Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 26, 2013, 02:10:AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
 
Author Topic: Brother Michael Dimond guest on Coast to Coast tonight  (Read 10008 times)
Ourladyofconsolation06
Veritatem facientes
in caritate

Member

Posts: 1,059


« Reply #60 on: July 12, 2006, 03:08:PM »

This should be discussed in the Wild,Wild,West forum. But, I think it's funny that you advocate the Diamond Brothers and then defend Fr. Feeny. Hasn't Most Holy Family Monastery excommunicated Fr. Feeny and the St. Benedict Center just like they've taken it upon themselves to excommunicate every other Traditionalist group and Priest. Please start examining other traditionalist arguments besides the Diamond Brothers as they teach explicit Heresies and deny crucial Doctrines of The Catholic Church. Where do you go to Mass if all of these groups and people are heretics? 

 

Logged

20 + C + M + B + 08
glastonbury_thorn
Guest
« Reply #61 on: July 12, 2006, 03:28:PM »

Quote from: Ourladyofconsolation06
 

Hasn't Most Holy Family Monastery excommunicated Fr. Feeny and the St. Benedict Center just like they've taken it upon themselves to excommunicate every other Traditionalist group and Priest.

 

It should be noted that the "anti-Feeneyite" "sede-vacantists" commit this error as well, denying communion with those "sede-vacantists" who not hold "Baptism of Blood and/or Desire" (or even those who, without denying it necessarily, merely hold it to be non-binding).

 

Some "anti-Feeneyite" clergy go so far as denying the Sacraments to people. That is just disgusting. These clergy do not even have the jurisdiction to "excommunicate" anyone by their admission. What can justify this (within the "sede-vacantist" paradigm, that is)?

 

It seems that "sede-vacantists" are their own worst enemies when it comes to this.

Logged
catholicresistence
Guest
« Reply #62 on: July 12, 2006, 04:04:PM »

Quote from: glastonbury_thorn
Quote from: Ourladyofconsolation06
 

Hasn't Most Holy Family Monastery excommunicated Fr. Feeny and the St. Benedict Center just like they've taken it upon themselves to excommunicate every other Traditionalist group and Priest.

 

It should be noted that the "anti-Feeneyite" "sede-vacantists" commit this error as well, denying communion with those "sede-vacantists" who not hold "Baptism of Blood and/or Desire" (or even those who, without denying it necessarily, merely hold it to be non-binding).

 

Some "anti-Feeneyite" clergy go so far as denying the Sacraments to people. That is just disgusting. These clergy do not even have the jurisdiction to "excommunicate" anyone by their admission. What can justify this (within the "sede-vacantist" paradigm, that is)?

 

It seems that "sede-vacantists" are their own worst enemies when it comes to this.

 

These groups are sooo close to Prots with their divisions, united only in denial of the Church and her Pope. Such splintering is the ear-mark. Maybe by end of century-heck, the decade what with technology, we will have 100's of "independant" groups and Sede groups, all claiming the Truth.

Logged
catholicresistence
Guest
« Reply #63 on: July 12, 2006, 04:10:PM »

Quote from: promultis

27.  Protocol 122/49

 

     About four months after the silencing of Fr. Feeney in April by Richard Cushing, the apostate Archbishop of Boston...

        

 

     During their meeting, Fr. Feeney asked “Archbishop” Cushing if  

 

Interesting, very interesting indeed...So, a Bishop in 1952 is now an "apsotate" and note-the qoutes around "Archbishop"

 

What, then does this article writer have to say about Pope Pius XII?Huh? After all, Cushing was Bishop under him.

 

And here we see, dear readers, the beginning slide toward the notion that Pope Pius XII may be a anti-pope as well.

 

The Sede's have done what Luther and Modernists ahve only dreamed-pushing the "anti-Pope" thin back further, and further....

 

Where does it end? I guess Peter was not really Pope for the reason of ____, huh Sede's?

Logged
Ourladyofconsolation06
Veritatem facientes
in caritate

Member

Posts: 1,059


« Reply #64 on: July 12, 2006, 04:30:PM »

Quote

Interesting, very interesting indeed...So, a Bishop in 1952 is now an "apsotate" and note-the qoutes around "Archbishop"

 

What, then does this article writer have to say about Pope Pius XII?Huh? After all, Cushing was Bishop under him.

 

And here we see, dear readers, the beginning slide toward the notion that Pope Pius XII may be a anti-pope as well.

 

The Sede's have done what Luther and Modernists ahve only dreamed-pushing the "anti-Pope" thin back further, and further....

 

Where does it end? I guess Peter was not really Pope for the reason of ____, huh Sede's?

 

If you believe that the Diamond Brothers speak for Sedevacantists then you are terribly wrong. This is why I despise the Diamond Brothers, people read their articles and decide that's what Sedevacantists believe. Hmm, I guess that's why Sedevacantists who aren't part of the Dimond Brothers Ten followers think little of their heretical riff raff.

Logged

20 + C + M + B + 08


glastonbury_thorn
Guest
« Reply #65 on: July 12, 2006, 04:53:PM »

Quote from: catholicresistence
These groups are sooo close to Prots with their divisions, united only in denial of the Church and her Pope. Such splintering is the ear-mark. Maybe by end of century-heck, the decade what with technology, we will have 100's of "independant" groups and Sede groups, all claiming the Truth.

I do not think that this is necessarily indicative of any inherent defect in "sede-vacantism" but is it just human nature to bicker and act for the sake of ego. This is happening in all other camps of Traditionalism.

 

We already have a lot of subgroups, but that is due to the general confusion of the times.

 

The Roman Pontiff is supposed to be a sign of unity, but Benedict XVI has only worsened things by doing such things as praising heretics, covering for pedophile-protectors, and praying with Jews and so forth.

 

If someone like Leo XIII or Saint Pius X were reigning we would not have any of this ridiculousness. Hopefully a Pontiff like that will reign over the Church someday soon and all this Vatican II business will be done away with. 

Logged
glastonbury_thorn
Guest
« Reply #66 on: July 12, 2006, 04:55:PM »

Quote from: Ourladyofconsolation06
 

If you believe that the Diamond Brothers speak for Sedevacantists then you are terribly wrong. This is why I despise the Diamond Brothers, people read their articles and decide that's what Sedevacantists believe. Hmm, I guess that's why Sedevacantists who aren't part of the Dimond Brothers Ten followers think little of their heretical riff raff.

 

That may be true, but the "sede-vacantists" of whom I spoke in my earlier post are damaging your cause as well. They are both sides of the same coin.

 

 

Logged
Ourladyofconsolation06
Veritatem facientes
in caritate

Member

Posts: 1,059


« Reply #67 on: July 12, 2006, 06:09:PM »

Quote from: glastonbury_thorn
Quote from: Ourladyofconsolation06
 

Hasn't Most Holy Family Monastery excommunicated Fr. Feeny and the St. Benedict Center just like they've taken it upon themselves to excommunicate every other Traditionalist group and Priest.

 

It should be noted that the "anti-Feeneyite" "sede-vacantists" commit this error as well, denying communion with those "sede-vacantists" who not hold "Baptism of Blood and/or Desire" (or even those who, without denying it necessarily, merely hold it to be non-binding).

 

Some "anti-Feeneyite" clergy go so far as denying the Sacraments to people. That is just disgusting. These clergy do not even have the jurisdiction to "excommunicate" anyone by their admission. What can justify this (within the "sede-vacantist" paradigm, that is)?

 

It seems that "sede-vacantists" are their own worst enemies when it comes to this.

 

Those who follow Fr. Feeny in his error spit in the face of the ordinary universal magesterium. BOD/BOB is unanimously taught by Popes, theologians, Doctors of the Church, and Ecumenical Counclis. Indeed those clergy no not have the jurisdiction to excommunicate anyone but they do reserve the right to withhold the sacraments from someone who denys a Doctrine of the Church. I don't see how MHFM and the Feenyites can convince themselves that their take on Salvation is correct when these texts refute them completely. When I referred to excommunication I didn't mean it in the legal sense. I ment that MHFM and the Diamond Brothers tell people not to assist at traditionalist chapels that do not hold the error of Fr. Feeny. They even tell people not to go to The St. Benedict Center to which Fr. Feeny ran.

 

Quote
 

Council of Trent 1545-1563

Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis out eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):


"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis out eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

 

Quote
St Alphonsus Liguori 1691 - 1787

Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal"! character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is defide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon "Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato" and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it."

 

Quote
1917 Code of Canon Law On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)

"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."

 

Quote
The Sacred Cannons
by Rev. John A. Abbo, S.T.L., J.C.D. and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
"The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire."

Quote
 

Pope Innocent III

Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned. (Denzinger 388)

Debitumpastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: "I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen."

We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: "Go baptize all nations in the name etc." (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith. (Denzinger 413)

 

Quote
Pope St. Pius V, 1566-1572 - "Ex omnibus afflictionibus" October 1, 1567 Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:
- Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
- That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
- A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.

Quote
 

St. Ambrose:
"I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated ... and expressed his intention to be baptized ... Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].

 

Quote
 St. Augustine City of God:
"I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic ... The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit." (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV, 21)

 

Quote
"Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." (Denzinger 388)

 

Quote
St. Thomas Aquinas:
Article I, Part III, Q 68:
"7 answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained.

"Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.'

 

Quote
 

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church - 1542-1621

Liber II, Caput XXX:
"Boni Cathecumeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa." (Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union.)

 

Quote
Roman Martyrology

January 23 - At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.

April 12 - At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy; and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.

 

Now, Promultis or anyone else who holds to and defends the error of Fr. Feeny, If you hold those who believe in Baptism of Blood and Desire to be heritics would you dare say that those who I quoted above where also heritics.

 

 

Logged

20 + C + M + B + 08
glastonbury_thorn
Guest
« Reply #68 on: July 12, 2006, 06:47:PM »

Quote from: Ourladyofconsolation06
 

Those who follow Fr. Feeny in his error spit in the face of the ordinary universal magesterium. BOD/BOB is unanimously taught by Popes, theologians, Doctors of the Church, and Ecumenical Counclis. Indeed those clergy no not have the jurisdiction to excommunicate anyone but they do reserve the right to withhold the sacraments from someone who denys a Doctrine of the Church. I don't see how MHFM and the Feenyites can convince themselves that their take on Salvation is correct when these texts refute them completely. When I referred to excommunication I didn't mean it in the legal sense. I ment that MHFM and the Diamond Brothers tell people not to assist at traditionalist chapels that do not hold the error of Fr. Feeny. They even tell people not to go to The St. Benedict Center to which Fr. Feeny ran.

 

That is not the issue I raised: the issue I raised is what canonical right do the "sede-vacantist" clergy have in denying anyone the Sacraments when they themselves admit that they have no jurisdiction in the external forum.

 

If they vindicate their Orders in asserting that they sought them out of necessity and for the good of the Church, then denying the Sacraments to the faithful would be contradicting this principle.

 

If the "sede-vacantists" assert that the Holy See is vacant, why do they then pontificate on what is binding and what is not? Why do they make the situation more complicated? Why doesn't a good and sincere "sede-vacantist" wait for a "true Pope" to reign over the Church and decide this.

 

I see no justification within the "sede-vacantist" paradigm (for lack of a better to term to use) for this to be the case. It seems to me they are usurping a jurisdiction they do not posses and are commiting schism in deciding who can attend their Chapels and who cannot.

 

Frankly I think its ego and personality disorders that are responsible for this sort of thing. But this is certainly not peculiar to the "sede-vacantists" but faults we as fallen creatures share.

Logged
Ourladyofconsolation06
Veritatem facientes
in caritate

Member

Posts: 1,059


« Reply #69 on: July 12, 2006, 06:56:PM »

Quote

I see no justification within the "sede-vacantist" paradigm (for lack of a better to term to use) for this to be the case. It seems to me they are usurping a jurisdiction they do not posses and are commiting schism in deciding who can attend their Chapels and who cannot.

 

This could be said for other Traditionalists as well.

 

Quote

Frankly I think its ego and personality disorders that are responsible for this sort of thing. But this is certainly not peculiar to the "sede-vacantists" but faults we as fallen creatures share.

 

I wish others who are not sedevacantists would share your reasoning.

Logged

20 + C + M + B + 08
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC