FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Another EENS, please be patient...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(06-25-2011, 08:48 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 07:13 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 05:52 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 04:24 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 11:08 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 12:42 AM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 12:40 AM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]He was excommunicated for disobeying.  I don't deny that.  He was also reconciled with the Church, and his priests/monks still profess what he (and the Church) have always professed.  There is absolutely no salvation outside of the Church.

He was never reconciled with the Church.  He was reconciled with a Destroyer of the Church,i.e., Paul VI. 

So you admit he was reconciled with Pope Paul VI. I wouldn't go so far as to call him the destroyer of the church, but he was a legitimate Pope, simply because the WHOLE CHURCH recognized him as such, and the WHOLE CHURCH cannot defect from the faith, whatever personal canonical impediments there may have been.

You act like God doesn't know what is happening in his own church...he will take his vengeance in due time. When that day comes, I am asking for popcorn and 3d glasses. :)

I love the way you mess everything up. 


All he did was destroy the Catholic Mass (see the Ottaviani-Bacci intervention) and make null and void the Sacraments (compare the Montinian Sacraments with the Anglican Sacraments and with Masonic Rituals).  As for universal acceptance of the Destroyer, you will do well to read Pope Paul IV's Bull "Cum Apostolatus Officio"
I HAVE read it, and what ALL sedevacantists FAIL absymally to acknowledge is that Pius XII ABROGATED  :fish: any canonical impediments this Bull decreed. SO even if John XXIII was a mason, or even if montini was a Mason, the Supremem Legislator, the Pope, said "we will set aside these penalties for now" and he had a full right to do so until a future Pontiff restores them. :fish:

You CANNOT say Pius XII acted outside his purview, for it belongs to the SUpremem Pontiff to legislate the discipline of the church as he sees fit. Or was Pius XII not a legitimate pope either? :o ???

AND once again, Fr. Feeney's "Excommunication" is void due to a lack of canonical form ::), and IF you persist in insisting on its legitimacy, you simply betray your desire to remain willfully ignorant of the facts. The FACT is that there was no seal validating it :o. As for the supposed "Letter" of the Holy Office, it was not registered as an act of the holy see, therefore it is not to be considered a magisterial document. :o

So, until you can explain WHY they are legitimate in the FACE of the claim that they are ILLEGITIMATE, it is better for YOU not to use them; or do you insist on willful ignorance?


Paul IV's Constitution is Ex Cathedra: "Hence, by this Our Constitution which is to remain valid in perpetuity..."

Pope Pius XII is speaking of not witholding someone from being elected.  However, if elected, and prior heretic, the election  is null and void. 

you just contradicted yourself; and officially they are not formal heretics unless declared such.

You're right, God can incorporate into his body anyone he desires. Through baptism.

or do I need to show you the Bible again?


Your theoretical thinking is entertaining.  But I prefer facts.  Roncalli was a rosicrucian mason; Montini a talmudic Jew; Wojtyla a jewish phenomenologist; Ratzinger a jewish one-world religion proponent.  With Popes like that... no wonder the Church has become a.... disoriented entity.

In regard to Feeneyites, do I need to show the Decree of Excommunication again?
wulfrano Wrote:Dear Gaddafi:

The problem is in your head.  Our Lord can incoporate into His Body whosoever He wants.

You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

Pope Pius XII Wrote:Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.
(06-25-2011, 09:22 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]
wulfrano Wrote:Dear Gaddafi:

The problem is in your head.  Our Lord can incoporate into His Body whosoever He wants.

You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

Pope Pius XII Wrote:Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.

Who are you to limit the power of God?
HIS Church has spoken.  Peter has spoken, the matter is settled.  God has His rules.  They have been revealed to us.
(06-25-2011, 09:56 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]HIS Church has spoken.  Peter has spoken, the matter is settled.  God has His rules.  They have been revealed to us.

Fine, Gaddafi.  If you believe what you say, then read and accept the terms of the Decree of Excommunicaiton of Feeney
He was excommunicated for disobedience.  I've read it.  You are now repeating yourself.
(06-25-2011, 10:19 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]He was excommunicated for disobedience.  I've read it.  You are now repeating yourself.

Dear Gaddafi.  Read it again.

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949

Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.

Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.

Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949.


Pius XII – Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949

Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of the Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.

This important Letter of the Holy Office is introduced by a letter of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston.

The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.

Given at Boston, Mass., the 4th day of September, 1952.

Walter J. Furlong, Chancellor

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE

From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.

Your Excellency:

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of “St. Benedict Center” and “Boston College” in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of “St. Benedict Center” explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, “outside the Church there is no salvation,” was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.

Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (, n. 801).

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops “whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church” (Acts 20:28).

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the ““ which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,

Your Excellency’s most devoted,

F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.

A. Ottaviani, Assessor.

Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.


Pius XII – Decree Excommunicating Leonard Feeney, 13 February 1953

Prior to the excommunication, Feeney received the following summons to appear before the Holy Office from Cardinal Pizzardo on November 22, 1952.

The Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.

DECREE

THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.

Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.

Marius Crovini, Notary

AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100




Pope Pius XII

Null due to lack of canonical form.

ADDRESS THIS SPECIFICALLY WULFRANO.

Willful ignorance is a mortal sin.
(06-25-2011, 09:15 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 08:48 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 07:13 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 05:52 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 04:24 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 11:08 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 12:42 AM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 12:40 AM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]He was excommunicated for disobeying.  I don't deny that.  He was also reconciled with the Church, and his priests/monks still profess what he (and the Church) have always professed.  There is absolutely no salvation outside of the Church.

He was never reconciled with the Church.  He was reconciled with a Destroyer of the Church,i.e., Paul VI. 

So you admit he was reconciled with Pope Paul VI. I wouldn't go so far as to call him the destroyer of the church, but he was a legitimate Pope, simply because the WHOLE CHURCH recognized him as such, and the WHOLE CHURCH cannot defect from the faith, whatever personal canonical impediments there may have been.

You act like God doesn't know what is happening in his own church...he will take his vengeance in due time. When that day comes, I am asking for popcorn and 3d glasses. :)

I love the way you mess everything up. 


All he did was destroy the Catholic Mass (see the Ottaviani-Bacci intervention) and make null and void the Sacraments (compare the Montinian Sacraments with the Anglican Sacraments and with Masonic Rituals).  As for universal acceptance of the Destroyer, you will do well to read Pope Paul IV's Bull "Cum Apostolatus Officio"
I HAVE read it, and what ALL sedevacantists FAIL absymally to acknowledge is that Pius XII ABROGATED  :fish: any canonical impediments this Bull decreed. SO even if John XXIII was a mason, or even if montini was a Mason, the Supremem Legislator, the Pope, said "we will set aside these penalties for now" and he had a full right to do so until a future Pontiff restores them. :fish:

You CANNOT say Pius XII acted outside his purview, for it belongs to the SUpremem Pontiff to legislate the discipline of the church as he sees fit. Or was Pius XII not a legitimate pope either? :o ???

AND once again, Fr. Feeney's "Excommunication" is void due to a lack of canonical form ::), and IF you persist in insisting on its legitimacy, you simply betray your desire to remain willfully ignorant of the facts. The FACT is that there was no seal validating it :o. As for the supposed "Letter" of the Holy Office, it was not registered as an act of the holy see, therefore it is not to be considered a magisterial document. :o

So, until you can explain WHY they are legitimate in the FACE of the claim that they are ILLEGITIMATE, it is better for YOU not to use them; or do you insist on willful ignorance?


Paul IV's Constitution is Ex Cathedra: "Hence, by this Our Constitution which is to remain valid in perpetuity..."

Pope Pius XII is speaking of not witholding someone from being elected.  However, if elected, and prior heretic, the election  is null and void. 

you just contradicted yourself; and officially they are not formal heretics unless declared such.

You're right, God can incorporate into his body anyone he desires. Through baptism.

or do I need to show you the Bible again?


Your theoretical thinking is entertaining.  But I prefer facts.  Roncalli was a rosicrucian mason; Montini a talmudic Jew; Wojtyla a jewish phenomenologist; Ratzinger a jewish one-world religion proponent.  With Popes like that... no wonder the Church has become a.... disoriented entity.

In regard to Feeneyites, do I need to show the Decree of Excommunication again?

OK, listen, there are some rules about how you can talk about Popes on this forum.  Even if one happens to be a sedevacantist, for the purposes of this forum you have to follow the rules:

Rules Wrote:When speaking about the current Holy Father or any previous Pope, he will be spoken of respectfully. He may be referred to using his proper titles, e.g., The Holy Father, or his Papal name, e.g., in the case of the current Pontiff, Benedict XVI or Benedict.

Any criticism of Papal actions must be done respectfully with due consideration given both to the person and office of the Pope, remembering that he is the Vicar of Christ and holds the Keys. This means referring to him as an heretic, accusing him of heresy, etc. is not allowed on this forum. Sarcastic or vitriolic comments, or anything not worthy of the dignity of the Papacy is not allowed. He should always be given the benefit of the doubt for his actions, as far as reason allows, out of respect for the Throne of Peter and the Magisterium.

Referring to Roncalli and Montini in that way specifically is rumor mongering.  Don't spread rumors, and no, I don't want to see evidence.  Evidence for that belongs in a tribunal, not an internet forum.

Otherwise, you know, have fun and a good discussion.
(06-25-2011, 11:17 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 09:15 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 08:48 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 07:13 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 05:52 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 04:24 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 11:08 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 12:42 AM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2011, 12:40 AM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]He was excommunicated for disobeying.  I don't deny that.  He was also reconciled with the Church, and his priests/monks still profess what he (and the Church) have always professed.  There is absolutely no salvation outside of the Church.

He was never reconciled with the Church.  He was reconciled with a Destroyer of the Church,i.e., Paul VI. 

So you admit he was reconciled with Pope Paul VI. I wouldn't go so far as to call him the destroyer of the church, but he was a legitimate Pope, simply because the WHOLE CHURCH recognized him as such, and the WHOLE CHURCH cannot defect from the faith, whatever personal canonical impediments there may have been.

You act like God doesn't know what is happening in his own church...he will take his vengeance in due time. When that day comes, I am asking for popcorn and 3d glasses. :)

I love the way you mess everything up. 


All he did was destroy the Catholic Mass (see the Ottaviani-Bacci intervention) and make null and void the Sacraments (compare the Montinian Sacraments with the Anglican Sacraments and with Masonic Rituals).  As for universal acceptance of the Destroyer, you will do well to read Pope Paul IV's Bull "Cum Apostolatus Officio"
I HAVE read it, and what ALL sedevacantists FAIL absymally to acknowledge is that Pius XII ABROGATED  :fish: any canonical impediments this Bull decreed. SO even if John XXIII was a mason, or even if montini was a Mason, the Supremem Legislator, the Pope, said "we will set aside these penalties for now" and he had a full right to do so until a future Pontiff restores them. :fish:

You CANNOT say Pius XII acted outside his purview, for it belongs to the SUpremem Pontiff to legislate the discipline of the church as he sees fit. Or was Pius XII not a legitimate pope either? :o ???

AND once again, Fr. Feeney's "Excommunication" is void due to a lack of canonical form ::), and IF you persist in insisting on its legitimacy, you simply betray your desire to remain willfully ignorant of the facts. The FACT is that there was no seal validating it :o. As for the supposed "Letter" of the Holy Office, it was not registered as an act of the holy see, therefore it is not to be considered a magisterial document. :o

So, until you can explain WHY they are legitimate in the FACE of the claim that they are ILLEGITIMATE, it is better for YOU not to use them; or do you insist on willful ignorance?


Paul IV's Constitution is Ex Cathedra: "Hence, by this Our Constitution which is to remain valid in perpetuity..."

Pope Pius XII is speaking of not witholding someone from being elected.  However, if elected, and prior heretic, the election  is null and void. 

you just contradicted yourself; and officially they are not formal heretics unless declared such.

You're right, God can incorporate into his body anyone he desires. Through baptism.

or do I need to show you the Bible again?


Your theoretical thinking is entertaining.  But I prefer facts.  Roncalli was a rosicrucian mason; Montini a talmudic Jew; Wojtyla a jewish phenomenologist; Ratzinger a jewish one-world religion proponent.  With Popes like that... no wonder the Church has become a.... disoriented entity.

In regard to Feeneyites, do I need to show the Decree of Excommunication again?

OK, listen, there are some rules about how you can talk about Popes on this forum.  Even if one happens to be a sedevacantist, for the purposes of this forum you have to follow the rules:

Rules Wrote:When speaking about the current Holy Father or any previous Pope, he will be spoken of respectfully. He may be referred to using his proper titles, e.g., The Holy Father, or his Papal name, e.g., in the case of the current Pontiff, Benedict XVI or Benedict.

Any criticism of Papal actions must be done respectfully with due consideration given both to the person and office of the Pope, remembering that he is the Vicar of Christ and holds the Keys. This means referring to him as an heretic, accusing him of heresy, etc. is not allowed on this forum. Sarcastic or vitriolic comments, or anything not worthy of the dignity of the Papacy is not allowed. He should always be given the benefit of the doubt for his actions, as far as reason allows, out of respect for the Throne of Peter and the Magisterium.

Referring to Roncalli and Montini in that way specifically is rumor mongering.  Don't spread rumors, and no, I don't want to see evidence.  Evidence for that belongs in a tribunal, not an internet forum.

Otherwise, you know, have fun and a good discussion.


OK, Quis ut Deus.