The confusion in the Church is such that.....

The confusion in the Church is such that....

RashaLampa, Columba, Duckbill, ML and Jehanne, will be duking it out with MRyan and Tornpage on the issue of baptism of desire and baptism of blood in the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus sub-forum, with CT and Fatima for Our Times as their allies.

On the other hand, RashaLampa, MRyan, Jehanne, Tornpage, and Columba are allied in the sedevacantism forum and are in disagreement with Fatima For Our Times. CT is on the fence and can see valid points on both sides.

If an SSPX supporter were to come to the forum he would be in disagreement with Fatima for Our Times for being a sedevacantist, he might agree with CT, he would be in disagreement with MRyan about explicit faith, he would be in disagreement with the Feeneyites about baptism of desire and baptism of blood, and he would be in disagreement with all of us who go to the Novus Ordo or the Diocesan TLM.

If a Melkite Catholic were to come to the forum he would just say that we are all "Westerners" and that we focus too much on study and not enough on contemplation. Depending on what Melkite we are talking about he wouldn't be interested in in the Council of Trent because according to him "It was a Western Council."

On the other hand if a "reform of the reform" type Catholic came to the forum, they would disagree with all of us for even discussing these issues and "causing scandal." BTW are you guys approved by the Bishop?


The only sub-forum where we might be all in agreement is this sub-section where we point out the things that indicate the crisis in the Church. Of course the Reform of the Reformer would try to say "It isn't that bad." The Melkite would say "Those are Western problems" and the Sedevacantist would say "The Church is not in crisis because those people that you are talking about aren't the Church".

I guess then that there are too many "recreational theologians" and not enough obedient servants. To doubt and question are well and fine for our temporary survival in this world but faith and obedience are required for our enternal survival in the next.

Fatima of our times, here is a link for you: http://www.romancatholicism.net/ApostolicDigest17.htm

I am glad you have it all figured out, LOL.

Obedience, yes, but obedience to what? and who?

Remember that the Legionaries of Christ had full approval of the Church authorities though. With Fr. Maciel deemed an "efficacious guide to youth" by Pope John Paul II, parents who saw their children sucked in by the Legion and raised their voices against it were labeled disobedient. Now the current Pope has confirmed that their concerns were not unfounded. That was only after almost 40 years of brave ex-Legionaries fighting for the truth to be known even amongst being called "disobedient" and even being sued.

The confusion today in the Church is such that people don't know WHAT or whom to obey.

I know people who were involved in a group similar to the Legionaries that at 18 years old were given the criteria "join our group, your salvation depends on it". They supposedly based their teaching on St Aquinas and on St Ligouri (who by the way says that you are supposed to keep a religious calling secretly from everyone and join as soon as possible). Anyone, who left, even BEFORE any commitment was considered to be on the road to perdition. Any questioning of the group, their theology, or their tactics was pacified with the statements that "we are fully approved by the Church" and "Be obedient!". How dare you a teenager question a priest who has studied theology!

The Legionaries Of Christ had full approval of the Church to carry out the work of Christ, their leader was never given the approval of the Church to carry out the acts of which he was accused. The fact that others within the Church had knowledge of his deeds and did not act as they should have, does not demonstrate a reason or excuse for disobedience to the authority of the Pope.
A simple knowledge of the 10 commandments was all that was reqired, or the knowledge to love God and to love our neighbour has ourself would have been suffice for guidance. More complex debates regarding Baptism of desire etc would not have been necessary for recognition of sin and wrong doing in this particular case.
Approval of the Church regarding the legimate aims of an organisation is far removed from Church approval of any individual within that organisation to act according to his own desires.

Right but what I am saying is that the concept of "obeying the Pope" needs to be explained a bit.

The Legionaries had a vow of silence in which they could not criticize superiors and basically had to mind their own business. If a Legionary saw something wrong in the organization he would be bound to just keep his mouth shut because that is not his area of competence or "just let the superiors" take care of it. Well when the superiors are the ones that are committing the crimes this becomes a problem.

Another example: For years the SSPX was saying that the Old Mass was never prohibited. Then Cardinal Ratizinger, Cardinal Stickler and a few other Cardinals were comissioned by JPII to investigate whether the Old Mass was abrogated by the Novus Ordo. Guess what their findings were? NO!
http://www.lms.org.uk/resources/articles-on-the-mass/was_the_old_rite_abrogated
All along Mons. Lefebvre had been saying the same thing. If this commission had investigated this matter just a few years earlier Mons. Lefebvre most likely would not have consecrated those Bishops!

Also it is scary that the Vatican itself had to conduct a "study" into the matter.

Approval of the Church regarding the legimate aims of an organisation is far removed from Church approval of any individual within that organisation to act according to his own desires.

I agree, but to 12-18 year old Legionary recruits these distinctions are not so clearly seen.

RashaLampa wroye:
RashaLampa, Columba, Duckbill, ML and Jehanne, will be duking it out with MRyan and Tornpage on the issue of baptism of desire and baptism of blood in the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus sub-forum, with CT and Fatima for Our Times as their allies.

I've been thinking about this too Rasha. LOL.

The four marks of thr Church?
One
Holy
Catholic
Apostolic

What goes on in this forum is a reflection of what's going on in general within the Church and those in authority don't seem to notice or at least if they do, they don't seem to have the courage to take the situation in hand.

(I'm paraphrasing the following definitions and implications from Mons Ronald Knox book, The Church on Earth)

The Church is one. Therefore we should all be one in faith. One Catholic should believe no differently than the next.

But it is the case that there is confussion as to what we are actually meant to believe regarding Baptism, Ecumenism, the Church being the fullness of Divine revelation or subsisting as part of it, and the importance or unimportance of membership for salvation.

The Church is Holy; meaning that nothing is lacking for the salvation of her members in the dispensation of grace, primarily by means of her sacraments as a share in the redemptive merits of Christ her head.

But even the efficacy of these (sacraments) are questioned in some of their modern forms.

The Church is Catholic; or Universal in that it is and has the means of salvation for every human person who wishes to avail of them, and denies entry to no one who humbley submits to her authority.

But do we mean now that this universality incorporates all religions as a means to the same end? Many within the Church say Yes.

The Church is Apostolic; She traces Her roots back to the apostles and Christ Himself and proclaims faithfully throughout all time what the apostles believed and preached, while protecting the deposit of faith from all error and corruption.

Every one of these four marks of the Church have almost become invisible in our time. If the Church is identifiable by Her marks then little wonder many are asking, "Where precisely is the Church?

Is it to be found with the Neo Conservatives, the Liberals, the Traditionalists or the Sedevacantists? This is a dilemma for everyone who takes their faith seriously. One can't place oneself in one of these groups without anathematizing the others, at least implicitly.
Leaves plenty of scope for name calling.

Actually Columba, I have found that the Feeneyites (meaning the St. Benedict Center and it's supporters, and by extension those Feeneyites such as yourself and Duckbill) actually have the most Catholic mind in the whole matter because they accept Vatican II (It does not contradict Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus), they accept the validity of the New Mass, they have reservations about the New Mass and go to the TLM, but realize they do not have the competence to prohibit anyone from going to the Novus Ordo. They also realize that due to the confusion on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus those who hold the various loopholes regarding Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus could be in good faith. The St. Benedict Center also talks a lot about the Eastern rites on their website which many Trads are simply disinterested in.

In regards to sedevacantists the St. Benedict Center points out their errors at the same time holding a view of "no enemies on the right". In regards to the SSPX they say "We admire them. They don't like us" at the same time they ever so gently refute the SSPX's errors on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Brother Francis offered a great explanation of doctrine vs. discipline which is so often blurred by Trads. His explanation I heard was: Doctrine: Paul is a boy. (Can either be true or false). Discipline: Paul, go fetch some water. (Is a command and it can either be prudent or imprudent, but not true or false).

In the Feeneyites and specifically the Saint Benedict Centers I have seen truly an attitude of "sentire cum ecclesia". These were my impressions when I first started investigating Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus over 2 years ago and they are still my impressions today.


I think just as the Dominicans are popular for remedying the albegensian heresy, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart will go down in history as being the order that stood strong amidst all the post-Vatican II confusion.

Simple Faith seems like the kind of Catholic who can only deny there are any problems in the Church. Obedience? As Rasha said to what or whom?
Well the place I go to for mass breaks the rubrics for the Novus Ordo all the time, should I stop going? Should I correct him? I corrected him once and he said I was in mortal sin for correcting him!

The Church doesn't seem to care until there is a lot of noise or lawsuits, look at the sex scandals. They did NOTHING until money was involved. As much as I hate it, the Church (in its human aspect) will not do anything till there is a big stink, especially money.

Why so difficult to understand the concept of obedience to The Pope or to the Catholic Church?
I think the difficulty begins when one starts to believe that if they find fault with an individual or individual members of the Church it should automatically follow that it is the Church that is in crisis and not the individual members.
Do I believe that Priests, Bishops and Cardinals can ever error?
Listen carefully to my answer: YES.
Whenever that individual acts againts the teachings of the Church and acts against the authority of the Pope.
When this happens does it make me loose faith in the Church? Absolutely not.
Do I believe the Pope can error? Absolutely not when he acts and speaks with the authority of his God given position as head on the One Universal Church.
Can the Pope error as a person? Yes, even the Pope needs the Sacrament of confession. It would therefore not affect my faith if the Pope errored as an individual.
Did Jesus loose faith in Peter even after he denied knowing him?

The way I see things is this: A person is either male or female. A person is either a Catholic or not a Catholic.
Let me explain as I see it, the confussion starts when we decide we need more categories. The male or female not content with how God made them then expands to include their own viewpoint on sexuality and we then get homosexual, bisexual, transgender etc and it then becomes necessary to form into subgroups and act and live in certain lifestyles.
Catholics, not content to be a Catholic subject to the authority of the Pope decide they need more categories. The Catholics then become, Feenyite Catholics, Liberal Catholics, Neo Con Catholics, Sedevacantist Catholics, SSPX Catholics, Traditionalist Catholics, Melkites, Catholics who believe the Pope is a Legimate head but is still a heretic, Catholics who believe the Mass is invalid, Internet photo Catholics who base their beliefs on what a photo of a Pope alledgedly means. Catholics who pick and choose which Pope should be heeded and which should not, etc etc etc etc etc...
Can all these categories be correct? Obviously not when each contradicts the other.

And then people ask, why is there so much confussion in the church? Who or what should we obey?
It might seem too simple and uneducated for some but I prefer to believe in 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' under the authority of the Holy Father appointed by Our Lord.

Just a few other thoughts, I
Is it possible or right to be a certain type or brand of Catholic?
Does the Church allow for each of us to Choose the type of Catholic follower we want to be?
As Catholics are we permitted to follow other 'leaders' INSTEAD of the Pope, whether it be holy saints from history or modern day individuals such as Fr Feeny etc.
Are we permitted to self appoint are own Church leader to follow instead of the Pope.
In other words, as Catholics, can we say, I know better than the Pope and the Magisterium who are divinely appointed and infallible?
Can we pick and choose the bits we like and reject the bits we don't like?
Even with all the imperfections within the body of the Church can we not believe that Our Lord wil,l from these , make everything perfect in h
His Own way and in His Own time?

Simple Faith,
You've said all the above wthout even raalizing that you yourself abide in one of the mentioned categories.
I was labeled a Feenyite even before I knew what a Feenyite was. I've no objection to that. (if the hat fits, wear it).

I would see you aligned with the Neo Cons even if you don't class yourself as being one.
You no doubt would class yourself as simply "Catholic." I too would class myself the same. The labels are there of necessity so as to distinguish one particular view from another without claiming that only my group is Catholic. The particular Orders in the Church also have their distinctions, eg, Dominicans, Franciscans, Carthusians etc, but all remain Catholic (allbeit debatably so in some cases) but to think that you have the whole dilemma sussed, then you can claim more than I can -or indeed from what I've read -more than anyone else here can.
You, IMHO, have chosen the path of least resistance whereby despite the conradictions you can assert that "everything is fine," just follow the Pope.
My question is, "Which Pope do I follow?" Pope St Pius X, Pope Pius V, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI?

Each of the above can be followed in diciplinary matters that pertained to their time and each should be able to be followed in Dogmatic/Doctrinal matters that are not affected by time. As you can see no disparity between say, Pope St Pius X and say, Pope Benedict XVI, then that leaves you free to believe either that membership of the Catholic Church is vital for salvation or that salvation can be attained by membership of any religion. (How both can be true at the same time I do not know).
As I see an obvious disparity between the two, then I feel obliged to take into consideration the concensus of all Popes (as a whole) on the matter and let the very small (and recent) minority give account of how they are consistant with what we already belive and have always believed.

I don't see any disloyalty in this. Can my loyalty to one Pope (or many) ammount to disloyalty to another?

Thanks for the enlightenment Columba, there I was, all these years, naively believing I was just a Catholic when I was really a neo-con (can you get tablets for that condition?).
It is not I who claims that 'only my group is Catholic', my group is headed by a Divinely appointed leader, in the person of the 'present' Pope.
Has it become such a radical idea to 'just follow the Pope'?
Is that not why Jesus appointed a visible head for his Church here on earth so in fact we would know who to follow?
Did Jesus not give authority to the Pope of, 'whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,?
Your question is, "Which Pope do I follow?" Pope St Pius X, Pope Pius V, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI?
The answer is very simple, probably too simple for some, you are subject to the present Pope, Benedict XVI and that is who you should follow.
You don't have to worry that Pope Benedict doesn't know as much as yourself about the history of the Catholic Church or of it's traditions, teachings and dogmas whenever He is leading the present Church. I know it's nice to think that we are so full of wisdom and discernment that we could do a better job, but alas the Good Lord in his infinite wisdom and discernment did not appoint you or I, (not even the Dimond brothers), but instead He choose Benedict XVI. Now, if you have a problem with this appointment and know someone better for the job, then I guess you'll have to take the matter up with the Man up above.

Simple Faith wrote:
Thanks for the enlightenment Columba,

Your welcome.

there I was, all these years, naively believing I was just a Catholic when I was really a neo-con (can you get tablets for that condition?).

I think the procedure is that one first receives a check up (a reality one) and then the proper remedy is applied.

It is not I who claims that 'only my group is Catholic', my group is headed by a Divinely appointed leader, in the person of the 'present' Pope.
Has it become such a radical idea to 'just follow the Pope'?
Is that not why Jesus appointed a visible head for his Church here on earth so in fact we would know who to follow?

No. there are others here too who claim the same alligiance as you.
It is in fact quite a radical idea to "just follow the Pope." when the Pope himself would distinguish between his own private personal views and what he proposes as representing the official Church view (see Pope Benedicts comments on the condom contraversy). Also the Pope and all Catholics (maybe you would exclude yourself here) realize that there are different levels of assent (includeing no assent) proper to Papal teaching/speculation and how it is meant to be received.

Did Jesus not give authority to the Pope of, 'whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,?

True, and I don't dispute this but one must discriminate between what the Pope declares to be Binding and non binding. If you don't do this then you are usurping the authority of the Pope who you claim to be following, i.e, putting words in his mouth.

Your question is, "Which Pope do I follow?" Pope St Pius X, Pope Pius V, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI?
The answer is very simple, probably too simple for some, you are subject to the present Pope, Benedict XVI and that is who you should follow.

Thanks for the well intentioned enlightenment Simple Faith but you have prvided me with a false answer.
The authority of the present Pope doen't supercede that of previous Popes. The Present Pope is as much subject to the dogmatic pronouncements of previous Popes as you and I are. If the Pope where to infallbly declare a new dogma or impose a certain discipline then indeed I would be subject to these under pain of serious sin.
You render the term "Follow" as if this is absolute when in fact the Church herself does'n even make this claim.

You don't have to worry that Pope Benedict doesn't know as much as yourself about the history of the Catholic Church or of it's traditions, teachings and dogmas whenever He is leading the present Church.

You need to rephrase this as "Simple Faith doesn't have to worry" and speak for yourself regarding where the Church is being led -either directly or indirectly through silence or inaction- and it worries me moreso that the Popes do in fact know much more than me (or you) which makes some of their words and actions all the more (outwardly) reprehensible, (if you'd known better you'd do better).

I know it's nice to think that we are so full of wisdom and discernment that we could do a better job, but alas the Good Lord in his infinite wisdom and discernment did not appoint you or I, (not even the Dimond brothers), but instead He choose Benedict XVI. Now, if you have a problem with this appointment and know someone better for the job, then I guess you'll have to take the matter up with the Man up above.

Again you may exclude me on this one as I don't believe I'm full of discernment and wisdom. The Lord however did appoiont you and I to follow His commandments and whatever the Church should propose for our belief. If there be at present some confssion as to what the Church actualy does propse for our belief then the confussion can be countered by believing what the Church has taught always and everywhere and especially what she has taught as infallibly down through the ages.
So you see Simple Faith, the Man above is still in charge and has at least given us a certain capacity to see contradicton.

Please allow me to ramble in this reply, I haven't yet figured out how to to respond point by point, by putting into boxes the text of previous posts and then responding to each individual point in an oganised manner.

Anyway to clarify my position regarding following the Pope with obedience, and so as not to run off topic in future, here is my belief.
As I have previously mentioned I do not have a problem accepting that a Pope can error in a personal capacity, ie as an ordinary human being, and like everyone he too requires the sacrament of confession. Neither do I have a problem accepting that his personal/private viewpoints, on certain matters, do not require complete acceptence or obedience. To my knowledge the Church nor Pope Benedict does not expect us to do so, although I personally would think it prudent to give serious consideration to what the personal viewpoint of a Pope is.
So up to this point it seems we might be in agreement, even though it is in regards to the human weakness of a Pope in his human capacity to error.

Where we seem to drift apart on this matter in our belief that the Pope, in his offical capacity as Pope and when speaking with the Divine authority of His position could lead us astray. I belief he can not and has not, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me, that you think the Pope can (or possibly has) lead his flock astray in his official capacity as Pope.

When I state that we should follow the current Pope and you state that this is a, 'false answer', then I'm afraid we drift even further apart. I did not however suggest, as you might think, that the authority of the present Pope supercedes that of previous Popes. What I mean is, the present Pope incorporates all the authority of teachings of the previous Popes together with His authority to give his own guidance on matters.

I haven't to date in my posts quoted from different sources to back up what I belief and there are a number of reasons for this. Mainly, I did not believe that anything I had to say was so new or radical that it would require affirmation eg, we should follow the Pope (ok ok ok, in His "offical" capacity and not personal capacity) and we should defend the Pope from scurrilous attacks. ( I now realise that these beliefs may in fact be radical. God help us)

Also, like Ellisa said regarding her husband's faith, adherence to his Catechism was enough without too much consideration of implicit or explicit disires for Baptism etc.

Also, I like the idea of discussion straight from the head using the knowledge and beliefs we have acquired from life experience rather than a search to dig up supporting information. I do however, now realise, thanks to an earlier post by RashaLampa, that the nature of forums does involve backing up our points with supportive material. Seem fair to me.

Therefore Columba (and others), I would like your opinions on the following quotes.
(I did warn this post would be rambling).
So whilst on the subject of obedience to the Pope, let's see what previous poes had to say on this matter. (I'll move on to the saints views at a later date).

"No man outside obedience to the Pope of Rome can ultimately be saved. All who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church and died in final impenitence have been damned, and gone down into Hell". (Pope Clement VI) 1

"It is an absolute necessity to submit to the Supreme Pastor, to whom it is absolutely necessary for salvation to remain subject". (Pope Leo XIII) 2

"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". (Pope Boniface VIII) 3

"Those who are obstinate toward the authority of the Roman Pontiff cannot obtain eternal salvation". (Ven. Pope Pius IX) 11

"We teach and declare that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is immediate, to which everyone, both pastors and faithful, are bound to submit". (I Vatican Council) 12

"It is error to believe that, if the Pope were a reprobate and an evil man and consequently a member of the devil, he has no power over the faithful". (Council of Constance) 13

"If anyone condemns the dogmas or decrees promulgated for the Catholic faith and the correction of the faithful by the one presiding in the Apostolic See, let him be anathema". (Pope St. Nicholas the Great) 17

"It would be possible to multiply indefinitely citations from the best witnesses, all of whom clearly declare the attachment, veneration, submission, and obedience which must be accorded the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff by those who wish to belong to the one, true, holy Church of Christ in order to obtain eternal salvation". (Ven. Pope Pius IX) 18

Maybe we should start a new thread entitled, THERE IS NO SALVATION WITHOUT PERSONAL SUBMISSION TO THE POPE.

Simple Faith wrote:
Please allow me to ramble in this reply, I haven't yet figured out how to to respond point by point, by putting into boxes the text of previous posts and then responding to each individual point in an oganised manner.

It does take a bit of getting used to but to quote some one; after you select the "Reply" option, just scroll down to the post you wish to reply to and cut and paste the sections you wish use. Once youve pasted them on your typing board continue by high-lighting the relevent quote and select the "Quote" option at the top of your board. This will ebclose the section in a quote box.
Hope this helps. There's probably an easier way but this is how I do it.

Anyway to clarify my position regarding following the Pope with obedience, and so as not to run off topic in future, here is my belief.
As I have previously mentioned I do not have a problem accepting that a Pope can error in a personal capacity, ie as an ordinary human being, and like everyone he too requires the sacrament of confession. Neither do I have a problem accepting that his personal/private viewpoints, on certain matters, do not require complete acceptence or obedience. To my knowledge the Church nor Pope Benedict does not expect us to do so, although I personally would think it prudent to give serious consideration to what the personal viewpoint of a Pope is.
So up to this point it seems we might be in agreement, even though it is in regards to the human weakness of a Pope in his human capacity to error.

Yes, full agreemant here.

Where we seem to drift apart on this matter in our belief that the Pope, in his offical capacity as Pope and when speaking with the Divine authority of His position could lead us astray. I belief he can not and has not, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me, that you think the Pope can (or possibly has) lead his flock astray in his official capacity as Pope.

Well I do propose that this is not impossible but I don't do so on my own bat. I've checked out the Churches consideratins on this, i.e, Popes, Saints, Doctors and scholars and they presume that it can be possible for a Pope to err not just in his private capacity but also in his official capacity. Yes, this is scary but we are given advice as how to respond in such a case.

Cajetan:
“Immediately, one ought to resists in facie, a pope who is publicly destroying the Church; for example, to want to give ecclesiastical benefits for money or charge of services. And one ought to refuse, with all obedience and respect, and not to give possession of these benefits to those who bought them.”

Silvestra:
“What is there to do when the pope wishes without reason to abrogate the positive right order? To this he responds, ‘He certainly sins; one ought not to permit him to proceed thus, nor ought one to obey him in what is bad; one ought to resist him with a polite reprehension. In consequence, if he wished to deliver all the treasures of the Church and the patrimony of St. Peter to his parents; if he was left to destroy the Church or in similar works, one ought not to permit him to work in this form, having the obligation of giving him resistance. And the reason for this is, in these matters he has no right to destroy. Immediately evident of what he is doing, it is licit to resist him. Of all this it results that, if the pope, by his order or his acts, destroys the Church, one can resist and impede the execution of his commands.’”

Suarez:
“If the pope gave an order contrary to the good customs, one should not obey him; if his intent is to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it is lawful and valid to resist; if attacked by force, one shall be able to resist with force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.”

St. Robert Bellarmine:
“Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff that attacks the body, it is also licit to resist (him) who attacks the soul, or who disturbs the civil order, or, above all, he who intends to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of that which he wills. It is not licit, with everything, to judge him impose a punishment, or depose him, for these actions are accorded to one superior to the pope.”

If it were only me and my opinion it certainly would count for nothing but these are quotes from trusted and respected theologians.
I myself can't determine whether or not Popes have -by word, deed or silence- promoted heresy, but there are certain things of recent year that I for one am not comfortable with following blindly.

I don't like being in this position (in fact I hate it) and I think in justice and charity to the flock a Pope should speak and act clearly when there is obvious confussion among the laity (and indeed the clergy) concerning so many items of traditionally held beliefs.
After reading your quotes from various Popes and Councils, I beleve that the majority of these are being addressed to those who reject the Catholic faith and refuse to submit to the authority of the Church and her Vicar. This is different than following a Pope who has lapsed into heresy as the above quotes I provided would show.

Two of your quotes stand out in particular

"It is error to believe that, if the Pope were a reprobate and an evil man and consequently a member of the devil, he has no power over the faithful". (Council of Constance) 13

I certainly believe this is true and if a Pope were such (as described above) he could sure lead a lot of souls with him to eternal ruin. Such a Pope would not be an influence for the good but would be well resisted (hopefully) in his power which he used illegitimately.

"It would be possible to multiply indefinitely citations from the best witnesses, all of whom clearly declare the attachment, veneration, submission, and obedience which must be accorded the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff by those who wish to belong to the one, true, holy Church of Christ in order to obtain eternal salvation". (Ven. Pope Pius IX) 18

This of course is the norm and even with a renegade Pope we should follow all His disciplines and decrees which do not amount to sin or rejection of the faith.
What constitutes sin can be determined by all the faithful who Know (or should know) the Ten Commandments. Unfortunately many of our younger "Catrholic" generation cannot recite these.
What is De Fide can be determined by all the Faithful who have a basic grounding in catecheses and again, unfortunately the majority of our younger generation have not been given this. If ever there was such an oportunity for the devil to sieze control it is surely our present age.

I better stop here as my post is already too long.

simple Faith wrote:Just a few other thoughts, I
Is it possible or right to be a certain type or brand of Catholic?
Does the Church allow for each of us to Choose the type of Catholic follower we want to be?
As Catholics are we permitted to follow other 'leaders' INSTEAD of the Pope, whether it be holy saints from history or modern day individuals such as Fr Feeny etc.
Are we permitted to self appoint are own Church leader to follow instead of the Pope.
In other words, as Catholics, can we say, I know better than the Pope and the Magisterium who are divinely appointed and infallible?
Can we pick and choose the bits we like and reject the bits we don't like?
Even with all the imperfections within the body of the Church can we not believe that Our Lord wil,l from these , make everything perfect in h
His Own way and in His Own time?

Sorry but you are simple to belive that the Church will reform with passivity! The great reformers didn't have that approach. They called a spade a spade. Even nice genial St. Anthony of Padua would call bishops to the carpet.
"In a synod at Bourges in the presence of many prelates, he reproved the Archbishop, Simon de Sully, so severely, that he induced him to sincere amendment."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01556a.htm

Your Neo-Catholic attitude just reeks of laziness and smugness looking down your nose at those in the trenches working for the Church and its reform.

Sorry I missed your next post and it looks like you assume that "Feeneyites"= Sedevicantists-- at least that is my take on all your quotes pertaining to submission to the Pope.
Being a Neo-Catholic your points are not always clear.

Well you are dead wrong if you think that a "Feeneyite" is not loyal or submissive to the Pope, Benedict XVI, if you have any doubts.( Dimond Brothers excluded)

Duckbill, I don't assume ""Feeneyites"= Sedevicantists", firstly I do not know enough about 'Feeneyites' as I never heard of them until I came on this forum. The point I was making is that there is only 'One' true type of Catholic. Catholics should not consist of varities of breeds and cross-breeds, as in the dog world. I have been described as a Neo-Con (another variety that I only heard of on this forum). My belief is that we are either 'Catholic' and subject to Pope Benedict XVI, who we recognise and obey, as the Divinely appointed visible head of the Church or we are not.

As individuals we are entitled to have opinions and view points on all matters up to the point where the Church gives a definite ruling on the issue, at that stage we must humbly submit ourself to the authority of the Church even if it goes against our personal interpetation of the issue. We must not start excommunicating the 'Pope' because we think we know best, nor must we start diluting Church teaching and seeking 'opt out clauses' to avoid submission.
The Church has not given definite rulings on many matters and it is in these areas we should question and debate if we are so inclined.
I am not as you suggest 'looking down my nose' on others and appologies if I come accross as such.

As individuals we are entitled to have opinions and view points on all
matters up to the point where the Church gives a definite ruling on the
issue, at that stage we must humbly submit ourself to the authority of
the Church even if it goes against our personal interpretation of the
issue.

So then you accept that neither pagans, Jews, heretics or schismatics can be saved?


Pope Eugene IV, Council
of Florence,
“Cantate Domino,” 1441,
The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives;
that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments
contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards;and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

We must not start excommunicating the 'Pope' because we think we know best, nor must we start diluting Church teaching and seeking 'opt out clauses' to avoid submission.

There you go again accusing people of excommunicating the Pope! What kind of double speak is this? All 4 "Feeneyite" communities are approved by the Church and subject to the Pope, to insinuate that they are excommunicating the Pope when they may not agree with him on a prudential matter is beyond the pale!

duckbill 'doth protest too much, methinks'.
I did not say Feenyites excommunicate the Pope. I said I do not know enough about them but because of your reply I'm now interested to learn about 'All 4 "Feeneyite" communities are approved by the Church and subject to the Pope'. Maybe you could let me know the names of these communites (can I assume you belong to one?). Alarm bells always ring when 'Catholic' communities seem more focused on their earthly founder and then feel the need to assert their obedience to the Pope as an after-thought as in 'oh by the way we are approved by the Church'. I'll reserve further opinion until I learn more.

With regards to your quote from Pope Eugene IV, Councilof Florence, it is interesting that you, like some others always seem to think the quote ends with '... cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels'. The sentence,however, continues 'unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives'. This is because the Church does not and has not ever put a boundary or limit to God's mercy and on who God can choose to offer or bestow it upon by offering them (pagans, Jews, heretics or schismatics), even at the moment of death, the opportunity to join the One True Church.
Think about Matthew 20:1-16 when the vineyard workers who were called, offered work and hired only at the final hour, were yet given the same wage as those who had laboured from early morning. Obviously those who were working in the vineyard all day did not think the Lord should reward those who came to his vineyard at the final moment, but he replied, 'Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous? So the last will be first, and the first will be last.’
Should we therefore not be careful by assuming that the Lord won't allow them to be' 'joined to the Church before the end of their lives'.?
So in answer to your question, I do believe that 'Jews, heretics or schismatics can be saved, if the Lord so chooses, but at that stage they become Catholics.

Simple Faith I apologize for come down so hard. "Feeneyites" have been abused on other Catholic forms and accused of being a sedevacantist when they were not.

Here are links to the different communities:

Approved Religious Communities that Accept and Defend Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus:

Sisters of Saint Benedict Center Still River- rule St. Francis
http://sistersofstbenedictcenter.org/index.html
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart,(men) Still River
http://www.saintbenedict.com/
Benedictine Abbey, Still River--rule St. Benedict
http://abbey.org/
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart, (different from Still river groups) Richmond NH- rule St. Augustine
http://catholicism.org/

The first three are in the Diocese of Worcester Massachusetts. They all have different times of approval ( from memory so give or take a few years): Abbey, 1974, Sister of Fall River, 1989, Brothers of Fall River, 2005, Richmond group 2011. So during the reign of Paul VI, JPII, and B16 "Feeneyites" have received approvals. I think this is significan because it is just not a fluke of one group.

Here is the listing in the Worcester Diocese:

OSB – Order of St. Benedict (Benedictines of Still River)


MICM - Sisters of St. Benedict Center, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Saint Anne's House)

MICM – Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Immaculate Heart of Mary School)
http://www.worcesterdiocese.org/vicar/ReligiousCommunities/tabid/478/Default.aspx

letter from diocese
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24283795/Official-Letter-from-the-Diocese-Of-Worcester-regarding-communities-founded-by-Fr-Leonard-Feeney


No I am not a member of any of the groups, I have no connection with them what-so-ever. I don't think Fr, Feeney was a saint either, but he was right on his point that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was not being preached and it needed to be. ( I personally believe that if Fr. Feeney was supported the consecration of Russia would have happened at Vatican II)

Informative letter by Canon Lawyer Peter Vere on "Feeneyites" and Fr. Feeney
http://www.catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf


"Feeneyite" was used as derogatory term but, has become less so, I find it helpful to clarify positions.

Usually the whole quote is used from Florence but it doesn't change the meaning of the quote. To be joined to the Church for salvation would mean for the pagan, Jew, or Muslim, the need for the Sacrament of Baptism, without it they are outside the Church. For the heretic or schismatic, assuming they were validly Baptized, they would only need sufficient repentance of their sins for God to give the grace of salvation.

Feeneyites believe all can be saved but they need to be Catholic before death. If I gave you the impression that they have no possibility then I apologize for that too. God will find a way to give them the Sacrament of Baptism if they desire it.

To be a Catholic one first needs to be at least Sacramentally Baptized (as with infants) when reaching the age of discernment make an act of faith in the essentials of the Faith and to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
If you are sincere in investigating it here is a good doctrinal summery
http://catholicism.org/doctrinalsummary.html

I am not as you suggest 'looking down my nose' on others and appologies if I come accross as such.

What you write does come across that way. In fact, I have wondered if you are not an ex-sedevacantist because many of them come across the same way.

duckbill wrote:
Usually the whole quote is used from Florence but it doesn't change the meaning of the quote. To be joined to the Church for salvation would mean for the pagan, Jew, or Muslim, the need for the Sacrament of Baptism, without it they are outside the Church. For the heretic or schismatic, assuming they were validly Baptized, they would only need sufficient repentance of their sins for God to give the grace of salvation.

Feeneyites believe all can be saved but they need to be Catholic before death. If I gave you the impression that they have no possibility then I apologize for that too. God will find a way to give them the Sacrament of Baptism if they desire it.

And here we find Duckbill instructing the uninitiated on the true meaning of the Council of Florence when, in declaring “unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives”, that this can only mean that they must be “joined” to the Church in the sacrament of Baptism (what Pope Leo XIII actually called the ordinary and chief means of sanctification {Satis Cognitum}) and that this Feeneyite meaning positively excludes a salvific union with Christ by the bond of grace (in faith and charity) when water baptism is prevented by some necessity.

In other words, forget what the Church teaches through her authentic, living and permanent Magisterium, a “Feeneyite by desire” has spoken.

Btw, this is the same “Feeneyite” who tells us in very un-Feeneyite-like terms that no one can be justified by “the desire thereof” without the sacrament of Baptism (meaning the entire Church and all of her saints, doctors and theologians have been in error since the Council of Trent), and here he is giving instructions on the “true” meaning of unity with the Church as dogmatically declared by the Council of Florence.

You have probably already figured out, simple Faith, that you have no need of certain Feeneyites who tell you that you should ignore what the authentic, living and permanent Magisterium teaches with respect to how she understands and has always understood the salvation dogmas; your Catholic instincts won't betray you when you ignore these dogmatic Pharisees who see dissent from the authority of the Ecclesia Docens (the teaching Church) as a virtue.

duckbill wrote:
Sorry but you are simple to belive that the Church will reform with passivity! The great reformers didn't have that approach. They called a spade a spade. Even nice genial St. Anthony of Padua would call bishops to the carpet.
"In a synod at Bourges in the presence of many prelates, he reproved the Archbishop, Simon de Sully, so severely, that he induced him to sincere amendment."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01556a.htm

Your Neo-Catholic attitude just reeks of laziness and smugness looking down your nose at those in the trenches working for the Church and its reform.

Ah, here is our modern day St. Anthony of Padua "working in the trenches", "working for the Church and its reform" and ready to call Popes, Bishops, Councils, theologians saints and Doctors to the carpet for their errant teachings on the salvation dogmas and especially for their mistaken teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

The doctrinal "reform" must go on!

Of course, what Duckbill fails to tell us is that St. Anthony:

was well known for speaking to people directly about their sins, regardless of their social standing. In a famous story about Anthony, it is said that he was invited by the Archbishop Simon de Sully to preach at a synod in Bourges in 1225. In front of a large audience, Anthony denounced his host, the archbishop himself. His sermon was so powerful that the archbishop repented.(Encyclopedia Britannica)

Yes, he repented of his sins. Perhaps Duckbill will cause the Church to repent of her sins for teaching a "version" of the salvation dogmas and on baptism of desire and baptism of blood which are "opposed" to the defined dogmas of the Church.

What would we do without these modern day "Hammer of Heretics", as St. Anthony of Padua was known?