of July 4, 2016, "The Church Can Supply Jurisdiction But Not Common Sense"

      ----Introibo

      Delete
    2. I just read that post,thank you!!

      Delete
  7. Fr Feeney was wrong about "justification but not salvation" issue, there is also nothing wrong with Thomistic BoD or BoB. However, the problem is that modernists, and even many Traditionalists (including sedevacantists) redefine BoD by denying absolute necessity of explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity for salvation. St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus and others who taught BoD taught that it applies only to those who hold the Catholic faith and desire baptism. Modern BoD advocates usually claim that it applies to invincibly ignorant Jews, Muslims etc. who don't believe in Christ and the Trinity and do not desire baptism, but if they are sincere in their beliefs and act according to the conscience they can allegedly receive BoD (the Church never taught that). As a result you have Bishop Fellay saying that Hindu can be saved if he has no knowledge of the Catholic Church and acts according to his conscience - this is an error. Alleged salvation for invincibly ignorant means anyone can be saved in any religion without faith in Christ an the Trinity (contrary to the Athanasian Creed and Cantate Domino) and makes EENS meaningless. It is also a root of modernist Vatican II ecclesiology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the thoughtful comment, but you are mistaken. In his Encyclical "Quanto Conficiamur Moerore," Pope Pius IX taught that those who never knew the Faith, "...can attain eternal life," not by Baptism but "by the efficacious virtue of Divine light and grace." God can infuse the Catholic Faith into someone just before the moment of death by a rare miracle of grace--Baptism of Desire.

      According to the eminent theologian Franzelin, those in invincible ignorance of the True Church can "have at least an implicit desire for such membership" and can be admitted into the Church by God. This does NOT mean that all Hindus, Buddhists, etc, receive BOD. It is a rare miracle of God. Ignorance does not save, but God can infuse the Faith and sanctifying grace into someone prior to death in order to save them. We cannot limit God's power to save Whom He will.

      For a more in depth treatment of this subject, please see my post, "Ignorance About Ignorance" of August 8, 2016.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. So where does Pius IX say that baptism and faith are not necessary for salvation? Nowhere. What you're doing, Introibo, is making an argument from silence, which is a fallacy. If I were to tell someone that he can get into MIT if he gets 1600 on his SATs, would he be correct in assuming that he wouldn't even have to apply to the school to get in, but only had to get 1600 and he would be admitted? Of course not. He would be inferring something that was not really implied.

      Furthermore, the Holy Father does say that the invincibly ignorant "can attain eternal life by efficacious virtue of Divine light and grace." But what do you suppose the substance of this Divine light to be? Some mundane understanding, or rather Divine faith? It's the latter, of course; for invincible ignorance is only a reality with respect to man, not at all with respect to God. Therefore, to say that a man may be invincibly ignorant in an absolute sense would be a blasphemy against the Omnipotence of God.

      Also, when the pope mentions "grace" he, of course, includes sanctifying grace. And what is the vehicle and instrument by which one receives sanctifying grace? Why, baptism, of course. So, what the pope is actually saying is that the invincibly ignorant man who lives a truly virtuous life will eventually receive the grace of faith and baptism. But you'll say I'm just begging the question...and I am, but my argument is not done yet.

      (to be continued)

      Delete
    3. I suggested in my last post, Introibo, that your interpretation of Pius IX’s encyclical is erroneous, because it does not necessarily follow from the text. Below, however, I have listed some examples of magisterial teachings which directly contradict your position:
      Here is how the dogmatic Athanasian Creed begins: “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”
      Does Introibo believe this?
      No, he doesn’t. He believes that a person who does not have the Catholic Faith will not at all necessarily perish everlastingly.
      Here is how the Athanasian Creed ends: “This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
      Does Introibo believe this?
      He does not. He believes that a person who does not believe the Catholic Faith can be saved.
      Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence: “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her”
      Does Introibo believe this?
      He does not. He believes some pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics can have a share in eternal life.
      Pius XII, Mystici Corporis: “It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
      Does Introibo believe this?
      He evidently does not. For he must believe that those divided in both faith and government may be living the life of the Divine Spirit (Holy Ghost), unless he wishes to argue that one can be saved even without sanctifying grace.
      Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: “Let them hear Lactantius crying out: ‘The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.’”
      Does Introibo believe this?
      No, he doesn’t. He believes that some of those who do not enter the Catholic Church are not at all strangers to the hope of life and salvation.
      Pius XI, Quas Primus: “Before the Roman magistrate he declared that his kingdom was not of this world. The gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by penance, and cannot actually enter except by faith and baptism, which, though an external rite, signifies and produces an interior regeneration.”
      Does Introibo believe this?
      He does not. He believes that someone can enter the kingdom without either faith or baptism.
      Don’t you think, Introibo, the fact that you don’t believe in any of these magisterial teachings presents somewhat of a problem?

      Delete
    4. With all due respect, George, I believe in every single one of those Church teachings you cite directly above, and they do not contradict the authentic teaching on BOD and BOB.

      Let me say unequivocally that I believe in every tenet of the Traditional Roman Catholic Church. I have never held, nor do I hold now, that pagans, Jews, schismatics and heretics can enter Heaven. They do not. ALL THOSE WHO DIE OUTSIDE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST GO TO HELL, WITHOUT EXCEPTION. I hope that makes my position as clear as possible. It also squares with the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Florence, Mystici Corporis, Mortalium Animos, and Quas Primas.

      What we disagree on is this: You think that only water baptism will allow one to enter the One True Church. The Church teaches that in extraordinary circumstances, God can save a person who is disposed by actual graces to accept the truth, and has perfect contrition for his sins. Just prior to the moment of death, God infuses the soul with the Catholic Faith and sanctifying grace, so that Jew, pagan, schismatic, or heretic dies AS A CATHOLIC IN THE STATE OF GRACE.

      According to the Church, she is infallible (totally without error) in Her universal disciplinary laws and practices, and has declared that She cannot issue any practice which is evil and harmful to the faithful. (See, e.g, Pope Pius VI, "Auctorem Fidei," Pope Gregory XVI, "Mirari Vos," Pope St. Pius X, "Pascendi Domenici Gregis", etc).

      The 1917 Code of Canon Law was promulgated as a universal disciplinary Law. To be "universal" means that the law applies everywhere to a particular rite and not just in a particular area.

      Canon 737 declares, "Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually OR AT LEAST IN DESIRE is necessary for all for salvation..." (Emphasis mine) This canon ends the debate on what the Church's official interpretation is on the decree of the Council of Trent, "CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."

      This means that entering the Church can be through desire (BOD). That an implicit faith can suffice is taught by Pope Pius IX. You claim I misinterpret his encyclical, but such is not the case. Theologian Johann Franzelin expressly taught implicit desire could suffice for BOD since God would infuse the necessary truths of faith just prior to death. He was a papal theologian at the First Vatican Counciland was raised by Pope Pius IX to the cardinalate By Pope Pius IX in 1876. His work, "Theses de Ecclesia Christi" was well known by Pope Pius IX, as was the work of theologian Perrone, whose works were expressly approved by Pope Pius IX. Would he allow those theologians to propagate something that he didn't really teach and is contrary to the Faith? If Pope Pius IX meant Baptism in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, he would have said so, but he didn't. He was clearly referring to those who will never know the Faith under ordinary conditions.

      God can save apart from the sacrament of baptism by infusing the faith and sanctifying grace by a rare miracle of BOD. They die AS CATHOLICS IN THE ONE TRUE CHURCH.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. You were able to refute my argument, Introibo, because I stupidly failed to carefully read your response to Arvinger. Due to my rashness, I'll have to concede this session of the debate.

      Until later, then.

      Delete
    6. You're an honorable man, George. Be assured of my prayers always.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. The Diamond's just put this out. I don't think you can refute it.
      http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/st-gregory-nazianzen-baptism/

      Delete
    8. It's more of the same claptrap. The Dimonds think they can interpret the meaning of any given text apart from the Magisterium. Notice what St. Gregory says, "...and he is within the Kingdom of Heaven who merely desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom." It is not enough to merely desire baptism, you must do "that which pertains to the Kingdom," i.e., have perfect contrition for one's sins and live an upright life. An explanation was given to this passage by Fr. Laisney of the SSPX whom they reference, but simply dismiss as "having been refuted in their book."

      Second, their argument from the Breviary works against them. If they concede the Truth that it cannot teach error, and even if I were to concede (which I don't) that St. Gregory denied BOD, and the Breviary states that "... there is nothing to be found in his writings which is not conformable to true piety and Catholic faith, or which anyone could reasonably call in question." Then BOD must be false. However, the Breviary is also very clear that St. Emerentiana is in Heaven after having been martyred AS A CATECHUMEN. They would then have to logically accept BOB, but this clearly refutes their position that only water baptism suffices for membership in the Church.

      Lastly, How do Bobby and Freddy get out of the fact that the Code of Canon Law is infallible as a universal disciplinary law? It clearly teaches that catechumens who die before baptism are to be treated as baptized. If this is false/evil, then the Church is not infallible, or they would have to declare Pope Benedict a heretic who taught heresy as a private teacher and fell from office prior to 1917. Which is it?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    9. My issue with BOD is that it is unclear. People have to read into it to get a meaning from it. For example in your first response we have to assume what he means by "that which pertains to the kingdom of heaven" means have perfect contrition and lead an upright life. Why can't it mean - get baptized? Also how can one have perfect contrition without Sanctifying Grace?
      Whereas the Diamond's examples are clear and we don't have to assume anything e.g.Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.”

      Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone should say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account should distort those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], into some metaphor: let him be anathema.”
      I would think from reading these two examples that the actual sacrament is necessary as well as water for the sacrament and to not have both would mean one wouldn't have salvation. That's what they say. Regardless of the Diamond's motives, they are clear and that is why people listen to them. They mention in their book that some martyrs were baptized but we're still considered catechumens. Pope St. Sylvester I, First Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D., Can. 2:"For a catechumen needs time and further probation after baptism...",and Council of Braga,572, Canon xvii:"Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice nor the service of chanting is to be employed for catchment who have died without baptism." So apparently, some catechumens were baptized.
      Why would Pope Benedict be declared a heretic? I don't understand the reference.

      Delete
    10. I understand what you mean that things "seem clear." However, we have a Magisterium to teach us. If everything was self-explanatory, who needs a Divine teaching authority?

      For example, over time the original intent of a canon or decree can be obscured. The theologians closest to the Council of Trent taught what everyone at the time of the Council knew: Canon 2 on Baptism was defining the matter of the sacrament (water) against heretics like Martin Luther who taught that milk or beer could substitute for water since baptism was not absolutely necessary--you're saved by Faith alone apart from any sacraments. So it seems "easy" to understand, but it's a little more complex than what two phony Benedictines with no teaching authority would like you to believe. The canon was defining the matter of baptism, not excluding BOD and BOB.

      Further proof comes from Canon 4 on the Sacraments---"CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, ..." Without them or WITHOUT THE DESIRE THEREOF" Seems clear now!

      As I wrote in response to George above,
      According to the Church, she is infallible (totally without error) in Her universal disciplinary laws and practices, and has declared that She cannot issue any practice which is evil and harmful to the faithful. (See, e.g, Pope Pius VI, "Auctorem Fidei," Pope Gregory XVI, "Mirari Vos," Pope St. Pius X, "Pascendi Domenici Gregis", etc).

      The 1917 Code of Canon Law was promulgated as a universal disciplinary Law. To be "universal" means that the law applies everywhere to a particular rite and not just in a particular area.
      Canon 737 declares, "Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually OR AT LEAST IN DESIRE is necessary for all for salvation..." (Emphasis mine) This canon ends the debate on what the Church's official interpretation is on the decree of the Council of Trent, Canon 4 on the sacraments.

      If the Code of Canon Law (1917) is wrong, then the Church is not infallible as She teaches; but this is impossible as anyone who has the Catholic Faith knows. So the only other option besides the abandonment of the Catholic Faith, would be to say that the Code is wrong because Pope Benedict 15 fell into heresy and lost the pontificate prior to promulgating the Code in 1917. Do the Dimonds want to so declare?

      I hope this helped.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    11. Dear Introibo, I appreciate your response. I find it interesting that beer and milk were considered alternatives for water. However, this is part of the problem of theologians teaching. Right now, theologians say that Christ didn't actually feed 5000 people and that everyone just ponied up a bit of food to feed the 5000. And they now say that Mary wasn't always a virgin, etc. The exegesis of the experts is based on the times, which is why dogmatic ex cathedra statements need to stand on their own and any magisterial teaching needs to correlate and agree with them. Otherwise, it seems that even though there are clear ex cathedra pronouncements, if theologians say they mean something else, we should believe them. In Canon 1239, 1917 Code, 2. says"Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be reckoned as baptized." But we have seen from above Council of Braga 572AD, Canon xvii," Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice nor the service of chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism."
      So was it wrong to refuse ecclesiastical burial for catechumens who died without baptism since the beginning or the 1917 Code wrong for granting them? Also, the actual Bull (Proventissima Mater Ecclesia) promulgating the 1917Code was Cardinal Gasparri and Cardinal De Azevedo,and was not
      signed by Benedict XV. There are a couple of other contradictions that the Diamond's go over in their book as well.
      I don't think this would be an issue if the current sede bishops wouldn't push it. They should just say it isn't totally clear,since it wasn't officially spelled out as BOD/BOB in any formal pronouncements, by an actual pope. And given the climate of error that has prevailed since before the turn of the century, the topic needs further study. They certainly should not condemn trad Catholics who adhere to Canon 2 and 5 as well as Pope St. Leo the Great's dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451: "In other words,the spirit of sanctification,and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them are separable from its link with the others."
      I think it's very confusing to most people and weakens the Catholic Church's EENS position. There is no point in converting others to the Faith if they are ignorant.

      Delete
    12. The problems are apparent not real. First, let me say that thinking you can "just read the text and understand" of your own is no different from Protestants who say you can just read the plain meaning of the Bible and understand it. Why does the Church require a doctorate in Canon Law and/or theology to become a theologian if all you need to do is "just read the plain meaning"? For example, I'm a lawyer. Why do I need three years of legal training? Can't you just "read the law" and understand it yourself? People will tell me "how was Mr. X" found not guilty? It seems so clear that he did it." They don't understand that in the law "innocent" and "not guilty" are not synonymous. "Not guilty" means the person MAY BE GUILTY, but the prosecution didn't carry it's burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt and to a point of moral certitude." As we were told in law school, "It's better to let 100 guilty people go free than let one innocent person suffer in prison." The jury was not saying that Mr. X was innocent by voting "not guilty."

      In like manner the Church deepens and explains Her teachings by the approved theologians. Now to address your concerns:

      1. The Modernist theologians are not approved by the Church since the defection of the hierarchy. That's why you get heretics teaching heresy like, "Christ didn't real feed 5000 people," etc.

      The pre-Vatican II theologians NEVER taught heresy. Sometimes they disagree when topics are up for discussion, but never was heresy taught.

      2. As to the Council of Braga, they merely wanted to stress the importance of baptism. It was not wrong to deny the catechumen a Requiem Mass. a Church law, which is tied to the Faith, changed after so many years doesn’t imply that it’s heretical, unless of course, the law was previously condemned as heretical or intrinsically evil, which, of course, is impossible lest the Gates of Hell prevail.The problem is that the same argument could be used against the Latin Rite for refusing the Chalice to the Faithful. Since the Church never prohibited the faithful receiving the Chalice for hundreds of years, does that make the new law erroneous or heretical? Obviously not.

      3. The 1917 Code was approved by the Church.
      It doesn’t have to be signed by the pope. There was a big celebration by Pope Benedict XV when he promulgated the Code of Law. Pope St. Pius X condemned those who don’t accept the authority of those decisions that are approved by the Pontiff. Furthermore the Council of Trent says, "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema" [cf. n. 943]. Can. 7. The Council of Trent, Session XXII, (D. 954). Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII all enforced the 1917 Code, and gave Requiem Masses for catechumens. However, this would mean that they could not be popes because they would be enforcing an incentive to impiety by allowing people to think they could go to Heaven.

      The Code is "universal" insofar as it applies to the Entire Latin Rite, not just a particular area, as some Feeneyites think. Even if true, ALL Eastern Rites have the SAME provision regarding catechumens as the Latin Rite! Finally, who will decide which canons are good and which ones are heretical? You? Me? Bobby and Freddy Dimond, two phony "Benedictines" with no formal education in theology and/or canon law? (continued below)

      Delete
    13. 4. Pope St. Leo the Great's letter is saying that those three things give testimony to the One True Faith, and it is true you can't separate them for it is through these three that (as the letter says) "...the Catholic Church lives and grows."

      5. Of course we must convert the ignorant! Ignorance never saved anyone! But we cannot expect a rare miracle from God to save people; we must live up to the Great Commission! God could permit someone to live for years without food as did some saints, but will you refuse to help the starving and expect God to make a very rare miracle a regular event?

      I hope this helps. Remember that if your accused of a crime, go get a lawyer. People who try and defend themselves almost always go to prison. Traditionalists who try and understand the teachings of the Church apart from Her approved theologians--like the Dimonds-- will most likely end up as heretics in an unending prison of fire.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    14. The heretical thoughts of some theologians were present long before Vatican II and some were taught in seminaries. Msg. Fenton a pre VII theologian calls out Cardinal Newman in his book The Catholic Church and Salvation as reducing the EENS dogma to meaningless formula. In their analysis of Fenton's book, the Diamond's go on to show how Fenton first discredits the teaching in some Catechisms and then that of St. Robert Bellarmine. I have included some highlights. Anyway, you can read the entire article. It refutes a trusted theologian, which is why I think the sede bishops should realize that because of all the errors floating around at the time, some things shouldn't be taught as Gospel. Something gave rise to the errors of Vatican II. They more than likely started in the seminaries which had been infiltrated by those seeking to do harm to the Church.

      http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/msgr-fenton-joseph-clifford-book/#.WFv5pHplBDt

      "MSGR. FENTON ATTEMPTING TO JUSTIFY THE MISTAKE OF ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE
      As we just saw, Fenton rejects the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, that one can be united to the Soul of the Church without belonging to its Body. Since Doctors of the Church, like anyone else, can make mistakes, even relating to dogmatic issues, Fenton should have simply stated that St. Robert was wrong. However, rather than honestly and plainly stating that St. Robert Bellarmine was wrong, Fenton dishonestly confuses the issue. He tries to defend Bellarmine’s teaching on the one hand, while rejecting it on the other. He dishonestly argues that it was all just a misunderstanding:

      Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 173-174: “Yet, despite the perfection [sic] of St. Robert’s teaching and the clarity of his exposition, this section of the second chapter of his De ecclesia militante [St. Robert Bellarmine’s work] was destined to be a source of serious and highly unfortunate misunderstanding by subsequent theologians. The weak part of this, perhaps the most important single passage in the writings of any post-Tridentine theologian, was St. Robert’s use of the terms ‘soul’ and ‘body’ with reference to the Church.”

      We already saw that Fenton flatly rejects the idea that the Soul is more extensive than the Body of the Church. We also saw that St. Robert taught that catechumens could be of the Soul without being of the Body, thus making the Soul of the Church more extensive than the Body. So, instead of being honest, and stating that St. Robert Bellarmine made an error, Fenton dishonestly says that this is an “unfortunate misunderstanding” of St. Robert’s “weak” teaching. St. Robert’s teaching wasn’t merely weak; it was wrong. Fenton even says:

      Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 179: “It is one of the ironical twists in history that St. Robert, pre-eminent among the writers of the Catholic Church for the clarity of his expression, should have offered the occasion for such serious misunderstanding.”

      Fenton even goes on to explain how an entire line of theological error stemmed from St. Robert’s mistake – oops, I mean, the “misunderstanding” of St. Robert’s teaching:

      Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 181: “The misuse of St. Robert’s terminology went a step farther at the beginning of the eighteenth century in a well-written manual Elementa theologica written by the Sorbonne professor, Charles du Plessis d’Argentre.”

      This serves to show us again why Catholics don’t follow the teaching of theologians or Doctors of the Church except when they repeat and are perfectly in line with infallible Catholic teaching, or assert something that has been universally and constantly believed by Catholics from the beginning. To obstinately cling to the teaching of theologians (no matter how great or esteemed they may have been), in the face of infallible teaching to the contrary, leads to grave error or worse. "

      Delete
    15. My friend,
      I published the first of your three replies here, because this discussion is getting too long. If you would like an online debate, I have no problem debating you or the Dimonds. It doesn't seem like you're really seeking the truth, but you merely want to parrot long excerpts from Freddy and Bobby Dimond.

      I run from no one, so if it's a debate you or they want, let me know and I can try to arrange one that is mutually acceptable. Let me end this discussion as follows:

      1. I have already demonstrated that the Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law. As such it is infallible.

      2. It teaches BOD. It also does not run counter to the Council of Braga.

      3. Therefore, BOD must be believed OR you must move the time of sedevacante back to at least 1917. This alone should end the debate.

      Theologian Tanquerey sums up nicely the CHURCH'S teaching on the role of the theologians as part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium --which is also infallible as defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870:

      "The Authority of Theologians
      After the Patristic age, theologians arranged in logical order the doctrines contained in Scripture and Tradition and they explained they explained these doctrines with the help of philosophical reasoning. These theologians can be considered as witnesses to the faith or as private doctors. They should not be esteemed lightly no matter what the Protestants, Modernists or other adversaries alleged against them.
      In regard to their authority the following rules should be admitted:
      1. When theologians unanimously teach that something is not only true but also it must be accepted in Catholic Faith, such consensus on their part presents a certain argument

      2. If all proclaim some doctrine in regard to faith and morals as true or certain, it is rash to reject the doctrine

      3. If there is a division of opinion among the different schools, even if the theologians of one of school hold their opinion as certain or as very close to the faith, no obligation exists of accepting such an opinion." (See "Dogmatic Theology" 1:180).

      This is what you and Arvinger below don't (or refuse) to understand. You, Arvinger, and the Dimonds are in the same lot with Protestants and Modernists who also reject the theologians for private interpretations.

      Who will you follow? Bobby and Freddy Dimond, two wanna be "Benedictines" born in the 1970s,with no formal education in theology or canon law and no ecclesiastical approbation? Two guys who damn everyone to Hell for no following their opinions, which they change more frequently than the Jehovah's Witnesses?

      If that makes sense to you, go ahead, but remember you were warned--and I'll be praying for you.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    16. I thought it was a great article that refutes some theologians and show they all don't agree. I appreciate that you published the link. I really don't have time to do justice to this topic with an infant to care for, and I don't think I am not seeking the truth, but it is something that I never heard of prior to trad bishops so I researched it and it doesn't add up to me. I appreciate your prayers and will pray for you as well. I really think Trads need to be united. I will ask the Diamond's, but I don't know them and who knows how they will respond.

      Delete
  8. Thank you for your article and thoughtful posts intro. The Fenneyites are particularly active on traditional Catholic forums where they lead the simple and common Catholics trying to stay Catholic into error and heresy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your kind words David!
      God bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. Freddy and Bobby Dimond are not Feeneyites. These two lying weasels have always known that the Church has taught BOD in its ordinary and universal magisterium. The ONLY reason they maintain the strict water baptism position is because they created a niche market in which they could dominate. Creating a niche market is as old as marketing itself and Freddy boy has everybody deceived while donations keep rolling in. They are experts at a phony position and want the exclusive. That's how all personality cults operate (us VS the world). Those who enter their turf thinking they can ally with them will soon find out they don't want friendly competition. Just ask Bp Neil Webster who should have learned that lesson from sodomite Bishop McCormack, who should have learned that same lesson from Fr. Wathen. Dimond's whole gig is and always has been a farce. He probably would have stayed with the non-Sede position but the Sede market had far more potential to rise and shine. That's what effeminate Freddy D and his brother are all about folks. jon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jon,
      You make a most interesting point. You might very well be right. However, Fr. Feeney was also aware of Church teaching, having been trained as a Jesuit and ordained in 1928. How do we explain his heresy and strange ideas? Thank you for the comment, God bless.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Hello, a friend just sent me a link to this site: www.baptismofdesire.com. I never knew this site existed before but it has lots of information. Also, under the page's news section I found this note for April 2013: "The Dimond Brothers sent one of their messengers to request a phone debate with us. We instead requested a written debate by e-mail. We have not heard anything since."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for this link my friend! I'm not surprised that the Dimonds have not responded to a written debate!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. You are welcome Introibo. My friend thought the Dimonds don't like written debates because, as he worded it, "They can't tamper with the volumes and edit out the parts they don't like later."

      Delete
    3. Pray for the Diamond Bros.
      They could be very productive if they held & taught the true faith.

      Delete
    4. Yeah sure thing I'll pray for them... that they will one day be arrested and put in jail for running a scam ministry, pretending to be Benedictine monks, and taking money from the public. I'll pray for you too since you don't know a fake when you see one.

      Delete
    5. While we can all agree they are fakes, it is an act of Christian charity to pray for the conversion of sinners. Anyone who is alive can be moved by grace, amend their life and get to Heaven. Yes, justice will prevail, and they have much for which they will be held accountable--perhaps even by the law in this life. But the person who commented above, asking for their conversion is being a good Traditionalist, and I agree with David below that they COULD be a force for good. Remember Romans 12:19-21, "Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. To my readers:

      The angry commenter directly above submitted a comment that is vulgar in content. My policy has been (and always will be) to publish all comments; even from those who strongly disagree with me. However, I will not tolerate vulgarity or blasphemy. If someone cannot express themselves in a civilized manner, they have a problem. Add prayers for that angry person who commented above.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. Introibo, I owe you an apology. I'm sorry for my vulgarity. I know the rules of the blog and didn't adhere to them. It won't happen again.

      Delete
    8. Apology accepted my friend.

      God bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. They could do astounding good if they would drop the feeney heresy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Thank you for the thoughtful comment, but you are mistaken. In his Encyclical "Quanto Conficiamur Moerore," Pope Pius IX taught that those who never knew the Faith, "...can attain eternal life," not by Baptism but "by the efficacious virtue of Divine light and grace." God can infuse the Catholic Faith into someone just before the moment of death by a rare miracle of grace--Baptism of Desire."

    Pope Pius IX did not teach salvation without explicit faith in Christ. "Divine light and grace" means that these invincibly ignorant people will be converted to the Catholic faith. This is why in the very next paragraph Pope Pius IX remins that outsie the Church there is no salvation. This quote is regularly misused to promote the error of salvation of invincinly ignorant. Also, no Saint or Church authority who taught Baptism of Desire taught it as you outlined it above - they all taught that it applies only to those who hold the Catholic faith and actually desire baptism. The idea that a Jew who rejects Christ can be saved through BoD is a 20th century error which the Church knows nothing of.

    Dogmatic Athanasian Creed: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. (...) He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity."

    This completely contradicts and refutes salvation for invincibly ignorant, which in reality is nothing else than Rahner's heresy of Anonymous Christianity.

    Compare these two quotes:
    "Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven." (Bishop Fellay)

    "Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity — Let us say, a Buddhist monk — who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian" (Karl Rahner)

    They say exactly same thing. Most Traditionalists hold V2 errors on soteriology without realizing it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you that some people don't understand or hold heretical views regarding BOD which results in Rahnerian universal salvation--perhaps even Bp. Fellay (or perhaps he didn't explain himself well).

      If Pope Pius IX had meant Baptism, he would have said so. You beg the question that being within the Church can only be attained by water baptism. Cardinal Franzelin, known personally by Pope Pius IX taught BOD by implicit faith. We must conclude:
      (A) That is the correct interpretation of Pope Pius' encyclical
      (B) Franzelin taught error and the very Pope who wrote the encyclical approved it.

      When the Church grants approbation to a work, what good is it if it can't be trusted and each individual must decide what is right? How is that different from being Protestant?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. No one can be saved without the sacrament of baptism, we don't need Cardinal Franzelin to know that, we have Trent. However, I don't argue that Pope Pius IX denies BoD here - rather I point out that these invincibly ignorant people he talks about will convert to the Catholic faith, which is why Pope Pius IX says about divine light and grace (which means bringing about their conversion). The whole theory of "salvation for invincibly ignorant" assumes the erroneous notion that somebody could not hear about the faith - God can provide faith to his elect always and under any circumstances. Nobody can be saved without faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity, as the Athanasian Creed teaches. St. Thomas Aquinas himself taught not only BoD, but necessity of explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity for salvation.

      Cantate Domino (Council of Florence) teaches infallibly that all who die as pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics go to hell. If people who are invincibly ignorant can be saved without explicit faith, it means that some pagans and Jews can indeed be saved without conversion - as, sadly, almost every sedevacantist priest believes. One of the sedevacantist priests that "it is inconceivable to him that all who died as non-Catholics were not of good will, and if they were, he refuses to believe that hell is their eternal destiny" - clear rejection of EENS.

      Fr Feeney and Dimonds went overboard in rejection of BoD, nevertheless they correctly observed the error which is embraced by almost all Traditionalists today, namely that people can be saved without hearing about Jesus Christ and the Trinity, which happens to be a root of V2 errors as well. It rejects the teaching of Athanasian Creed on necesity of faith in Christ an the Trinity for salvation, rejects Cantate Domino and even teaching of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus (who also taught BoD) on necessity of explicit faith for salvation.

      Delete
    3. Also, there were many examples of errors and modernism which predate Vatican II, approved works of theologians do not fall into the scope of Church's infallibiltiy whatsoever and they are not part of Ecclesia Docens. It is an unfortunate pattern that sedevacantists tend to extend the scope of infallibility far beyond its actual boundaries.

      Delete
    4. You have your PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of Trent. You can't get past the FACT that Pope Pius IX gave approval to his works. That means Franzelin was correct or Pius approved heresy involving his own encyclical.

      The fact that some get BOD wrong does not make it false. You must believe as The Church teaches through Her approved theologians

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. If the works of the approved theologians are wrong, we have no Magisterium we can trust. A work that has Church approval to be free from error might have error. That's no Magisterium! Further, Pope Pius IX taught we must accept the teaching of the theologians in Tuas Libenter, "ven when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith."

      You accept the teaching of Aquinas and Bonavetnture, but reject St Alphonsus. This is Protestantism. You get to decide what theologians to accept and which to reject, even when ALL received Ecclesiastical approval.

      This is your error.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. I'm sorry, this is simply ridiculous. As almost all sedevacantists, you extent the scope of infallibility far beyond the extent Church does. Work of approved theologian are by no means infallible, an the Pope by approving such and such does not exercise infallibility - read Vatican I conditions for infallibility. Theologians are NOT part of Ecclesia Docens in any way, shape or form - it is a novel idea of Fr Cekada that consensus of theologians constitutess teaching of the Magiterium.

      An example - St. Augustine taught that unbaptized children suffer hellfire, it was the majority opinion in the Church. Abelard overturned that and his opinion was approved by the Church. St. Thoma Aquinas enie Immaculate Conception - does it mean that "we have no Magisterium we can trust" because Summa Theologica is approved by the Church? Of course, not. Furthermore, St. Robert Bellarmine believed that geocentrism is de fide, but later Popes allowed publication of heliocentric works. According to your standard, they were Protestants for rejecting the teaching of Bellarmine and "we have no Magiterium we can trust". Saints of theologians are not infallible. The scope of infallibility was defined by Vatican I to ex cathedra statements on faith and morals to the Universal Church promulgated with Apostolic authority.

      An by the way, St. Alphonsus taught that all who die among the pagans are lost, so by claiming that invincibly ignorant can be saved you contradict both St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas who taught that explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity is necessary for salvation.

      Athanasian Creed: "So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity."
      Do you believe that people who die without thinking of the Trinity can be saved?

      Cantate Domino: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,"
      Do you believe that some pagan who are invincibly ignorant can be saved?

      The idea that people can be saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ an the Trinity is an error and contradicts infallible teaching of the Church.

      Delete
    7. Also, I never denied BoD, so I'm not sure why do you say "the fact that some get BOD wrong does not make it false". That is precisely what I'm arguing, that BoD is being abused way beyond what Aquinas or Bellarmine taught, as allegedly applying to invincibly ignorant people who never heard of Christ and the Trinity - no one ever taught that, neither Aquinas nor St. Alphonsus or St. Robert Bellarmine.

      Delete
    8. Tuas Libenter is not a novelty of Fr Cekada. The Immaculate Conception was up for discussion so of course there were opinions on both sides and Catholics are free to disagree. However, where there is unanimity it belongs to the Universal Ordinary Magisterium which is also infallible as was taught by the First Vatican Council. All approved theologians teach BOD and BOB. It was taught as implicit faith under certain conditions by Pope Pius IX. Then God infuses the soul with Faith and grace prior to the moment of death. Cardinal Franzelin taught that this was what the pope meant and Pope Pius confirmed it. If what you say is true, Pius IX would be a heretic.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    9. Furthermore, Aquinas and Bellarmine "never taught that" but Franzelin, Perrone, and Müller did. If theologians are not part of the teaching Church, what does anyone care about them?

      The fact is, Pope Pius IX taught it, and the theologians contemporary to and subsequent to his teaching confirm this fact.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. You misuse Tuas Libenter - it says about what theologians consider to be deposit of faith *out of already promulgated teachings of the Church*, it *does not* say that theologians define by themselves previously undefined doctrines which are part of the Catholic faith. Teachings of the theologian which are not part of the Magisterium are not infallible in any way, shape or form. The idea that people can be saved without explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity was never taught by the Church as part of deposit of faith, and the teachings of theologians do not constitute part of the Magisterium - it is a novelty by Fr Cekada - and they are most certainly not infallible.

      As I said, St. Thomas Aquinas taught necessity of explicit faith in Christ an the Trinity for salvation. If Cardinal Franzelin taught it is not necessary, you have a contradiction between Franzelin and Aquinas. Also, as I demonstrate from the context, Pope Pius IX did not teach that invincibly ignorant people can be saved without explicit faith in Christ - he taught that people can receive this faith by divine light and grace.

      To put your standards into practice: St. Robert Bellarmine taught that geocentrism is a dogma. Do you aceept this teaching?
      1. If not, how can you reject what Doctor of the Church considers to be de fide?
      2. If you accept it, how do you explain that Pope Benedict XV taught in Praeclara Summorum that Earth might not be centre of the Universe and that numerous Popes accepted heliocentrism?

      Also, you did not answer the questions:
      1. Athanasian Creed: "So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity."
      Question: do you believe that people who die without thinking of the Trinity (ignorant of the Trinity) can be saved?

      2. Cantate Domino: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,"
      Question: do you believe that some pagans who are invincibly ignorant can be saved?

      Delete
    11. No, Tuas Libenter says this, "ven when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith. But, since it is a question of the submission obliging in conscience all those Catholic who are engaged in that study of the speculative sciences so as to procure for the Church new advantages by their writings, the members of the Congress must recognize that it is not sufficient for Catholic savants to accept and respect the dogmas of the Church which We have been speaking about: they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological "

      The same was taught by Salaverri (see citation within my post where the full text can be read).

      If Franzelin did not correctly interpret the meaning of Pope Pius, how did that same pontiff approve his works and those of Perone?
      You CAN accept geocentrism, I don't. It never had the unanimous consent of the theologians. See my post about Galileo for a full reply.

      As to your citations to the Athanasian Creed, Cantate Domino, and your question ---Ignorance cannot save anyone!!

      I'll say it again: God can, by a miracle of Grace, infuse the soul with The FAITH AND GRACE. The person dies as a Catholic with the knowledge of the Faith in sanctifying grace.




      Delete
    12. The problem for your position is that St. Robert Bellarmine taught that geocentrism is a dogma. You reject his claim, yet you insist I must believe in what Cardinal Franzelin (who was not a Doctor of the Church and I doubt he claimed implicit faith is a dogma) taught - which shows double standards and proves my point that theologians, even Doctors of the Church, can be wrong and their teaching can sometimes be rejected.

      If you believe that a person saved by BoD dies "with knowledge of the faith", i.e. with explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity (minimum required to be held for salvation) - great, that is exactly my point. But the error held by almost all sedevacantist priests (not to mention Novus Ordo) is that people who die ignorant of Christ and the Trinity can be saved in false religions through "implicit faith" (without explicit faith in Christ at the Trinity) - that is an error which contradicts Athanasian Creed, Cantate Domino, Aquinas and many other teachings and theologians.

      Even Msgr Fentor admitted that in his times, before Vatican II, majority of theologians taught that explicit faith in Christ an the Trinity is necessary for salvation (i.e. they contraicte implicit faith theory) - somehow they did not interpret Pius IX as teaching implicit faith. So you have contradiction between them (majority opinion) and Franzelin (another example of how ridiculous the idea of theologians being Ecclesia Docens is).

      The reality is, there is not a shred of evidence that the Magisterium ever taught that people who die ignorant of Christ can be saved - all you have is one misused quote from Pius IX.

      You keep misusing Tuas Libenter. Pope Pius IX explained *why* these things are held by theologians:
      "this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely *revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church* spread over the whole world, and which, for *this reason*, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith."
      Theologians do not define any previously undefined doctrines apart from the Magisterium of the Church and they themselves do not constitute Magiterium of the Church.

      Unfortunately, as most sedevacantists you fall into imbalance in your view of the Magisterium, where almost everything is infallible, even teaching of theologians approved by the Pope. Conditions for infallibility were defined by Vatican I, teachings outside of it are fallible. Vatican I found 41 theological errors in Papal teaching prior to definition of infallibillity, which if course does not "leave us without Magiterium which can be trusted" (to use your words) and neither do errors of theologians approved by the Pope.

      Delete
    13. Re-read Vatican 1 and its teaching on the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Please cite where geocentrism is a dogma. Even if true--IT WAS AND IS OPEN TO DEBATE. Franzelin was personally known by Pope Pius IX and the This same pope approved his work which teaches implicit faith can lead to BOD.

      Question: Why would the pope sanction heresy? Didn't he know what he himself had taught?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. "God can save apart from the sacrament of baptism by infusing the faith and sanctifying grace by a rare miracle of BOD."

    No one is saved "apart from the sacrament of baptism" - see John 3:5 and dogmatic teaching of Trent on absolute necessity of baptism for salvation. A person who receives BoD receives the sacrament of baptism in voto rather than beng saved apart from the sacrament of baptism. To say that someone can be saved without baptism is rejection of Trent's teaching on absolute necessity of baptism for salvation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He receives the effects of the sacrament, but not the sacrament properly so-called. Does the recipient of BOD or BOB have the sacramental character? No. Yet they receive the effects of the sacrament by the miraculous working of God. In this way they are not saved apart from the sacrament of Baptism

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. Yes, the person must receive the sacramental character - otherwise it would mean salvation without the sacrament of baptism, which falls under anathema of Trent. BoD is not some sort of exception from the necessity of sacrament of baptism for salvation (it cannot be, since no one can be saved without that sacrament), rather it is way of receiving the sacrament in voto.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please cite one pre-Vatican II theologian or canonist who teaches the character of Baptism is imparted by BOD or BOB. This is private interpretation of Church teaching--the exact error of Fr Feeney whose other strange ideas were explored in this post.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. It must be if BoD is true - in fact this is a flaw in the way for example St. Alphonsus taught BoD (he taught that BoD does not remit temporal punishment, while Council of Trent taught that the sacrament of baptism does - creit where creit is due, Dimonds are correct here). We know from Trent that no one can be saved without the sacrament of baptism - therefore, if BoD is true it must provide the actual sacrament in voto. I accept BoD on authority of St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine and Catechisms which taught it, but if BoD does not provide the sacrament itself it cannot be true since it would contradict Trent. Therefore, if BoD is to be true it must provide the sacrament itself in voto to reconcile it with Trent.

      But that is not the main area of problem. The main problem is that BoD, whether it provides the baptismal character or not, applies only to those with explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity - no person who dies in invincible ignorance can be saved through BoD, there must be conversion to the Catholic faith as Cantate Domino and the Athanasian Creed teach. No Saint taught that souls can be saved in false religion through BoD (unfortunately, most of Traditionalist clergy beleive it today - including Bishop Sanborn, Bishop Fellay, Fr Schmiberger, even Archbishop Lefebvre who explicitly taught that people can be saved "in false religion but not by this religion" and that it would be "error" to believe that no Buddhist or no animist will be saved). This is the root of V2 error.

      Delete
    3. You have not one citation to support your novel idea that the character is bestowed by BOD. The pope and bishops are the Magisterium and if they teach that an approved theologian faithfully expresses the mind of the Church, then it must be so. No one can be saved "in" a false religion; although it would appear that way. Only God knows what takes place between Himself and a person's soul prior to death.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. Was Bod/Bob/invincible ignorance argued and debated pre-1970's as much as it is nowadays?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was debated beginning in the 1940s, but it hit fever pitch after Vatican II.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  16. I think the Lord will excuse my ignorance on this subject.
    Its too much for my simple mind.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Are you aware that David Bawden / Pope Michael has an Argentinian rival who has canonised Father Feeney?

    AND that they are holding what they consider as perfect general councils:

    Iglesia Católica Apostólica Remanente
    ÚNICO sitio web oficial de la Santa Sede en el Exilio, de Su Santidad el Papa Alejandro IX, en Argentina.
    http://icaremanente.blogspot.fr/


    Latest posts from last year involve "Sesión VII del Concilio Ecuménico de Villa María".

    I considered him after ditching Bergoglio, until I saw he was totally Feeneyite.

    This is when I preferred Pope Michael, who is not a Feeneyite.

    This is also another reason why time is running out for the solution of convoking an imperfect general council, as you propose : such a one would have to judge between claimants already in place.

    ReplyDelete