FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Another EENS, please be patient... - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Another EENS, please be patient... (/showthread.php?tid=44655)



Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Stubborn - 06-25-2011

wulfrano, I think you will agree that the faith teaches that BOD is not a Sacrament - I posted this in another thread in reply to the belief that an unbaptized priest was rewarded salvation via BOD...........

To phrase Trent's Canon in the affirmative, read what is bolded in red.

"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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema" (Decree on the Sacraments).

One must FIRST understand what is written FIRST......... Trent declares that the Sacraments are necessary unto salvation - that is what the FIRST part of the canon states ...........but *that* is not enough because one must not only receive the Sacrament, per the second part of the canon, one must also desire to receive the Sacrament worthily, with the proper disposition and with the proper intent. THIS is what the Church has always taught. The Church used to teach that the road to hell is paved with good intentions - somehow, that makes zero sense if you believe in a typical opinion of what BOD is. BTW, BOD is only an opinion with 100s of different definitions - none of which have been defined by the Magisterium infallibly. 

To read the canons of Trent where the word "desire" appears in any other light renders the canon absolutely meaningless.

How anyone can take one mistranslated word "desire", and judge that salvation is granted based on this one word, then name that entirely misinterpreted canon a "Baptism of Desire" while completely disregarding all other church teachings to the contrary is beyond me.

One truth that BOD folks cannot brush away is the fact that per Trent, as is bolded in the canon above, the Sacraments are declared "necessary unto Salvation". BOD is no Sacrament. Now here is where they decide that good intentions only pave the road to hell for everyone - except the Catechumen.

FWIW, infants are not able to vow or desire to be baptized, that is one reason that the Church made sponsors (God parents) a requirement when there is no emergency.

These sponsors state their "desire" (vow) explicitly in place of the infant, as would an adult being baptized state their vow or desire explicitly during Baptism Rituals - The Solemn Exorcism, Their Renunciation of Satan, Their Profession of Faith, Their Anointing etc.   

THIS is the "desire" Trent was speaking of - not some vague implicit intention or wrong belief that puts even unbaptized priests in heaven.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 06-25-2011

(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 wouln'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. :)


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-25-2011

(06-25-2011, 07:58 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-24-2011, 08:40 PM)wulfrano Wrote: @ Stubborn.

Stubborn has said: "You believe (rightfully) that the masons have infiltrated the Church - do you believe this infiltration was years, decades - perhaps centuries in the making or do you admit it was instantaneous? "

I believe that the masons infiltrated the Church in the times of Pope Clement XIV when they asked him prior to election whether he would supress the Jesuits and that on that condition they would have him elected Pope... which of course he and they did.

I have no idea how long ago the infiltrators started their infiltration, so I will agree with you that it started some +200 years ago.

So by the time Fr. Feeney was shanghaied, the enemy had approximately 170 years time to get themselves at least partially situated.

For a moment, consider yourself  the enemy. Wouldn't your primary mission be to continue to slowly promote the mission of the past 170 years, namely, salvation outside the Church? Wouldn't your mission entail slamming the door asap on anyone who stood in your way? I could continue on with this scenario but I think you get the clue.

Well, this is pretty much what happened - I am not naming +Cushing as a mason, perhaps he was or perhaps he was just a dupe, regardless, +Cushing should have known better. Perhaps had +Cushing stood for the faith instead of  Harvard, he too would have been slandered - who knows? IMO, Pope St. Pius X sent the enemy underground for a while - they started re-surfacing sometime before the time of the "Boston Heresy Case". 

Regardless of all that, the fact is, no one can ever be rightfully excommunicated for echoing what the Church has always taught and infallibly declared - it really is as simple as that. Being excommunicated for disobedience, as was the case, is something entirely different - which is why there was no need for any abjuration.
     



I like the way you twist things, Stubborn.  Long before Pius XII there was the Council of Trent, Pius IX, St. Pius X, who said the same thing.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-25-2011

(06-25-2011, 08:25 AM)Stubborn Wrote: wulfrano, I think you will agree that the faith teaches that BOD is not a Sacrament - I posted this in another thread in reply to the belief that an unbaptized priest was rewarded salvation via BOD...........

To phrase Trent's Canon in the affirmative, read what is bolded in red.

"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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema" (Decree on the Sacraments).

One must FIRST understand what is written FIRST......... Trent declares that the Sacraments are necessary unto salvation - that is what the FIRST part of the canon states ...........but *that* is not enough because one must not only receive the Sacrament, per the second part of the canon, one must also desire to receive the Sacrament worthily, with the proper disposition and with the proper intent. THIS is what the Church has always taught. The Church used to teach that the road to hell is paved with good intentions - somehow, that makes zero sense if you believe in a typical opinion of what BOD is. BTW, BOD is only an opinion with 100s of different definitions - none of which have been defined by the Magisterium infallibly. 

To read the canons of Trent where the word "desire" appears in any other light renders the canon absolutely meaningless.

How anyone can take one mistranslated word "desire", and judge that salvation is granted based on this one word, then name that entirely misinterpreted canon a "Baptism of Desire" while completely disregarding all other church teachings to the contrary is beyond me.

One truth that BOD folks cannot brush away is the fact that per Trent, as is bolded in the canon above, the Sacraments are declared "necessary unto Salvation". BOD is no Sacrament. Now here is where they decide that good intentions only pave the road to hell for everyone - except the Catechumen.

FWIW, infants are not able to vow or desire to be baptized, that is one reason that the Church made sponsors (God parents) a requirement when there is no emergency.

These sponsors state their "desire" (vow) explicitly in place of the infant, as would an adult being baptized state their vow or desire explicitly during Baptism Rituals - The Solemn Exorcism, Their Renunciation of Satan, Their Profession of Faith, Their Anointing etc.     

THIS is the "desire" Trent was speaking of - not some vague implicit intention or wrong belief that puts even unbaptized priests in heaven.


Of course I agree with you that "Baptism of Desire" is not a sacrament.  As for the rest... I stick to the terms of the Holy Office Decree excommunicating Feeney.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-25-2011

(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. :)


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"


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 06-25-2011

(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. :)


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?



Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-25-2011

(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. 


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - James02 - 06-25-2011

wulfrano Wrote:"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.

Pope Pius XII Wrote: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.

Oops, you have a serious problem there wulfrano.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-25-2011

(06-25-2011, 08:11 PM)James02 Wrote:
wulfrano Wrote:"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.

Pope Pius XII Wrote: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.

Oops, you have a serious problem there wulfrano.


Dear Gaddafi: 

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


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 06-25-2011

(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?