Another EENS, please be patient...
(06-19-2011, 10:52 PM)Gregory I Wrote: I am well aware that the Pope does not need to exercise his sovereign authority to be binding on the faithful! THat is what I have been saying, the ORDINARY magisterium, like an encyclical or an apostolic constitution or such.

Where is BOD in any of THESE documents? Apparently nowhere.

What you posted:

""The Pope, in fact, to control and impose his will on the universal Church, does not need each time to use his sovereign power to the highest degree. He has ordinary and immediate power of all the faithful. unquestionably, he has full authority to teach the universal Church, without having to resort each time to the solemn definition. the teaching of the Pope, though not guaranteed by infallibility, is no less sovereign authorized in the Church : it is the teaching of the doctor and the supreme pastor of all Christians, this sovereign right in the head of the Church leads the faithful to the strict obligation to receive this direction with all subjection, perfect obedience. "

(Value of doctrinal and disciplinary decisions of the Holy See, RP Choupin Lucien, doctor of theology and canon law, p36.)

Is simply saying we need not rely on the solemn magisterium alone. BUT I HAVE NOT. I have been asking for acts of the ORDINARY magisterium. Encyclicals, Apostolic Constitutions. THere is more evidence of Limbo in the Ordinary Magisterium, than BOD.

PRIVATE letters from the Pope to another bishop or small group of Bishops do not constitute acts of the magisterium, because they do not intend to teach the universal church.

Capiche?

That sais, I have not seen any documentation from the ordinary magisterium. I have seen some theological speculation from Theologians who have contradicted themselves, and Popes who have done the same.

But where ON PAPER in the ORDINARY magisterium is BOD? Nowhere so far. :) AN encyclical, an apostolic constitution, a Papal Bull, an ecumenical council or in the acts of an ecumenical council? Nadda.

In fact, what part of "Baptism is made obligatory on all those whoa re to be saved" is vague? That's the Catechism of the Council of Trent.


Catéchisme des Provinces Ecclésiastiques de Québec, Montréal, Ottawa, Rimouski, Chicoutimi, et St-Boniface, p.86-87 a écrit:


Q. Combien y a-t-il de sortes de Baptêmes ?

R. Il y a trois sortes de Baptême : le Baptême d'eau, le Baptême de désir et le Baptême de sang.

Il y a trois sortes de Baptême, mais il n'y a pas trois sacrements de Baptême, car le Baptême d'eau est seul un sacrement. Le Baptême de sang et le Baptême de désir sont des moyens de le remplacer lorsqu'on ne peut le recevoir.

[...]

Q. Lorsqu'on ne peut pas recevoir le Baptême d'eau, peut-on y suppléer par le Baptême de désir ?

R. Oui, lorsqu'on ne peut pas recevoir le Baptême d'eau, on peut y suppléer par le désir de le recevoir quand on pourra, avec le regret sincère de ses fautes et la résolution d'observer la loi de Dieu.

On peut y suppléer signifie : on peut le remplacer. C'est un désir ardent d'être baptisé quand on est en danger de mort et qu'on est dans l'impossibilité de recevoir le sacrement de Baptême, que l'on nomme Baptême de désir.

On appelle ce désir un Baptême parce qu'il purifie du péché originel comme le Baptême d'eau.
Reply
(06-20-2011, 03:19 AM)wulfrano Wrote: Catéchisme des Provinces Ecclésiastiques de Québec, Montréal, Ottawa, Rimouski, Chicoutimi, et St-Boniface, p.86-87 a écrit:

Q. Combien y a-t-il de sortes de Baptêmes ?

R. Il y a trois sortes de Baptême : le Baptême d'eau, le Baptême de désir et le Baptême de sang.

I LOVE that Catechism. It also says Catholics aren't allowed to marry non-Catholics. Fabulous stuff. They actually sell a reprint of it in regular Catholic bookstores around here, which is where I bought mine.
Reply
Of course, suffice it to say that catechisms aren't infallible, much less regional ones.
Reply
Neither are they part of the Ordinary magisterium, they are ismply compendiums of magisterial teachings and documents.  ;D

Swing away...

How about a MAGISTERIAL document? Still waiting/ I CAN"T find any! Limbo has more basis in the ordinary Magisterium than does BOD!

"We call this desire a baptism because it cleanses from original sin as the baptism of water."

WOW! Where is this taught by the church?
Reply
(06-20-2011, 07:41 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Neither are they part of the Ordinary magisterium, they are ismply compendiums of magisterial teachings and documents.  ;D

Swing away...

How about a MAGISTERIAL document? Still waiting/ I CAN"T find any! Limbo has more basis in the ordinary Magisterium than does BOD!

"We call this desire a baptism because it cleanses from original sin as the baptism of water."

WOW! Where is this taught by the church?



Formula of Excommunication – Roman Pontifical

“Leonard Feeney, led by the Devil, having abandoned through apostasy the promise he had made at his Baptism, has not feared to ravage the Church of God, steal Church goods and violently oppress the poor of Christ. In our concern over this, we do not desire that he perish because of any pastoral neglect of our own. For before the dread Judgment seat, we will have to render an account to the Prince of Shepherds, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in accordance with the terrible warning the Lord Himself addresses to us with these words: If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thy hand (Ez 3: 18). Therefore, we have canonically warned him once, twice, a third and yet a fourth time so that he might conquer his malice, inviting him to amend himself, make reparation and penance, and reprehending him with paternal affection. But he – o woe! – despising the salutary admonitions of the Church of God, which he has offended, and led by the spirit of pride, has not wanted to make any reparation

“The precepts of the Lord and of the Apostles speak clearly about what to do with such prevaricators. For the Lord says: Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offends thee, cut them off and cast them from thee (Mt 8:18). And the Apostle advises: If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, do not so much as to eat. (1 Cor 5:11) And John, the favorite disciple of Christ, forbids that one should even greet one who is wicked: If any one come to you and bring not this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, and greet him not (2 Jn 1:10).

“Therefore, carrying out the precepts of the Lord and of the Apostles, let us take from the body of the Church with the iron tongs of excommunication this putrid and incurable member who refuses to accept the remedy, so that the rest of the members of the body may not be poisoned by such a pestiferous disease. He has despised our admonitions and our repeated exhortations; having been warned three times, according to the precept of the Lord, he would not amend himself and do penance; he has not reflected upon his guilt, nor has he confessed it; neither has he presented any excuse through a third party, nor did he ask for pardon. But, with his heart hardened by the Devil, he continues to persevere in the same evil as before, according to the words of the Apostle: The impenitent heart stores up to itself wrath for the day of wrath (Rom 2:5).

“Wherefore by the judgment of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost, of the St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the Saints, and by virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth that which was divinely entrusted to us, we deprive Leonard Feeney with all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord; we separate him from the society of all Christians; we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth; and we declare him excommunicated and anathematized, as well as judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobates. So long as he will not burst the fetters of the Devil, amend himself and do penance and make reparation to the Church which he has offended, we deliver him to Satan for the perdition of his flesh, so that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

“To this, all the assistants answer: "Fiat, fiat, fiat" [so be it, so be it, so be it].

“The Bishop and the assisting priests then cast to the ground the lighted candles they have been carrying. Notice is sent in writing to all the priests in the neighboring parishes, as well as to the Bishops, of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication in order that they may have no communication with him, thus removing them from any occasion of excommunication.”


(Roman Pontifical
apud Catolicismo, December 1952)
Reply
WOW, FIRST, SHOW ME  the source.

Still not a magisterial document, possesses no teaching authority. Does not detail the nature and reason of excommunication.
Sounds made up, honestly.

Second, Father Feeney's Excommunication was LIFTED. He died in Full communion with the Church, and the Communities he founded are in communion with the local Bishop who has listed said communities as approved places of worship and given them priests to say mass.

Third, This is not about Fr. Feeney; he was simply the latest in a chain of figures who have been decrying the theologoumenon of BOD. Read ABP. George Hay, The Lay Theologian Orestes Brownson, Fr. Michael Muller. Also, the Jansenists of the 17th century were applauded by the Church for defending the teaching of Extra Ecclesia, Nulla Salva.

“The condemnation of the wisest and most virtuous of the Pagans, on account of their ignorance or disbelief of the divine truth, seems to offend the reason and the humanity of the present age. The Jansenists, who have so diligently studied the works of the fathers, maintain this sentiment with distinguished zeal.” (Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, XV)

Alexander VII († 1667) and Innocent XI († 1689) condemned 110 propositions that were extracted almost entirely from Jesuit authors and approved by Jesuit superiors who permitted their publication. Among them there are doctrinal propositions that relate to the salvation dogma of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”.

The 110 propositions are simply entitled “Various Errors on Moral Matters” in the English (Jesuit) translation of Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma and no authors are mentioned, but one can identify them from the Latin edition.

The following propositions of Aegidius Estrix S.J. denied that one must have the Catholic Faith to be saved.

“Only faith in one God seems necessary by a necessity of means, not, however, the explicit faith in a Rewarder.” (Denz. 1172)

“Faith widely so-called according to the testimony of creation or by a similar reason suffices for justification.” (Denz. 1173)

The same author maintained that anyone could “prudently” renounce the Catholic Faith – which must seriously call into question the sincerity of the author and the superior who approved the publication.

“The will cannot effect that assent to faith in itself be stronger than the weight of reasons impelling toward assent. Hence, anyone can prudently repudiate the supernatural assent which he had.” (Denz. 1169-70)

The following proposition by Stephen Bauny S.J. maintained that one can be saved even if by culpable negligence one does not know of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

“A person is fit for absolution, however much he labours under an ignorance of the mysteries of faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable, he does not know the mystery of the most blessed Trinity, and of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Denz. 1214)




Reply
(06-20-2011, 10:37 PM)Gregory I Wrote: WOW, FIRST, SHOW ME  the source.

Still not a magisterial document, possesses no teaching authority. Does not detail the nature and reason of excommunication.
Sounds made up, honestly.

Second, Father Feeney's Excommunication was LIFTED. He died in Full communion with the Church, and the Communities he founded are in communion with the local Bishop who has listed said communities as approved places of worship and given them priests to say mass.

Third, This is not about Fr. Feeney; he was simply the latest in a chain of figures who have been decrying the theologoumenon of BOD. Read ABP. George Hay, The Lay Theologian Orestes Brownson, Fr. Michael Muller. Also, the Jansenists of the 17th century were applauded by the Church for defending the teaching of Extra Ecclesia, Nulla Salva.

“The condemnation of the wisest and most virtuous of the Pagans, on account of their ignorance or disbelief of the divine truth, seems to offend the reason and the humanity of the present age. The Jansenists, who have so diligently studied the works of the fathers, maintain this sentiment with distinguished zeal.” (Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, XV)

Alexander VII († 1667) and Innocent XI († 1689) condemned 110 propositions that were extracted almost entirely from Jesuit authors and approved by Jesuit superiors who permitted their publication. Among them there are doctrinal propositions that relate to the salvation dogma of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”.

The 110 propositions are simply entitled “Various Errors on Moral Matters” in the English (Jesuit) translation of Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma and no authors are mentioned, but one can identify them from the Latin edition.

The following propositions of Aegidius Estrix S.J. denied that one must have the Catholic Faith to be saved.

“Only faith in one God seems necessary by a necessity of means, not, however, the explicit faith in a Rewarder.” (Denz. 1172)

“Faith widely so-called according to the testimony of creation or by a similar reason suffices for justification.” (Denz. 1173)

The same author maintained that anyone could “prudently” renounce the Catholic Faith – which must seriously call into question the sincerity of the author and the superior who approved the publication.

“The will cannot effect that assent to faith in itself be stronger than the weight of reasons impelling toward assent. Hence, anyone can prudently repudiate the supernatural assent which he had.” (Denz. 1169-70)

The following proposition by Stephen Bauny S.J. maintained that one can be saved even if by culpable negligence one does not know of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

“A person is fit for absolution, however much he labours under an ignorance of the mysteries of faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable, he does not know the mystery of the most blessed Trinity, and of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Denz. 1214)





Cardinal Cicognani, Canon Law, p.428 a écrit:


[L]e Code contient certains canons qui sont uniquement doctrinaux ou même encore à caractère dogmatique, par exemple, les canons 108, 218, 329, 737, 801, 803, 1012, 1322, § 1.


Naz, Traité de Droit Canonique, t.I, p.68 a écrit:


A ce principe, le Code admet pourtant un certain nombre d'exceptions fondées sur la nature des choses, en décidant que les Églises d'Orient sont obligées par celles des lois de l'Eglise latine qui :

1. concernent la foi et les moeurs (can. 218; 731; 732; 737; 870; 1013) ...



Voyons maintenant ce que contient le canon 737 en question :

Can. 737

§ 1 Le baptême, porte et fondement des autres sacrements, est nécessaire, de fait ou tout au moins de désir, au salut de tous; il n’est conféré validement que par l’ablution avec une eau vraie et naturelle, accompagnée des paroles prescrites.


§ 2 Lorsque le baptême est conféré avec tous les rites et toutes les cérémonies ordonnés par les rituels il est appelé solennel; sinon il est non solennel ou privé.



Conséquemment, le canon 737, lequel reprend le dogme catholique, atteint l'Eglise d'Orient, et, selon les critères des deux ti-counes, est hérétique puisqu'il reprend la doctrine catholique du baptême de désir.


Pour les autres canons, les deux ti-counes semblent croire que s'ils n'atteignent pas l'Eglise d'Orient, c'est que forcément ils ne sont pas des lois universelles.

Voyons un peu quelques spécialistes de la question :

R.P. Jombart, S.J., Manuel de Droit Canon, p.17 a écrit:


Le droit universel régit toute l'Eglise (latine) ; le droit particulier, une partie seulement, p. ex., telle province ecclésiastique, tel diocèse, tel institut religieux.


R.P. Cimetier, Pour étudier le Code de Droit Canonique, p.6 a écrit:


Si ces lois s'appliquent à toute l'Église (ou du moins à toute l'Eglise latine), leur ensemble forme le droit commun : soit qu'elles obligent tous les fidèles, soit qu'elles n'obligent, dans toute l'Eglise, qu'une catégorie de personnes (v.g. tous les religieux, tous les clercs).


Ainsi, une loi atteignant que les fidèles du rite latin partout dans l'univers ... est une loi universelle !

Naz, Dict. de Droit Canonique, t.III, col. 935 a écrit:


Le code est une oeuvre officielle, car il a été promulgué par l'autorité du pape et il est obligatoire in utroque foro; universelle, en ce sens qu'il s'applique à tous les sujets de l'Eglise sauf, sur certains points, aux membres de l'Eglise orientale, can. 1.


Mais voyons encore un autre extrait encore plus explicite :

R.P. Goupil, La Règle de la Foi, p.68 a écrit:


L'Eglise est infaillible dans ses lois disciplinaires.

Il s'agit [...] de lois générales, universelles, au moins pour toute une branche de l'Eglise, ainsi le Code de Droit canonique pour toute l'Eglise latine. [...] Il est donc impossible qu'une loi universelle de l'Eglise soit dommageable à la société chrétienne.



Les canons du Code qui régissent universellement que les fidèles du rite latin sont donc des lois disciplinaires universelles, et ne peuvent être dommageables à la société chrétienne.


Conséquence : les deux ti-counes, ainsi que leur nouvelle fan, Via Crucis, se prennent en pleines dents [encore] une autre condamnation :


Pie VI, Auctorem Fidei, 28 aoust, 1794, Denzinger ° 1578 a écrit:


ERREURS DU SYNODE DE PISTOIE

[...]

78. ... comme si l'Eglise, qui est régie par l'Esprit de Dieu, pouvait établir une discipline non seulement inutile et plus pesante que ne le supporte la liberté chrétienne, mais même dangereuse, nocive, conduisant à la superstition et au matérialisme,

(est) fausse, téméraire, scandaleuse, offense les oreilles pies, fait injure à l'Eglise et à l'Esprit de Dieu par laquelle elle est régie, au moins erronée.







Voici encore une bonne citation du Théologien Bergier :
Il est vrai qu'on ne peut entrer dans le royaume de Dieu que par le baptême; mais les théologiens distinguent, comme on sait, trois sortes de baptême, le baptême d'eau, le baptême de désir, et le baptême de sang, ou le martyre. Ceux qui insistent le plus sur la nécessité du baptême d'eau, enseignent en même temps que Dieu ferait plutôt un miracle que de laisser mourir sans baptême un homme qui serait dans les dispositions supposées ici. Nous inclinons à croire que ces dispositions renferment un désir implicite du baptême, qui suffit dans le cas présent : Quod pro tanto dicilur sacramentum baptismi esse de necessitate salutis, quia non potest esse homini salus, nisi saltem in voluntate habeatur, quœ apud Deum reputatur pro facto. (Sanct. Thom., 3. part., vol. 2, quaest. 68, art. 2. ) La volonté de faire tout ce que Dieu veut qu'on fasse pour être sauvé, renferme évidemment la volonté de recevoir le baptême, si l'on en connaissait la nécessité. Le bienheureux Liguori dit positivement « qu'IL EST DE FOI que le baptême d'esprit est suffisant pour le salut; » et voici la définition qu'il en donne : « Le baptême d'esprit est la parfaite conversion à Dieu par la contrition ou l'amour de Dieu sur toutes-choses, avec le vœu explicite ou implicite du vrai baptême d'eau qu'il supplée quant à la rémission de la coulpe. » DE FIDE EST per baptismum flaminis homines etiam salvari ... Baptismus flaminis est perfecta conrersio ad Deum, per contritionem vel amorem Dei super omnia, cum voto explicito vel implicito veri baptisma fluminis, cujus vicem supplet quoad culpae remissionem. ( Liguor., lib, 7, Tract. 2 , de Sacrament., n. 96 ) — Voyez l' Essai sur l'indifférence, etc., tom. 4, c. 33 .



Chanoine Bergier, Dictionnaire de théologie, Outhenin-Chalandre Ed., T. II, 1854, p. 613 et 614


R.P. Arregui S.J., Summarium Theologiae Moralis, p.323 a écrit:


Baptismus, sacramentorum ianua et fundamentum :

[...]

b) NECESSARIUS est omnibus ad salutem necessitate medii in re vel in voto susceptus (2).


[...]

(2) Io. 3, 5; cf. IC 737 § 1; TRID. sess. 6 cap. 4 DB 796 (678).

Tertullien, Traité du Baptême, XVI a écrit:

Il est vrai que nous avons un second baptême , qui est le baptême de sang, mais qui est aussi unique. C'est de ce baptême que parlait Jésus-Christ lorsqu'il disait : "J'ai à être baptisé d'un baptême 50," quoiqu'il eût été déjà baptisé, car il était venu par l'eau et le sang51, comme écrit saint Jean, afin qu'il fût lavé par l'eau et glorifié par le sang. C'est pour cela aussi que voulant nous appeler par l'eau et faire des élus par le sang, il fit rejaillir de la plaie de son côté ces deux baptêmes ; parce que ceux qui devaient croire en son sang devaient être purifiés par l'eau, et ceux qui seraient purifiés par l'eau devaient aussi boire son sang. C'est enfin ce baptême qui supplée au défaut du baptême d'eau, et qui en répare le défaut quand on a eu le malheur de perdre l'effet du baptême.



Tertullien, Père de l'Eglise (IIe siècle).

Reply
Ok, you are doing several things wrong here:

1. You are not presenting a text from the ordinary magisterium.

2. Canon law is not meant to teach dogma, but to set forth rules of conduct and discipline.

3. "The 1917 Code of Canon Law has dishonestly been used to argue that the Magisterium teaches BoD. The argument says that Canon Law is part of the Magisterium and is based upon dogma. Then they quote only half of the law, which changes its meaning! Why would a traditional priest do this? Here is the first half of the law.

Canon 737:

          Baptism, which is the door and foundation for all other Sacraments, and which, either actually received or at least  Desired, is necessary for salvation to all,...

   Below is the second half of the sentence and the law, normally omitted by traditional priests.

           is given validly only by ablution with truly natural water and pronouncing the prescribed form of words . . .

   Note that this law is in one sentence. Hence, it contradicts itself in the same sentence! It says you can receive baptism by desire (i.e. e., without water), and then it says that it is valid only with water. This is double talk! It cannot possibly be both ways. Hence, this “law” is meaningless. Yet, many priests quote the first part about desire and leave out the second part about water and then say, “See, the Church teaches BoD in its Canon Law.” What could be more dishonest?"

4.  "Our Lord Jesus Christ, stated the following regarding this question, which should end all debates.

. . . Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter  into the kingdom of God.

   Some say that this is a law and that God can make exceptions to His law when He wishes (this is known as the principle that the Lawgiver is superior to his law and may change it if and when he thinks it to be fit). But this is not a law, but a statement of fact. A statement of fact is either true or false. A fact can be stated as such when a person says, “The sky is blue.” That is not a law, but a statement which is either true or false. The sky is blue or it is not. So it would follow, if Jesus Christ states a fact regarding the necessity of water, then water is absolutely necessary. To say otherwise is to make Our Lord a liar. The Truth says you cannot enter Heaven without water. Who dares to modify His words and say there are some men who can enter Heaven without water?"

Baptism--Ex Cathedra (Infallible)

          If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost” [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema. (Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547.)

   Need I mention that BoD advocates distort these words of Jesus Christ and make them meaningless?

Why is it so hard to understand?

FEENEYITES Say You DO need:
Water Agree with words of Jesus Christ
The Sacraments Agree with the Council Trent
The Church Agree with the infallible Popes
The Faith Agree with sacred scripture

B.O.D.*ITES Say You DON'T need:
Water Disagree with words of Jesus Christ
The Sacraments Disagree with the Council Trent
The Church Disagree with the infallible Popes
The Faith Disagree with sacred scripture
*(BOD = Baptism of Desire)

“Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.” (First Vatican Council, On Faith and Reason, n. 3, 14).
Reply
(06-21-2011, 12:26 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Ok, you are doing several things wrong here:

1. You are not presenting a text from the ordinary magisterium.

2. Canon law is not meant to teach dogma, but to set forth rules of conduct and discipline.

3. "The 1917 Code of Canon Law has dishonestly been used to argue that the Magisterium teaches BoD. The argument says that Canon Law is part of the Magisterium and is based upon dogma. Then they quote only half of the law, which changes its meaning! Why would a traditional priest do this? Here is the first half of the law.

Canon 737:

          Baptism, which is the door and foundation for all other Sacraments, and which, either actually received or at least  Desired, is necessary for salvation to all,...

   Below is the second half of the sentence and the law, normally omitted by traditional priests.

           is given validly only by ablution with truly natural water and pronouncing the prescribed form of words . . .

   Note that this law is in one sentence. Hence, it contradicts itself in the same sentence! It says you can receive baptism by desire (i.e. e., without water), and then it says that it is valid only with water. This is double talk! It cannot possibly be both ways. Hence, this “law” is meaningless. Yet, many priests quote the first part about desire and leave out the second part about water and then say, “See, the Church teaches BoD in its Canon Law.” What could be more dishonest?"

4.  "Our Lord Jesus Christ, stated the following regarding this question, which should end all debates.

. . . Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter  into the kingdom of God.

   Some say that this is a law and that God can make exceptions to His law when He wishes (this is known as the principle that the Lawgiver is superior to his law and may change it if and when he thinks it to be fit). But this is not a law, but a statement of fact. A statement of fact is either true or false. A fact can be stated as such when a person says, “The sky is blue.” That is not a law, but a statement which is either true or false. The sky is blue or it is not. So it would follow, if Jesus Christ states a fact regarding the necessity of water, then water is absolutely necessary. To say otherwise is to make Our Lord a liar. The Truth says you cannot enter Heaven without water. Who dares to modify His words and say there are some men who can enter Heaven without water?"

Baptism--Ex Cathedra (Infallible)

          If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost” [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema. (Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547.)

   Need I mention that BoD advocates distort these words of Jesus Christ and make them meaningless?

Why is it so hard to understand?

FEENEYITES Say You DO need:
Water Agree with words of Jesus Christ
The Sacraments Agree with the Council Trent
The Church Agree with the infallible Popes
The Faith Agree with sacred scripture

B.O.D.*ITES Say You DON'T need:
Water Disagree with words of Jesus Christ
The Sacraments Disagree with the Council Trent
The Church Disagree with the infallible Popes
The Faith Disagree with sacred scripture
*(BOD = Baptism of Desire)

“Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.” (First Vatican Council, On Faith and Reason, n. 3, 14).

All I know or need to know is that Feeney got kicked out of the Church.  I don't think he is in PURGATORY, much less in HEAVEN. 



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


Formula of Excommunication – Roman Pontifical

“Leonard Feeney, led by the Devil, having abandoned through apostasy the promise he had made at his Baptism, has not feared to ravage the Church of God, steal Church goods and violently oppress the poor of Christ. In our concern over this, we do not desire that he perish because of any pastoral neglect of our own. For before the dread Judgment seat, we will have to render an account to the Prince of Shepherds, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in accordance with the terrible warning the Lord Himself addresses to us with these words: If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thy hand (Ez 3: 18). Therefore, we have canonically warned him once, twice, a third and yet a fourth time so that he might conquer his malice, inviting him to amend himself, make reparation and penance, and reprehending him with paternal affection. But he – o woe! – despising the salutary admonitions of the Church of God, which he has offended, and led by the spirit of pride, has not wanted to make any reparation

“The precepts of the Lord and of the Apostles speak clearly about what to do with such prevaricators. For the Lord says: Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offends thee, cut them off and cast them from thee (Mt 8:18). And the Apostle advises: If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, do not so much as to eat. (1 Cor 5:11) And John, the favorite disciple of Christ, forbids that one should even greet one who is wicked: If any one come to you and bring not this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, and greet him not (2 Jn 1:10).

“Therefore, carrying out the precepts of the Lord and of the Apostles, let us take from the body of the Church with the iron tongs of excommunication this putrid and incurable member who refuses to accept the remedy, so that the rest of the members of the body may not be poisoned by such a pestiferous disease. He has despised our admonitions and our repeated exhortations; having been warned three times, according to the precept of the Lord, he would not amend himself and do penance; he has not reflected upon his guilt, nor has he confessed it; neither has he presented any excuse through a third party, nor did he ask for pardon. But, with his heart hardened by the Devil, he continues to persevere in the same evil as before, according to the words of the Apostle: The impenitent heart stores up to itself wrath for the day of wrath (Rom 2:5).

“Wherefore by the judgment of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost, of the St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the Saints, and by virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth that which was divinely entrusted to us, we deprive Leonard Feeney with all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord; we separate him from the society of all Christians; we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth; and we declare him excommunicated and anathematized, as well as judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobates. So long as he will not burst the fetters of the Devil, amend himself and do penance and make reparation to the Church which he has offended, we deliver him to Satan for the perdition of his flesh, so that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

“To this, all the assistants answer: "Fiat, fiat, fiat" [so be it, so be it, so be it].

“The Bishop and the assisting priests then cast to the ground the lighted candles they have been carrying. Notice is sent in writing to all the priests in the neighboring parishes, as well as to the Bishops, of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication in order that they may have no communication with him, thus removing them from any occasion of excommunication.”


(Roman Pontifical
apud Catolicismo, December 1952)


Reply
The excommunication was lifted, and he died in good standing with the church. Plus he was deeply devoted to our lady. What part of that is hard to understand?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)