Monday, September 20, 2021

A Most Pernicious Error

 

What do Vatican II sect apologists, "Recognize and Resistors (R&R)," and Feeneyites all have in common? A most pernicious error: that a pope can teach error when not speaking ex cathedra and still be pope. Hence, "conservative" Vatican II sect apologists who disagree with Bergoglio will say his teaching isn't infallible so it "doesn't matter" for the faith, or they will claim it is a "development of doctrine" and only an apparent contradiction with past teaching. The R&R will profess that a pope need not be followed (he can be "resisted") if (a) the teaching is non-infallible and (b) it "goes against Tradition."

Feeneyites, like Fred and Bobby Dimond, think that any teaching that is not a dogma may be discarded if it goes against (what they erroneously believe) to be dogmatic teaching. Additionally, they are not even logical in applying their error. When Bergoglio or any false pope since Roncalli teaches something contrary to dogma, they (correctly) conclude he can't be pope. However, when true popes affirm Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, they make incredulous excuses for such papal giants as Pius IX, St. Pius X, and Benedict XV as to why they "didn't really" teach Baptism of Desire, and it "wasn't infallible" anyway. 

This post will show (a) true popes must be obeyed even when not teaching infallibly, (b) what constitutes legitimate, Catholic development of dogma, and (c) how the false popes since Roncalli (John XXIII) teach almost word-for-word contradictions to past Church teaching.

Papal Authority
1.  A Catholic is not allowed to accept from the Church only what seems correct to him or only that which is declared infallibly.

Proof: 
Pope Pius XI: Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

(See Casti Connubii, para. #104; Emphasis mine). 

Theologian Cardinal Franzelin (1816-1886):
The Holy Apostolic See, to whom the guarding of the Deposit has been committed, and on whom the duty and office of feeding the entire Church, unto the salvation of souls, has been laid, can prescribe theological opinions (or other opinions to the extent that they are connected with theological ones) as to be followed, or proscribe them as not to be followed, not only with the intention of deciding the truth infallibly by definitive sentence, but also without that intention, with the need and the intention of exercising care, either simply or with specified qualifications, for the safety of Catholic doctrine. In this sort of declarations, even though there is not the infallible truth of the doctrine because there is not the intention of deciding this, but nevertheless, there is infallible safety. By safety, I mean both objective safety as to the doctrine so declared (either simply or with such and such qualifications), and subjective safety, to the extent that it is safe for all to embrace it, and it is not safe, nor can it be free from the violation of due submission toward the divinely constituted Magisterium, that they should refuse to embrace it.

(See On Divine Tradition, [1875; reprinted 2016], pg. 179; Emphasis mine). 

Here, Card. Franzelin, one of the most eminent theologians defending papal infallibility at the Vatican Council of 1870, teaches the following points:

  • The pope can instruct the faithful to hold theological opinions (or other opinions to the extent that they are connected with theological ones), or forbid the faithful from holding certain theological opinions
  • The Holy See can do so either with the intention of deciding the truth infallibly, but also without that intention
  • Without the intention of deciding infallibly the Holy See would have the intention of exercising care for the safety of Catholic doctrine
  • This means that the doctrine so declared does not undermine any of the truths of the faith, and it also means that it is safe for all to embrace it
  •  It is also true that it is not safe for anybody to fail to embrace the doctrine
  • If anybody fails to embrace such a doctrine they commit a sin by refusing proper submission to the teaching authority of the Church.
True and False Development of Doctrine
From The Anti-Modernist Oath of Pope St. Pius X (1910):
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.
(Emphasis mine).

For Modernists, Divine Revelation given to the Church by God, is a continuing process that will not be finished until the end of time. Earlier statements of truth can be modified or even contradicted by later statements "more suited to the age" in which the Church finds Herself. For Catholics, Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, St. John, in the year 100 A.D. It develops insofar as to be more fully grasped as time goes on, but to be passed on faithfully, in its entirety, undiminished and uncorrupted. Modernists deny the absolute truth of dogmas, and assert that dogmas may be valid at the time declared, but they are subject to additions, omissions, substantial alterations, and even abolishment at other time periods. They are moral and doctrinal relativists, like Bergoglio.

Is it the same Church?
Here is just a small sampling of what the Church and the Vatican II sect teach on certain subjects. Ask yourself, could both these teachings come from the same Church instituted by Christ? (Church teaching shall be in red font. Vatican II sect [Modernist] teaching will be in normal black font.---Introibo).

Is the Church complete?

Pope Pius XI:
 And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd," with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. (Mortalium Animos, para. #7).

Karol Wojtyla:
Christ calls all his disciples to unity. My earnest desire is to renew this call today, to propose it once more with determination, repeating what I said at the Roman Colosseum on Good Friday 1994, at the end of the meditation on the Via Crucis prepared by my Venerable Brother Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. There I stated that believers in Christ, united in following in the footsteps of the martyrs, cannot remain divided. (Ut Unum Sint, para. #1; First Emphasis in original, Second Emphasis mine).

Do non-Catholics need to convert to the Church for salvation?

Fourth Lateran Council (1215):
One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved...

Vatican II:
For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (Unitatis Redintegratio, #3).

Jorge Bergoglio:
Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.

Can false sects be given freedom by the State to give false worship in public?

Pope Leo XIII:
Again, that it is not lawful for the State, any more than for the individual, either to disregard all religious duties or to hold in equal favor different kinds of religion...

Vatican II:
Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles. (Dignitatis Humanae, para. #4). 

What is the Mass?

Traditional Mass: Council of Trent, Session 22:
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence.


Novus Bogus: Paragraph #7 General Instruction on the Roman Missal, 1969
The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the People of God gathering together, with the priest presiding, in order to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. 

What is the primary purpose of the Sacraments?
Traditional Sacraments:
Baptism: Remission of Original Sin (and all actual sins/temporal punishments for remitted sin in adults), imparting of an indelible character on the soul, membership in the Church, and the infusion of Sanctifying Grace.

Penance: The forgiveness of sins committed by those with the use of reason after baptism when confessed to a priest. The penitent must have at least attrition for all sins, a firm resolve to avoid all mortal sin with God's Grace, and faithfully carry out the imposed penance. 

Holy Eucharist: It is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ received under the mere appearance of bread. It increases sanctifying grace and the fervor of charity: just as food supports and increases the life of the body, so the Holy Eucharist preserves and increases grace which is the life of the soul: It forgives venial sins; It is of great help for final perseverance: by diminishing concupiscence, preserving from mortal sin, strengthening the soul in the practice of good works, and producing spiritual consolation.

Confirmation: Reception of an indelible character on the soul and strengthened by the Gifts of the Holy Ghost to be Soldiers of Christ; willing to endure even martyrdom for the sake of Christ and His One True Church.

Holy Orders: The conferral of an indelible sacerdotal character upon a man which renders him "another Christ" (alter Christus). He has the power to offer the Most Holy Sacrifice for the living and the dead, to forgive sin, and to administer the sacraments of the Church 

Holy Matrimony: To unite a man and woman together for life in order to effectuate the procreation and education of children as God intended.

Extreme Unction: A sacrament for those in danger of death from sickness and/or old age. The effect is the grace of the Holy Ghost, whose anointing takes away sins, if there are any still to be expiated, and removes the trace of sin; and it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person. It gives him great confidence in the divine mercy. Encouraged by this, the sick man more easily bears the inconvenience and trial of his illness and more easily resists the temptations of the devil who lies in wait for his heel. This anointing occasionally restores health to the body, if health would be of advantage to the salvation of the soul.

Vatican II "sacraments:"
Baptism: To initiate someone into the People of God. "In Baptism, the Holy Spirit moves us to answer Christ's call to holiness. In Baptism, we are asked to walk by the light of Christ and to trust in his wisdom. We are invited to submit our hearts to Christ with ever deeper love." (United States Conference of Catholic [sic] Bishops [sic]; See https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments-and-sacramentals/baptism)

Reconciliation:  A time of healing and reconciling that invites all to experience God’s love and forgiveness through the actions of the priest.

Holy Eucharist: Christ is present in a special manner to bring us closer to God and other Christians. 

Confirmation: A Christian Rite of Passage whereby it gives an increase and deepening of baptismal grace from the Holy Spirit to have a mature faith. 

Holy Orders: Configures the recipient to Christ by a special grace of the Holy Spirit, so that he may serve as Christ’s instrument for His Church.

Holy Matrimony: Gives spouses the grace to love each other with the grace with which Christ has loved His Church. 

Anointing of the Sick: The hoped-for effect is that, if it be God's will, the person be physically healed of illness. But even if there is no physical healing, the primary effect of the Sacrament is a spiritual healing by which the sick person receives the Holy Spirit's gift of peace and courage to deal with the difficulties that accompany serious illness or the frailty of old age.


Conclusion

The Vatican II apologists, R&R, and Feeneyites must come to grips with their most pernicious error if they wish to be Catholic. Catholics must assent to the authoritative teachings of the pope. Internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See authentically approved by the Supreme Pontiff. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, [1955], pg. 241). Catholics must reject the Modernist idea of the development of doctrine, as taught by Pope St. Pius X. Having established these two facts, even a casual look at perennial Church teaching with that of the counterfeit Vatican II sect (claiming falsely to be the Catholic Church), shows there has been contradictory teachings and practices. In order to be a member of the Vatican II sect you must do one of the following:
  • Claim that the Church can defect and deny the dogma of Indefectibility (like $teve $kojec)
  • Assert that somehow the Vatican II sect contradictions are only apparent, not real (Any attempt at this I've ever seen is a joke)
Otherwise, you must realize that since the Church cannot defect, and the doctrinal/moral/sacramental contradictions are real, not apparent, the Vatican II sect is a man-made sect and not the True Church. This happened because a heretic cannot become or remain pope. As St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches, If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate. (See Oeuvres Completes 9:232; Emphasis mine). According to canonist Coronata: III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded. (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine). Such was the unanimous teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians. 

Jorge Bergoglio is not therefore, the pope, but a heretic who couldn't attain the office in the first place. The One True Church continues as a remnant through the Traditionalists. It's an easy fact to recognize, yet a painful reality many wish to resist, much to their own detriment. 







 

58 comments:

  1. “When one loves the pope, one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit to this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public documents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext- easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey-that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, FOR THERE CAN BE NO HOLINESS WHERE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT WITH THE POPE.” Address to the priest of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912 In Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912] p. 695

    My favorite quote.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That, and also what St. John Bosco said to his clerics: "If its [a book's] author is somewhat unfavorable to the Pope, don’t read the book."

      Pope St. Pius X and St. John Bosco did not limit their doctrinal obedience to popes to whether the said popes were saints or were using their infallibility. Pope St. Pius X and St. John Bosco were apparently radical extremist ultrahyperueberpapalist ultramontantist papists just like us sedevacantists today.

      The R&R have a very uncatholic, bad, and disrespectful attitude towards the papacy, as do those sedevacantists who unjustly criticize and insult the last known Vicar of Christ, Pope Pius XII, and have bad things to say about him first before good ones.

      Delete
  2. The Feeneyites and the R&R are blind people who lead other blind people. And we know what will happen to them ! It is obvious that the V2 sect and the Catholic Church are two different entities. The vast majority of those who call themselves Catholics do not realize it. It shows how smart the devil is and how unsuspecting people are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      The days are evil and blessed is he to whom God has shown the way--like you.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Pray for me so that I stay on the right path !

      Delete
    3. Simon,
      You're always in my prayers!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. The rhetorical question "Is the Pope Catholic ?" is today become more like "What is the Pope ?" This confusion is deliberate (as is the confusion on some many other things today) on the part of the enemy who would lead the world to the false church and who would "adore the beast" (Apoc. 13: 1-8). But even when supported by "signs and wonders" we know that a heretic can't be the Pope...in this scenario, only true Catholics will be seen as "unfaithful". It doesn't seem so impossible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cairsahr_stjoseph,
      Insightful comment. You're right; the question now raging is "WHAT is the pope." When people get that right, they'll see Jorge for what he is---a heretic and a false pope.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. "No one is a heretic as long as he is disposed to submit his judgment to the Church, or does not know that the Church of Christ holds the contrary, even if he defends his opinion doggedly through culpable or even crass ignorance." (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Theol. Moral. lib. 3, n. 19)

    Question, what does that make of feenyites? Does that mean they're not heretics? They believe that the Church forbids BOD and BOB, and I think many of them defend their opinion "doggedly through culpable or even crass ignorance."

    What does that make of the R&R too, to those who think they're heretics?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you are talking about material heresy. Am I right?

      Delete
    2. @anon7:13
      What the great Doctor of the Church taught was prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law which changed things. (See theologian MacKenzie, "The Delict of Heresy," [1932]).

      The teaching of St. Alphonsus was an opinion not shared by all theologians, and it was settled with the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law by Pope Benedict XV. But first read what St. Alphonsus says about heresy in that very same section:
      "...for both heresy and apostasy two things are required: 1) erroneous judgement..2) Pertinacity..pertinacity to err here IS NOT ACRIDLY AND TENACIOUSLY TO HOLD OR UPHOLD THIS ERROR, BUT IT IS TO RETAIN IT AFTER THE CONTRARY IS SUFFICIENTLY PROPOSED..."

      Feeneyites are therefore heretics because they retain their error KNOWINGLY REJECTING CHURCH TEACHING. There is no doubt that, e.g., Fred and Bobby Dimond know that all the popes sanctioned all the works of all the approved theologians teaching BOTH the absolute necessity of water Baptism AND Baptism of Desire/Baptism of Blood. They actually posted an article on the "errors" of theologian Van Noort!! The popes and hierarchy with Ordinary Jurisdiction didn't catch these "errors," rather two misfit "monks" with no Magisterial authority, no ecclesiastical education or training (and no secular education beyond high school) understood it better. It's not that they are culpably ignorant; rather they know Church teaching they reject it (pertinacity).

      Fr. Cekada (RIP) laid out the basic principles since the Code masterfully:

      . Canon 2200.1 lays down the general principle:
      “When an external violation of the law occurs, in the external forum the existence of malice (dolus) is presumed until the contrary is proved.”

      Therefore, Fenneyites and R&R are heretics in either case (R&R can't claim ignorance on Church teaching regarding the papacy). Are they excused subjectively somehow because of the exceptional circumstances of the Great Apostasy? Subjectively, only God knows.

      Does this change my opinion regarding R&R SSPX Mass attendance? No. The Mass and sacraments of UNDECLARED heretics may be attended and received by Catholics. Moreover, they (at least ostensibly) WANT TO REMAIN CATHOLIC.

      Poni, some may not be guilty in the internal forum, but only God knows.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Poni,
      A heretic, or group of heretics, who were not formally declared such. Who can declare R&R formally heretical in this state of sedevacante?

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Question Introibo: didn't a 1753 decree of the Holy Office reject de Lugo and other theologians' interpretation that a Catholic can attend Masses from an undeclared heretic? (Decree Tenos, Fontes 4:804.) I believe you read this in Fr. Cekada's article on the una cum. What's the error?

      Delete
    5. @anon7:59
      The decree of the Holy Office was superseded by Canon 2261 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which allows a Catholic to receive a sacrament from even an excommunicated priest "for any just cause."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Ah thank you. But why does "excommunicated" extend to undeclared heretics, and why not further to declared ones? Which theologian/canonist tackled this canon?

      Delete
  5. “ Catholics must assent to the authoritative teachings of the pope.” Your conclusion is correct, Introibo. The R&Rers simply say that if the teaching contradicts tradition then it is not authoritative and they don’t have to assent. You can show them all that previous Popes taught and they do not disagree. They simply will not accept heretical teachings as part of the magisterium no matter how it is promulgated. This has lead to the inevitable position that no matter what a “Pope” says or does, he can still be their “Holy Father” and never do they have to listen to a word that spews from his blasphemous heretical mouth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      Right you are! What's the difference between the R&R "pope' and no pope? Ans. There isn't any.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. Speaking of Vatican II apologists and the development of dogma, here's what I believe to be one of the most ridiculous attempts at reconciling the Magisterium of the Catholic Church with the heresy of relgious liberty, made by Sergio Centofanti of the Vatican Press Office:

    "A final example is the recognition of freedom of religion and of conscience, as well as freedom in politics and freedom of expression, by the Magisterium of the post-Conciliar Church. It is a real leap forward from the documents of 19th century popes such as Gregory XVI, who, in the encyclical Mirari vos, defined these principles as “most poisonous errors”. Looking at this text from a literal point of view, there seems to be a great contradiction, rather than a linear development. But if we read the Gospel more closely, we recall the words of Jesus: “If you continue in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (Jn 8:31-32)."
    (source: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2019-10/development-of-doctrine-is-a-people-that-walks-together.html)

    Seriously, these people twist the words of the Holy Gospel even more than the Protestants do. Still, Mr. Centofanti's effort produces a somewhat comical effect.
    Remember that "hermeneutic of continuity" horse drawing criculating around the Internet? Guaranteed to give you at least a chuckle: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdAld_SXkAIABOE.jpg

    God Bless,
    Joanna S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joanna,
      The drawing is funny; the comment from the Modernist Vatican Press Office is pathetic!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Joanna,

      On the same topic of development of doctrine, in my discussion with a certain Jesuit Novus Ordite, a mention of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was inevitable. At the time he had told me that when the dogma was first taught/believed in the Patristic Era, it was directed toward those who were in the Catholic Church and had left, and it wasn't until the Medieval Era that the understanding of this dogma changed to be directed more toward non-Catholics. At the time the discussion already had too many other topics, so I missed the subtle point that this would constitute an essential change in the meaning of the dogma, which is impossible, so I just went down the route of telling him that no matter what he believes EENS to mean, there are specific teachings on salvation regarding non-Catholics that are binding on the faithful and I quoted some stuff. It truly is pitiful how anyone can square traditional Catholic theology with this New Theology, although I suppose it isn't too hard given that hardly anyone is taught Catholic theology anymore. Much like many new branches of modern science starting from secularism, these people, starting from New Theology, build from the bottom up their understanding of Catholicism and walk down a path of errors covered in a guise of truth.



      Introibo,

      When I had been looking for a bit more information on EENS, I came across one of your past posts (https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/06/strange-bedfellows-vatican-ii-and-fr.html) and saw that you had mentioned that the following were infallible:

      "We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VIII, (Unam Sanctam, 1302).

      [The Catholic Church]"...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." [Pope Eugene IV; Cantate Domino (1441)]

      I was just wondering why exactly they're infallible. The whole subject on infallibility is a bit confusing to me at times, as in the different forms in which something can be infallibly taught.


      God bless,

      Dapouf

      Delete
    3. Also Joanna, I forgot to mention that the image was very funny! I shared it with some friends :)

      Delete
    4. Hi Introibo,

      I was just wondering if you had happened to see my question to you. Thanks!

      Dapouf

      Delete
    5. Dapouf,
      Sorry that I missed it! To answer your query, according to the Vatican Council of 1870, There are five conditions that the pope must meet for an infallible teaching are that he must:

      1. Exercise the office of shepherd and teacher (not give a mere opinion as a private theologian)

      2. Intend to teach ALL CHRISTIANS (he is binding the Church and not just certain people within the Church)

      3. Use his supreme and apostolic authority (intend to teach infallibly)

      4. Define a doctrine concerning faith or morals (not other topics such as medicine, unless it directly implicates faith and/or morals)

      5. Intends for the doctrine to be held by the whole Church (the matter is forever settled).
      Apply these five criteria, and you see those cited decrees meet all five to be considered infallible.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. That helps a lot, thank you!

      Dapouf

      Delete
  7. In truth, neither the Feeneyites, as you call them, nor the BOD adherents are heretics. The Feeneyites are not heretics, because only those who deny a dogma of the faith are formal heretics. BOD is not a dogma of the faith, therefore the denial of it cannot be heresy. Moreover, the reason that they deny BOD is because they believe it contradicts a dogma of the faith, to wit, that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In other words, they cannot see how someone can be in the Catholic Church without receiving water baptism, and, therefore, cannot be saved. And, in fact, the Church has only ever taught that it is by baptism that one enters the Church. Therefore, they believe that to affirm BOD is to deny the salvation dogma, and that those who affirm BOD are heretics. If they are mistaken, it is out of love of Catholic dogma. This is hardly the motivation of a heretic.

    However, the BOD adherents are not heretics either. For how could anyone be considered a heretic who follows the interpretation of a dogma held by virtually all Catholic theologians, professed by some of the greatest Doctors of the Church, and taught in papally approved catechisms? Moreover, the popes themselves, although they have never expressly taught BOD, have strongly suggested the truth of it in several magisterial declarations -- and, at any rate, they have never condemned the thesis, which was almost universally held.

    Therefore, both Feeneyites and BOD adherents are Catholic and in the same Church, and the fact that they hate each other’s guts does not otherwise determine the situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown,
      You are wrong on all counts; the Feeneyites are heretics because Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) have been infallibly defined by the Church by means of both the extraordinary Magisterium and the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM).
      the Extraordinary Magisterium did define BOD and BOB at the Council of Trent. On the "Sacraments in General:"

      “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.” (Emphasis mine)
      From the Decree on Justification:

      “By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. 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)
      How do we know what Trent means? There are two deadly Canons in the (1917) Code that destroy the Feeneyite position.
      (CONTINUED BELOW)

      Delete
    2. Canon 737 states, "Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, ACTUALLY OR AT LEAST IN DESIRE, is necessary for all for salvation..." (Emphasis mine).

      This should end any doubt as to how the Church understands Trent's Canon IV on Baptism. However, Canon 1239, section 2 delivers another crushing blow:

      “Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.”
      Canonists Abbo and Hannon comment, "The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire." (See The Sacred Canons, [1951], pg. 493).
      According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the DIRECTION OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP AND OF CHRISTIAN LIVING." (See “Dogmatic Theology,” 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine).
      BOD and BOB are not “optional beliefs.” They are dogma. To deny that teaching makes you a heretic. Furthermore, you suggest that there must be some animus against the Faith to be a heretic. This simply is not true, and no pope, council, or theologian taught aversion or hatred of the Faith is needed to be a heretic. Someone could deny the Trinity, because they believe in ONE God, and the Trinity turns Him into a “three headed monster” as some false sects teach. Would that person be a heretic, even with “love” for the Church—or at least absence of hatred? Yes.
      Feenyites are heretics.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Boy, Introibo, you must really be fond of the BOD thesis to think that those are dogmatic definitions. A true dogmatic definition, on the other hand, would be if the supreme teaching authority of the Church, i.e., a pope or a general council, were to declare something like this: "It is without a doubt true that one can be saved without having received water baptism" or perhaps "They err grievously who suppose that one cannot be saved without having first received the sacrament of baptism." Now those would be manifestly dogmatic statements, and to deny them would render one a formal heretic place one outside the Church. But, of course, no such declarations have ever been made.

      Consider, Introibo, that the Council of Trent expressly excluded Our Lady from those born with original sin. Yet everyone knows that the Immaculate Conception was not dogmatically defined until the reign of Pius IX. Catholics after Trent were allowed to impute original sin to Mary, and many did so. Just because a council declares something that suggests something is true does not mean it has been defined as such. With this in mind, I suggest that you back off from too harsh a condemnation of the Feeneyites.

      George

      Delete
    4. George,

      I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I don't particularly see how a declaration that those who would deny that Baptism OR the DESIRE of Baptism (which is the key point in question) are necessary for salvation are anathematized is vague. The negation of such a position is what is being firmly taught, namely that Baptism OR the desire of Baptism are necessary for salvation, and it clearly fulfills the criteria for infallibility given that

      1. it is being taught by a General Council, and
      2. that means it necessarily fulfills the criteria to fall under the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

      Being infallible, it obviously falls under the deposit of faith, thus making its rejection heretical.

      Your second paragraph is not analogous simply through virtue of the fact that it's a completely different case:
      1. Your example treats of an OMISSION by Trent.
      2. Introibo's quotes treat of an EXPLICIT AFFIRMATION by Trent, followed by the Church's understanding of said affirmation.


      But again, I am not the most learned on this topic.

      God bless,
      Dapouf

      Delete
    5. Dapouf,
      You've done an excellent job in responding! I need add nothing more at this point!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. Introbio, I’m just curious but how many feeneyites do you think are there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ryan,
      I really don't know. There are sede Feeneyites and Vatican II sect Feeneyites (now there's a contradiction in terms! Yet anything is allowed by the sect except the truth). Most are proselytized by Fred and Bobby. They've done untold damage to souls.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. Novus Ordo Watch rightly said: "The Dimonds are pre-Vatican II recognize-and-resisters." Both them and the R&R believe that the Church gets it wrong in very many many stuff except during rare ex cathedra pronouncements.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:11
      As usual, Novus Ordo Watch gets it right!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I visited the Dimond website a lot when I switched to sedevacantism. But I don't follow them in their mistakes. I learn more about the true Faith with NovusOrdoWatch.

      Delete
    3. One day while researching about rock musick I stumbled upon the Dimond's website and was interested on it, but I shunned it (I was r'n'r)

      Delete
  10. Dapouf,

    Obviously the passages from the Council of Trent are infallible, but the question is what is it that's really being said in these passages? The first passage is a condemnation of the false doctrine of faith alone being necessary for salvation without the sacraments, or the desire thereof. There are two reasons why this cannot be considered a definition of BOD.

    First of all, it is not clear whether the phrase "or the desire thereof" refers to baptism at all, since the same council elsewhere expressly teaches that justification can be regained by the desire for the sacrament of penance without having actually received the sacrament. Thus the words "the desire thereof" could be imputed to penance rather than baptism. This being the case, there is no reason in the world why the most rabid Feeneyite could not in good conscience completely affirm this canon, which they all do without hesitation.

    Secondly, and this is even more important in my opinion, it has to be understood that the Council of Trent was not convened in order to come to a judgment on the thesis of BOD, a doctrine held by many theologians and taught by Thomas Aquinas himself. The Fathers were there to condemn the teachings of Martin Luther not those of Thomas Aquinas. Therefore, it may very well have been the intention of the Fathers to avoid declaring anything prejudicial to the teachings of Thomas, while condemning the teachings of the heretic Luther, just as they expressly made sure not to declare anything prejudicial to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as I mentioned in my previous post. But this is not the same as defining it as true. To condemn Luther for not even requiring the even the intentional desire of the sacraments is not the same as defining this desire as sufficient for salvation. Therefore, this canon in no way defined the doctrine of BOD.

    (more to follow)

    George

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (continued from above)

      As for the second passage from the Council of Trent, this is, if possible, even less a definition of BOD than the first one. BOD advocates love to quote this passage of Session VI Chapter 4, but it seems that they have not proceeded then to read Chapters 5-7, which explain the contents of Chapter 4 in more detail, and which clearly go against their interpretation of Chapter 4. For the desire for baptism only figures in Chapters 5 and 6, which describe how the convert disposes himself to receive the grace of justification, while only the sacrament of baptism itself is mentioned in Chapter 7, which describes the causes of the said justification itself. In other words, the translation (or motion) of a man from impiety to justification stated in Chapter 4 is begun by desire and completed by the actual reception of baptism itself. And at all events, there is obviously no definition of BOD included in the cited passage.

      Moving on to the passages quoted from the Code of Canon Law, the so-call “crushing blows” to Feeneyism, these can be dismissed simply by the fact that canon law is not a manifestly infallible source of dogma. For the only manifestly infallible sources of dogma are those defined in the Vatican Council’s teaching on papal infallibility, i.e., ex cathedra doctrinal teachings of the pope and the doctrinal teachings of a general council confirm by a pope. Now the doctrinal statements in and implied in the Code may, in fact, be infallible. I’m not denying that. But they are not manifestly infallible, i.e., infallibly known to be infallible, because the code has not been dogmatically defined as infallible source of dogmatic definitions, and only the denial of the latter would cause one to fall into formal heresy.

      But neither would the contents of these two canons constitute a definition of BOD even if the Code could be considered a source of dogma. Canon 737 cannot be a definition of BOD for the simple fact that it could have very well been written by and/or assented to by someone who doubts that BOD is true at all. In other words, the person who wrote it could have been saying to himself, “Hmm, I don’t think this BOD stuff really makes any sense, but many Catholics believe it and, who knows, they might be right, so I’ll just say it is ‘at least’ necessary for salvation.” And the person assenting to the proposition could say to himself the same thing in good conscience. For to say that something is “at least necessary” is not at all to say that it is sufficient. This being the case, how in the name of reason could the said proposition be considered a dogmatic definition?

      As for Canon 1239, it should be immediately that this is no doctrinal statement at all, but rather simply a rule of practice. In other words, a disciplinary canon. How can a disciplinary canon be a doctrinal definition? Of course, it can’t be. “But oh”, say the BOD adherents, “this disciplinary canon is predicated on the doctrine of BOD.” Well, maybe they’re right, but dogma cannot be based on opinion. Then again, maybe they’re wrong. For if we are to assume that the canon is just, maybe we should also assume that the canon is based on the Feeneyite doctrine rather than on BOD. For the Feeneyites teach that those who truly desire baptism will receive it, even if unseen by the rest of the world in a miraculous fashion. Therefore, it would make perfect sense to treat the faithful catechumens as baptized, since they will have been, in fact, baptized after all. But to treat the unbaptized as baptized doesn’t seem just at all; for it is understood of BOD that it does not make one a member of the Church, nor does it make one a member of the Mystical Body of Christ; and to treat a non-member of the Body of Christ the same as a member seems a rather unjust denigration of membership in such a Body. But here I am opining on a clearly non-dogmatic matter.

      George

      Delete
    2. Your point about the meaning of the phrases could have some merit apart from the fact that every single trusted ecclesiastical source post-Trent interprets Trent in favor of BOD.

      Delete
    3. George, why aren't you answering the point about the Ordinary Magisterium?

      Delete
    4. George,
      1. "... it has to be understood that the Council of Trent was not convened in order to come to a judgment on the thesis of BOD..."

      Yes, but it WAS convened to combat the errors of the so-called "Reformers" on the Sacraments, and the Church was making clear that, e.g., only pure and natural water suffices as the matter of the Sacrament of Baptism, and HOW BAPTISM CAN BE RECEIVED (as well as Penance and the Eucharist, which can be received by desire).

      2. "As for the second passage from the Council of Trent, this is, if possible, even less a definition of BOD than the first one. BOD advocates love to quote this passage of Session VI Chapter 4, but it seems that they have not proceeded then to read Chapters 5-7, which explain the contents of Chapter 4 in more detail, and which clearly go against their interpretation of Chapter 4."

      St. Alphonsus Liguori, a canonized saint and Doctor of the Church wrote in 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.'"

      Apparently, St. Alphonsus didn't understand the correct interpretation of Trent. Furthermore, all theologians and canonists since Trent teach that the grace of Baptism can be received outside the actual sacrament. Yes, EVERY SINGLE ONE that wasn't censured. They also teach the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism in the same theological manuals they wrote--of course including the aforementioned St. Alphonsus. Therefore, we must conclude that either there is no contradiction in the two doctrines, or these intellectual and spiritual giants were schizophrenic, not realizing their work was internally inconsistent.

      Of course Feeneyites will reply that "theologians aren't infallible." They reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, which the Vatican Council of 1870 defined as equally infallible as the extraordinary Magisterium.

      According to theologian Scheeben:

      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.'" (A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, pg. 83)



      (Continued below)

      Delete
    5. #3 Your reading of Trent EVEN APART FROM THE UOM is wrong.

      In Trent's Decree on Penance and Extreme Unction, we read:

      The Synod [Trent] teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament [Penance] be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein. (Emphasis mine)

      We have a teaching on "Penance by desire." Later, the Decree states,

      This Sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.

      The Council of Trent says here that the sacrament of penance is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated. However, it is very clear that Trent admits that a man can receive the effect of the sacrament of Penance by desire, before actually receiving the sacrament itself.

      Thus, if one wishes to hold that baptism by water is necessary in such a way that the effect of baptism cannot be received before the sacrament itself, one must also hold that the same thing is true of Penance. Otherwise, it would not be true that the sacrament of penance is necessary after sinning just as the sacrament of baptism before being baptized.

      4. You reject the secondary objects of the Church's infallibility in regards to Canon Law. According to theologian Herrmann:
      "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
      (Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

      So the Church CANNOT GIVE THAT WHICH IS EVIL OR ERROREOUS TO HER MEMBERS. TO DO SO IS TO DENY THE DOGMA OF INDEFECTIBILITY.

      The Church teaches in Canon Law that the souls of catechumens, who through no fault of their own die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized. Yet this (If the Feeneyites are correct) would be impossible and tech the false idea that without water baptism, someone can be within the Church. It also teaches in CANON 737, "Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, ACTUALLY OR AT LEAST IN DESIRE, is necessary for all for salvation..." (Emphasis mine). But, this would be giving error which is impossible.

      To Summarize Canon Law:
      To summarize:

      *Universal disciplinary laws are infallible
      *the 1917 Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law by the Church's own definition
      *It also applies to all Rites when it expresses a Divine Truth and/or declares something is Divine Law
      *Canon 737 teaches a Divine truth as to what is necessary to salvation
      *Canon 1239 is an extension of Canon 737 in declaring a dogmatic/Divine truth
      *BOB and BOD are therefore infallibly taught by the 1917 Code of Canon Law

      It is not merely "disciplinary"--it is stating what is necessary for salvation.

      So no matter how you look at it, BOD and BOB were infallibly defined by BOTH the extraordinary Magisterium at Trent and the UOM.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Wasn’t Fr. Feeney excommunicated for denying BOD and BOB?

      Delete
    7. Ryan,
      Feeney (an excommunicated priest forfeits his clerical title of "Fr.") was excommunicated for denying BOD and BOB. The Feeneyite fairy tale that it was for "disobedience" he suffered excommunication is false.

      Feeney was a monster who abused children and started a cult. To read the full story, see my post:

      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-sickness-of-soul.html

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Why do cultists always chose the worst leaders?
      Thanks for the article introbio, I had no idea he was that bad!

      Delete
    9. If you're a Novus Ordite though, you have the special privilege of calling the deceased monster as "Fr." Fenney, because your "pope" Paul VI reconciled with Feeney - without Feeney (and Paul VI) having to abjure any of their heresies!

      Delete
    10. Ryan,
      The cult leaders all seem to be charismatic con artists conning people out of their salvation.
      JoAnn

      Delete
  11. I made a video about horrible Novus Ordo churches & art.
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FLMgwBMlX8sPqOx9aVahd5AyKrNltrjs/view?usp=drivesdk
    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn't have he horrible new Guadalupe temple. I noticed when you go there, 1: it's confusing to know where is the real Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe 2: There is a huge statue of JPII 3: The section of the new temple where you come close to the image is like Sea World

      Delete
    2. Poni,
      Good job in exposing the evil "art"!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Novus Ordo "art" does not elevate the spirit as Catholic art does. And NO churches do not make you want to enter! There are still Catholic churches built in the traditional style in my area, but I haven't been going there since I became Sedevacantist. The modernists occupy them but they do not have the real faith.

      Delete
    4. In my town there's a magnificent baroque church, with splendid works of art, multiple side altars, bearing witness to the True Faith of our ancestors.
      It breaks my heart to see it occupied by the Modernists. They have turned the high altar into a place where chairs are being stacked up. A disgusting masonic "altar" stands right in the middle. They even had the nerve to cover the antique painting of the Holy Trinity in the high altar with a JP2 banner a few months ago! Deo Gratias, that image of Wojtyła was removed.

      May we live to see these blasphemers being driven out of our Catholic churches! And, hopefully, have our share in the great victory of Jesus and Mary too.

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    5. Have you ever had the Novus Ordo happy meal worship service inside a Catholic Cathedral? It's so disgusting! You can't see the horse-blanketed novus bogus worship presider.
      I also know a NO chapel that could be an awesome restaurant.

      Delete
  12. So true, Poni!
    Nowhere is the stark contrast between the Beauty and Truth of Catholic worship and the abominable faslehood of the Novus Bogus service more evident than in the cathedrals and basilicas of old (provided that the walls haven't been stripped of Catholic art).

    God Bless,
    Joanna S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another disgusting novus ordo celebration are the ones celebrated outside of a building. I used to attend the novus bogus happy meal worship service at the STREET. For "confirmation retreat", it was celebrated at a school room.
      I understand if a Catholic Missionare celebrates Mass in a poor, dilapidated location, but they Celebrate the Holy Sacrifice, not the novus bogus.

      Delete