tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post2235607752924250870..comments2024-03-18T20:53:13.625-07:00Comments on The Eponymous Flower: Bishop Schneider: "Personally Very Sad" About Rome's Letter to the SSPX -- "They Wouldn't Treat the Orthodox Like This"Tancredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16015531337154301560noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-15414991245187971152017-08-26T07:06:46.643-07:002017-08-26T07:06:46.643-07:00Not sure I follow your post but, for the avoidance...Not sure I follow your post but, for the avoidance of doubt, dogma cannot change and EENs is dogma. It's not Father Feeney's dogma but that of the Catholic Church which he defended valiantly - and rightly predicted that the failure to adhere to it is at the root of all the doctrinal chaos we now see at every level of the hierarchy of the Church - even in traditionalist circles. The extraordinary magisterium: Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV [1] (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”<br />Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam [2] (A.D. 1302): “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.”<br />Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence [3] (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman 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.”<br />Catherine Bradleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18219603065283980949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-47678571663861730302017-08-25T06:12:36.518-07:002017-08-25T06:12:36.518-07:00niceniceJackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10147590439884797469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-80362697010907606982017-08-20T07:45:54.760-07:002017-08-20T07:45:54.760-07:00This blog, unfortunately as it can do much good in...This blog, unfortunately as it can do much good in defense of the Faith, is seriously vitiated by too many Modernist trolls---who should not have a voice here, even to foster debate as debate should be among those who value objective truth---and an irrational blog master who at times lashes out without ostensible reasons against those who defend the traditional Catholic Faith, willy-nilly. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-50849754914715053612017-08-20T07:34:40.818-07:002017-08-20T07:34:40.818-07:00Once again, Tancred gratuitously attacking our own...Once again, Tancred gratuitously attacking our own. Why "the pox on Tom O'Reilly's orthodox and clear and most accurate post?! This is irrational and mean-spirited. I have often noticed that Tancred is angered by people who can write well (unlike him, perhaps it is jealousy) and who articulate the Catholic Faith and history with lucidity and clarity (unlike his posts). Fascinating! Time to go to another, rational blog for orthodox Catholic commentary for me---to which I a certain Tancred would say "good riddance," in the totalitarian spirit of the Communist hell hole from which he came. Anonymous (just like "Tancred") Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-64841118587767393312017-08-19T18:13:36.315-07:002017-08-19T18:13:36.315-07:00This Feeneyism vs Cushingite argument is interesti...This Feeneyism vs Cushingite argument is interesting, not so much for the crux of the argument itself (and I will candidly admit up front that I am not a Feeneyite), but that it is an assault against the SSPX from “within”. That is, it is not the progressive left that is making the argument against Cardinal Cushing’s statement, it is those who would claim to be traditional Catholics. They are essentially saying that the SSPX is “not Catholic enough".<br /><br />Modernism is a heresy that attacked the Church from within. And, as we know, the progressives who advanced the teachings of Modernism (and ultimately Vatican II) were the Catholics from within the Church. The SSPX does not claim to be "the" Catholic Church, they claim to be “Catholic”. They see their mission as “preserving” the faith until Rome wakes up to the the great error that was adopted during and after the Second Vatican Council. They follow the teachings of the Church––which include recognizing the pope as the Vicar of Christ.<br /><br />So while the commenters on this site suggest that the SSPX must adopt Feeneyism, they are essentially saying that they must ascribe to a teaching that was rejected by the Catholic Church long before Vatican II was even imagined. The fact that Vatican II accepted that teaching should not lead anyone to believe that it was not a Catholic teaching. the Council accepted many Catholic teachings––they just adopted many false teachings as well.<br /><br />Fr. Leonard Feeney advanced what he believed, ins mind, to be the “true” meaning of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. But this was his “opinion”, and that opinion was rejected by the Church. Indeed, he was excommunicated (although that excommunication was lifted on his deathbed) by Pope Pius XII. The teaching he opposed had been affirmed by numerous popes before he decided that they were wrong. It is also opposed by all faithful Catholics today––including the SSPX.<br /><br />Now the alleged traditional Catholic commenters on this site are criticizing the SSPX for not adopting this non-Catholic teaching. Quite frankly, I find it very difficult to distinguish the goal of all of these commenters from the “Modernists”. The only difference is that the Modernists (and Vatican II) attacked the Church from the left, while the “Neo-Feeneyites” are attacking the Church from the right. <br />Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15765942028980517147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-30228722827355453702017-08-19T07:41:30.986-07:002017-08-19T07:41:30.986-07:00Call the white van with men in white suits to hand...Call the white van with men in white suits to handle "Catholic Mission." It is urgent!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-3295782941893159472017-08-19T05:51:19.476-07:002017-08-19T05:51:19.476-07:00dmdrew
I agree with you.
The SSPX interprets the d...dmdrew<br />I agree with you.<br />The SSPX interprets the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.<br />They interpret the Nicene Creed with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.<br />They interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism as a philosophy and theology.Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-58849222775140249612017-08-19T05:48:50.874-07:002017-08-19T05:48:50.874-07:00JBQ
The Vatican under P Francis is the cancer. SSP...JBQ<br />The Vatican under P Francis is the cancer. SSPX cannot be wrong because all that they are preaching is what the Church preached for over 1500 years<br />Lionel:<br />This is not true. There can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II with two different premises.<br />The premise being used by the present magisterium since Pius XII is not the one used by for example the missionaries in the 16th century.<br />So something has definitely changed.<br />Pope Benedict also noted this in his interview in Avvenire last year when he said that EENS was no more like it was for the missioanries in teh 16th century.He said there was a development with Vatican Council II.<br />He meant Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).<br />While he was not going to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) in public since then there would be no development with the dogma EENSCatholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-40283044660264607722017-08-19T05:44:34.108-07:002017-08-19T05:44:34.108-07:00Unknown,
All the 'ofshoots' of the SSPX ar...Unknown,<br />All the 'ofshoots' of the SSPX are interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism when there is a rational alternative available.<br />They can switch to Vatican Council II interpreted without an irrational premise and their conclusion will change. The Council will no more be a rupture with Tradition.<br />For example LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, GS 22, NA 2 etc can be interpreted as referring to personally known people saved outside the Church.<br />Or they can be interpreted as being hypothetical cases known only to God and so they are not exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.<br />So we have two premises and two conclusions.<br />Do you know any one saved outside the Church this year?<br />No.<br />So there can be only one rational interpretation and this one is not being affirmed by the SSPX or the magisterium or the sedevacantists.Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-88998898870363632492017-08-19T05:39:38.967-07:002017-08-19T05:39:38.967-07:00Anonymous
There can be two interpretations of Vati...Anonymous<br />There can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II, Cushingism and Feeneyism.Cushingism is irrational and it is supported by the Left.When the SSPX does not accept Vatican Council II(Cushingite) the left cries Schism! Now it is important for the SSPX to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which is traditional. In this way they will not be rejecting the Council and so the Left cannot say they are schismatics.At the same time they would not be rejecting Vatican Council II.<br />They instead could tell the Left that their interpretation of the Council is irrational, non traditional and heretical as compared to theirs. They could say that the Left are in an irregular situation for not accepting Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and that Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is a rupture with Tradition.Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-40963756636244136552017-08-19T05:39:35.225-07:002017-08-19T05:39:35.225-07:00The Utrechtines had a liturgy in the vernacular lo...The Utrechtines had a liturgy in the vernacular long before Vatican II, which missal i looked at, resembled the NOM very much.Tancredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015531337154301560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-38930306827435677472017-08-19T05:35:24.006-07:002017-08-19T05:35:24.006-07:00Constantine,
It is not about Natural Law.There can...Constantine,<br />It is not about Natural Law.There can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II and one of them is irrational and heretical. The other is not.<br /><br />________________________<br /><br />Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It is practical. There obviously are no known cases of the baptism of desire (BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2017.So there are no practical exceptions to EENS.Neither was BOD,BOB and I.I an exception to Feeneyite EENS in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued to the Archbishop of Boston. The cardinals made an objective mistake. Mentioning BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) along side the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church was superfluous.<br /><br />Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning.It assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.<br />http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/when-will-rorate-caeili-learn.htmlCatholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-7619524221374052122017-08-19T05:33:20.383-07:002017-08-19T05:33:20.383-07:00Marie,
We now know more about Vatican Council II. ...Marie,<br />We now know more about Vatican Council II. It can be interpreted with the Cushingism or Feeneyism and the conclusion changes.<br />http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/when-will-rorate-caeili-learn.htmlCatholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-50441922292084387172017-08-19T05:31:03.841-07:002017-08-19T05:31:03.841-07:00Wendy,
This is not true.We now know there are two ...Wendy,<br />This is not true.We now know there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, Cushingism and Feeneyism. Every one is using the irrational interpretation of Cushingism.Once the SSPX switches to Feeneyism the game plan changes. The reconciliation talks change.<br />http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/for-sacred-heart-major-seminary-detroit.html<br />http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/sspx-italy-is-not-affirming-vatican.html<br />Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-34347133787549577982017-08-17T17:58:29.217-07:002017-08-17T17:58:29.217-07:00Considering the history of relation between SSPX a...Considering the history of relation between SSPX and the Holy See this is hardly surprising. The main effort always seems to be ensure that the lesson is learned that whatever the Society's position, they MUST answer to and be subject to Rome. Wendy Melonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07765523542470407721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-84451403598570156952017-08-17T16:34:30.400-07:002017-08-17T16:34:30.400-07:00And the author of "Catholic Mission" sor...And the author of "Catholic Mission" sorely needs a few extended sessions with a solid Catholic psychiatrist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-1901514291595118642017-08-17T06:13:47.678-07:002017-08-17T06:13:47.678-07:00AUGUST 17, 2017
Bishops Fellay, Schneider are not...AUGUST 17, 2017<br /><br />Bishops Fellay, Schneider are not proclaiming the Social Reign of Christ the King supported by Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite)<br />http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/bishops-fellay-schneider-are-not.htmlCatholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-75123522748341656862017-08-17T05:22:56.838-07:002017-08-17T05:22:56.838-07:00AUGUST 16, 2017
Bishop Athanasius Schneider does n...AUGUST 16, 2017<br />Bishop Athanasius Schneider does not proclaim the Catholic Faith honestly in Kazhkistan<br />http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/bishop-athanasius-schneider-does-not.htmlCatholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-6620978146495604082017-08-16T08:42:21.550-07:002017-08-16T08:42:21.550-07:00O’Reilly said: “First, here is the relevant text o...O’Reilly said: “First, here is the relevant text of the encyclical: <br />‘There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.’ <br /><br />“This language could not be more clear that the Church teaches that there are noted situations where those who are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church under the outlined circumstance could see God. The Hindu and many others might fall under this spiritual exception.”<br /><br /><br />There are two ways to interpret this text. Either Pope Pius IX is affirming the Catholic Dogmas regarding salvation, and this “Hindu in Tibet” that Bishop Fellay is talking about, will, “by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace,” be brought to the true faith, receive the sacraments, become a member of the Church, and, if he perseveres, obtain salvation. For, Pope Pius IX continues in the same encyclical in the next paragraph, “Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church.”<br /><br />There is another way to interpret this passage, that is, how you and Bishop Fellay have done. You believe that Pope Pius IX is denying the Dogmas that the Catholic faith is necessary for salvation, that the sacraments are necessary for salvation as a necessity of means, and that being subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. You make this presumptions error because you think Dogma is a human invention open to the free and independent non-literal interpretation of churchmen. It is not. Dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic Faith. It is the proximate Rule of Faith. As St. Pius X affirmed, it is a “truth fallen from heaven.”<br /><br />Bishop Fellay and you who claim that this “Hindu in Tibet” is a secret member of the Church and in the state of grace without professing a single article of revealed truth, without receiving a single sacrament, without being subject to the Roman Pontiff believe that every Dogma of the Church concerning what is necessary as a necessity of means for salvation need not be taken in a literal sense. You believe in the “anonymous Christian” that Fr. Karl Rahner wrote about. You believe that he obtains this state of grace by following his conscience. There is no reason why you and Bishop Fellay cannot grab a potted plant and attend the next Prayer Meeting at Assisi. If these “pagans” are acceptable to God and temples of the Holy Ghost, why are they not acceptable for you to pray with them?<br /><br />I have never met this “Hindu in Tibet” and neither have you or Bishop Fellay. But I know by divine and Catholic Faith that he cannot be saved as a “Hindu.” He must profess the Catholic Faith and become a member of the Church. The problem is that when you deny the literal meaning of any Dogma, you have destroyed the authority of all Dogma, which is the end of all Modernism and Neo-modernism. Consequent to this, you have no argument against the abuse of authority. <br /><br />Drew dmdrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16586404134766124000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-56374955484418602732017-08-16T04:55:38.591-07:002017-08-16T04:55:38.591-07:00A pox on both your houses.A pox on both your houses.Tancredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015531337154301560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-32251327971730395472017-08-16T04:41:18.761-07:002017-08-16T04:41:18.761-07:00Marie,
Bishop Fellay also think that a priest, out...Marie,<br />Bishop Fellay also think that a priest, out of spite, angry with his bishop can go into a bakery or winery and say the words of consecration and validly consecrate the whole bakery/winery. Listen to his own words in this video in the first few seconds:<br />https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-caldern-refutes-bishop-fellay/cmdrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-64684328673575531852017-08-15T21:29:37.832-07:002017-08-15T21:29:37.832-07:00An excellent apologetic against a heretic, Tom. M...An excellent apologetic against a heretic, Tom. More of us should be doing the same---maybe then these Modernist bullies would be put in their places. RCCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-50051420978647126662017-08-15T21:25:34.771-07:002017-08-15T21:25:34.771-07:00Marie, it is you who are in dire need of an educat...Marie, it is you who are in dire need of an education (and of lessons in logic so you can think and write coherently). "Magnanimity" is indeed of Latin origin (did anyone dispute this, or did you hallucinate and saw something that is not there?), coming from "magnus" or great; it connotes largeness of soul, that is to say generosity. Although generosity (a quality the present pontiff seems to lack, if one is to go by his constant diatribes and insults against orthodox Catholics and his hounding of orthodox prelates) can be the opposite of being petty, its more common sense is openness or largeness of spirit---what in English is also called "largesse" (via the French). Stop being petty and ignorant, Marie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-61144045830795547272017-08-15T19:12:48.886-07:002017-08-15T19:12:48.886-07:00The Orthodox and the Lutherans aren't Socialis...The Orthodox and the Lutherans aren't Socialist entities already?Tancredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015531337154301560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-77590277486226193592017-08-15T18:41:13.658-07:002017-08-15T18:41:13.658-07:00Peter W. In perusing this site, and more specifica...<br />Peter W. In perusing this site, and more specifically, your posts, I’ve come to the conclusion that you really are a committed Conciliar Catholic––which, by the way, is a confirmation that you are clearly uniformed about the teachings of the Catholic Church. Yet you uncontrollably demand that others prove you're wrong in whatever you do believe––most specifically about the two Modernists popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. <br /><br />The first problem with attempting to engage in any back and forth with you is that you have a very thin understanding about the true Catholic faith. You are a member of the “Conciliar” religion, not the “Catholic” Church. They are two separate religions. Yes, the pope and the bishops where two hats (one for each religion), but the members in the pews are completely oblivious that this has happened to them. <br /><br />No, it didn’t happen in one day, but over 50 years the new religion has been fairly well defined.You suggest that you wish to “debate” the issues (at least at some level), but you are unaware as to how your religion is different than the Catholic Church. Let me give you an example. Your new religion has defined a new definition for “Religious Liberty” (in Vatican II) . Now you can’t debate that because you don’t know what the traditional definition is for Religious Liberty.<br /><br />Here’s another example. Your religion adopted something you people call “ecumenism”. Now our faith, the Catholic Church condemned that practice as a heresy by an earlier pope. Yet you are completely unaware of that. How in the world can you and I discuss any of these issues if you are in the dark about the arguments on the other side. Your approach (I’ve read your other comments) is to insist that you are right and you demand that someone prove you wrong. That’s pure silliness.<br /><br />And what about Collegiality? Are you not aware that your religion dredged up that heretical practice from the past that was not only condemn by the Catholic Church many years ago, but was actually feared by the bishops. It was actually a principle issues that gave rise to the reign of an anti-pope. But you know nothing about that. So where do we start? With me trying to prove your silliness wrong? Please?<br /><br />And by the way, Peter, I never mentioned how little you know about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or the fact that the Novus Ordo Mass which your religion adopted, was patterned after a “mass” that the Protestants, who had attempted to destroy my Church (the Catholic Church) earlier, and you don’t even know that. In fact There is so little you know on this topic I’m actually somewhat impressed by the fact that you are able to comment as much as you do.<br /><br />But all that being said, listen, her’s what I’m willing to do for you. I can give you the names of 2 or 3 books that you can buy online (about twenty bucks each) that would start bringing you up to speed. I’m not saying you have to leave your religion, you can continue with it as you learn about the Catholic Church. In fact, I’ll even refer you to a set of eight (I believe) documents that set out in some detail (much I’m sure will be over your head, but you’ll pick it up in time), the serious issues with the Second Vatican Council. And finally, I’ll even suggest a couple of great books that will show you what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass actually is. You’ll be amazed. <br />Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15765942028980517147noreply@blogger.com