The Feeneyite believes Baptism of Desire and Blood is heresy against the definitions of the Council of Trent. Therefore, the Feeneyite most hold to the following 21 absurdities:
1. The Catholic Church has been promulgating heresy by catechism for 464 years from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
2. The Catholic Church has been promulgating heresy by Canon law for over 100 years.
3. The Catholic Church allows heresy to be taught throughout the whole Church for hundreds of years.
4. The Catholic Church is no different from Protestantism as far as having heresy.
5. Protestant and Eastern Orthodox religions are false religions because they teach heresy, but the Catholic Church remains the true religion when it teaches heresy by law and catechism.
6. Pope St. Pius V of the Council of Trent is also the pope to promulgate heresy against the same council.
7. All the popes and saints that taught Baptism of Desire and Blood after Trent were ignorant of the council’s dogma.
8. Pope Clement XIII didn’t know the Roman Catechism taught Baptism of Desire.
9. Pope Pius IX was ignorant of the council’s teaching.
10. Pope St. Pius X was ignorant of the council’s teaching.
11. Pope St. Pius X allowed a heretical catechism to be promulgated in Italy in his name.
12. Pope St. Pius X didn’t know baptism of desire was being promulgated in his name.
13. Pope Benedict XV was ignorant of the council’s teaching.
14. St. and Doctor of the Church Alphonsus Liguori didn’t understand the council’s teaching on Baptism and interpreted Trent to mean exactly opposite to its true meaning.
15. St. Charles Borromeo handpicked by the pope to explain Trent didn’t truly understand Trent.
16. St. and Doctor of the Church Robert Bellarmine didn’t understand the council’s teaching on Baptism.
17. All the popes and saints who teach Baptism of Desire and Blood reject Jesus’ true meaning in John 3:5.
18. The Old Testament made it safer and easier to get to heaven than the New Testament.
19. War broke out to prevent the First Vatican Council of defining the heresy of Baptism of Desire even though it is believed by the whole Church anyway.
20. Every layman that believes in Baptism of Desire and Blood is a heretic, but all the popes, saints, and doctors of the Church that do are not heretics. Only popes, saints, and doctors of the Church get to profess heresy without being actual heretics.
21. Defenders of Baptism of Desire and Blood using the teachings of popes, catechisms, canon law, saints, and doctors of the Church are bad-willed.
I just refuted your sedevacantist right here: https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/06/sedevacantism-is-heretical_6.html
Lol, You refuted nothing. Bishop Carmona already refuted your argument a long time ago. If you dug a little deeper, you’ll also find that in confession alone, teaching, sanctifying, and ruling is being used by the bishop/priest. We also can still elect a pope because your argument missed several key points. You also argued against the First Vatican Council. What’s most comical about your egotistical comment is that you think you did something new and special. We have already refuted your religion many, many times. If you truly want to refute sedevantism, you must show how Francis or some other bozo is the true pope of the Catholic Church but of course, you won’t be able to without refuting yourself. It’s that simple. Also, like how much a coward you are not posting your name to your work. You see my name on my articles and I have much to lose in doing so. What do you have to lose is posting your name? You already have the whole world on your side.
“Also, like how much a coward you are not posting your name to your work. You see my name on my articles and I have much to lose in doing so. What do you have to lose is posting your name? You already have the whole world on your side.”
Just like your buddy over here, who explicitly states that no bishops have ordinary jurisdiction:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/
SPERAY REPLIES: My friend can’t reveal his name because he’s a lawyer. What’s your excuse? That’s the point of my question you didn’t answer.
” Bishop Carmona already refuted your argument a long time ago.”
I’m not sure what he refuted. Are you suggesting there are bishops with ordinary jurisdiction?
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! You didn’t do your homework, did you?
As Mr Ryan Grant argues,
Bishop Thuc did not consecrate the first Sedevacantist Bishop until 1976. Until then he himself had waxed and waned in his opinions, even reconciling with Rome at one point. He did not even declare a Sedevacantist position until 1982. That means from 1958-1976 there was not one Bishop not in submission to the alleged “anti-Popes”. This means, after what you call the defections of the Bishops of the world from the Catholic faith, there was not one Bishop present to carry on the teaching of the Apostles. That means again for nearly 20 years there was NO MAGISTERIUM.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong. My friend Introibo answered this. Btw, Ryan Grant translated St. Robert Bellarmine and still doesn’t understand Bellarmine. Lol. You people are dishonest as hell, so take your satanic arguments and religion and go away.
“If you dug a little deeper, you’ll also find that in confession alone, teaching, sanctifying, and ruling is being used by the bishop/priest.”
Your confessions are invalid because you don’t have ordinary jurisdiction.
SPERAY REPLIES: Ordinary jurisdiction is not needed for valid confessions. St. Thomas Aquinas made that very clear.
“You also argued against the First Vatican Council.”
How so?
SPERAY REPLIES: You made ordinary jurisdiction a necessary requirement for electing a pope, when it’s not needed at all. Why don’t you defend your religion? You see, your pope doesn’t profess the Catholic faith because he professes heresy such as God willed the diversity of all religions and sex. He knows better and pertinacity is presumed since even children are required to know better. So how is Francis pope when he doesn’t profess the Catholic Faith? It’s over right there!
“Nope! You didn’t do your homework, did you?”
I read his letter. Beyond that, I don’t know what you’re referencing.
SPERAY REPLIES: Too bad.
” My friend Introibo answered this.”
He explicitly claims there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in the second paragraph of this article. http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/05/betrayed-by-benns.html
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree, so why don’t you reveal your name?
“Ordinary jurisdiction is not needed for valid confessions. St. Thomas Aquinas made that very clear.”
“Although the Church “in favorem fidelium” supplies jurisdiction in the case of a common error, she does not wish thereby to connive at the unwarranted assumption of authorization on the part of confessors. To compel the Church to supply jurisdiction is a grave sin, severely punished by the Church, and can only be justified in a case of grave necessity…. The spiritual life of the parish would thus be seriously deranged and this would constitute a grave necessity sufficient to excuse Caius from grave sin in compelling the Church to supply jurisdiction.”
You’d have to prove that such a grave necessity exists, but that’s really besides the point.
SPERAY REPLIES: Lol. I think our situation is pretty grave. We’ve proved it, which is why you don’t defend your religion. It’s indefensible. But thank you for proving my point that ordinary jurisdiction is not necessary.
“You made ordinary jurisdiction a necessary requirement for electing a pope, when it’s not needed at all. Why don’t you defend your religion?”
this is what Van Noort says,
Apostolicity of government – or mission, or authority – means the Church is always ruled by pastors who form one same juridical person with the apostles. In other words it is always ruled by pastors who are the apostles legitimate successors.
It has already been proved that Christ Himself founded a living organization, a visible Church. Granted that fact, it should be obvious that an essential part of that Church’s structure is apostolicity of government. For on no one but the Apostolic College, under the headship of Peter, did Christ confer the power of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling the faithful until the end of the world. This triple power, therefore necessarily belongs, and can only belong, to those who form one moral person with the apostles: their legitimate successors.
,,,
Neither is it enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example, the power of orders. The power of orders can be acquired even illicitly, and once acquired can never be lost. What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e. ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, posses also the power of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Sacrament of Confession covers it. Van Noort also taught:
Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. “For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” (MCC 30; italics ours).
By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the “Catholic Church”? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.
So how does your pastors have ordinary jurisdiction when they all profess heresy?
my article really wasn’t about the election of the pope (that was a secondary issue). If there is not episcopate to speak of, then by that very reason, a pope can’t be elected. It really had nothing to do with bishops having ordinary jurisdiction in electing a pope.
Where does the Church say so? Are you aware of Pope Hadrian V, who was never even a priest?
You have no business writing anything about theology. In the past, you’ve argued that Bellarmine required warnings for popes, that altar girls are not evil, and many other silly things.
“The Sacrament of Confession covers it. Van Noort also taught:”
No, it doesn’t because supplied jurisdiction never becomes ordinary jurisdiction. bishops must succeed the apostles in their ordinary office, meaning they must possess the threefold office in ordinary way, which is why van noort distinguishes between licit and illict consecrations.
Supplied jurisdiction provides the powers of governing, teaching, and sanctifying. Btw, St. Aquinas says they are licit and ordinary jurisdiction is not required. YOU ARE WRONG!
“Where does the Church say so?”
If there is no church, there is no pope. lol
Ah, couldn’t answer the question. There’s a church but without bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.
“How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.”
Public heretics aren’t severed from the church, only notorious ones are. an essential element of notoriety is the perception of heresy as heresy. without this, the person is not separated from visible communion.
You left out the fact that he was referring to material public heretics but none of them are members of the Church. Again, he said, “Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith.”
“You left out the fact that he was referring to material public heretics but none of them are members of the Church.”
That doesn’t matter. If the community at large doesn’t recognize it as heresy (e.g., through ignorance), then the person in question is not severed from visible unity..
THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. WHAT PART DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
“Supplied jurisdiction provides the powers of governing, teaching, and sanctifying.”
It supplies jurisdiction in one particular instance. My argument is that bishops must formally succeed the apostles in their ORDINARY OFFICE.
“Btw, St. Aquinas”
Aquinas = Aquino (city in Italy).
“says they are licit and ordinary jurisdiction is not required.”
If they have jurisdiction in that particular instance then of course they are also licit.
It supplies it enough to maintain the fact the Church exists with the powers even without ordinary jurisdiction. That’s the point.
Who are you? Why keep yourself anonymous? What are you afraid of?
“THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. WHAT PART DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?”
I don’t think you’re understanding. The material/formal distinction is irrelevant. What is relevant is the perception of heresy by the majority of the community. Supposing the current pope or previous popes taught heresy, clearly the majority of the community has not perceived this heresy. Hence his crime (or sin, whatever you like to call it), is not notorious in fact.
Dude, you’re not understanding. Heretics are not members of the Church for the reason Van Noort gives. You’re going into the crime of heresy, when in fact, the sin of heresy severs one from the BODY of the Church by it’s nature so says Pope Pius XII. Can. 188.4 spells it out concerning office.
I see that you’ve been reading Salza and Siscoe’s garbage. We’ve already answered all of their stuff. I’m not going to do again and again. I’m not going to post your comments if it’s the same crap we’ve gone over a thousand times before.
“It supplies it enough to maintain the fact the Church exists with the powers even without ordinary jurisdiction. That’s the point.”
Confession pertains to the internal forum only. whereas canon 196 says it is ordered toward both the external and internal forums. “The power of jurisdiction or governance, which exists in the Church by divine institution, is for the external and for the internal forum or conscience, whether sacramental or extra-sacramental.”
here is what van noort says:
“Neither is it enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example, the power of orders. The power of orders can be acquired even illicitly, and once acquired can never be lost. What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e. ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle.”
for van noort, apostolicity of government equates to formal apostolic succession.
Van Noort is giving his opinion, which is contradicted by other theologians such as Berry and Ott. Opinions don’t make a dogma.
Fr. Salaverri writes,
“it is a matter of divine right that the College of Bishops formally succeeds the College of the Apostles;”
“Therefore they always existed who, by divine right, fully succeeded the Apostles in their ordinary office.”
For, Christ committed to the same Apostles the ordinary office of teaching, sanctifying and ruling, and he did it perpetually to the close of the age (Matt 28:20),
The phrase “fully succeeded” is equivalent to formal succession, meaning, having the threefold power of teaching, sanctifying and governing attached to the office of bishop.
We’re not talking about the office but Apostolic succession. It’s not necessary for bishops to fully succeed to attain apostolic succession.
“Dude, you’re not understanding. Heretics are not members of the Church for the reason Van Noort gives. You’re going into the crime of heresy, when in fact, the sin of heresy severs one from the BODY of the Church by it’s nature so says Pope Pius XII. Can. 188.4 spells it out concerning office.”
The sin of heresy does not of its very nature sever one from unity with the visible Church, since the essence of the act of heresy is the formal rejection of doctrine, which can occur either privately or publicly. The degree of publicity (occult, public, or notorious), is a quality (or accident in Aristotelian terms), of a crime (or sin if you want it call it that). The only time when when heresy causes the loss of separation is when it is perceived as heretical by the broader community.
“Body” means visible Church. Game over! You’re wrong again.
““Body” means visible Church. Game over! You’re wrong again.”
I know that.
The sin of heresy by it’s nature severs one from the BODY OF THE CHURCH by its nature. Your argument comes from Salza, which I answered here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/a-note-to-john-salza-heresy-does-automatically-sever-one-from-the-church/
You’re finished.
You can call it a sin, you can call it a crime. I don’t care. The only time heresy separates one from the body of the church is when the heresy is perceived by the broader community. That’s my point. This has not been the case for the post conciliar popes (supposing they taught heresy).
That’s complete BS. It has nothing to do with whether the broader community recognizes the manifest heresy. Besides, the broader community agrees with the heresy which is impossible for the Catholic Church. YOUR ARGUMENT IS ABSURD!
“It has nothing to do with whether the broader community recognizes the manifest heresy.”
If the community doesn’t recognize it as heretical, then it might as well be considered hidden.
SPERAY REPLIES: If they see the heresy and don’t think it’s heresy, it doesn’t mean it’s hidden, it means they are heretical as well.
If no one knows that a proposition is heretical then there hasn’t been an infraction insofar as the society is concerned.
SPERAY REPLIES: So if heresy abounds but no one knows they’re believing in heresy no problem, eh? Society is good, eh?
“Besides, the broader community agrees with the heresy which is impossible for the Catholic Church. YOUR ARGUMENT IS ABSURD!”
I interpret all VII documents in line with church tradition.
SPERAY REPLIES: It doesn’t matter how you interpret them. Your popes have done the interpreting and they interpret them heretically.
“The sin of heresy by it’s nature severs one from the BODY OF THE CHURCH by its nature. Your argument comes from Salza, which I answered here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/a-note-to-john-salza-heresy-does-automatically-sever-one-from-the-church/”
I read the article. I don’t care what you call it. what matters is that the sin/crime is disseminated to the broader public, plus the perception of the heresy.
You don’t have to believe me, you can be wrong if you want to.
You can argue all you like about Vatican II. Sedevacantism is still heretical according to Catholic doctrine.
Here is Fr Augustine
The legislator, after having stated the modes and means by which an office is acquired or lost, now turns to the natural foundation and end of every office: the power of jurisdiction. This, he says, is by divine institution twofold. For the Church, being a perfect society intended for the salvation of souls, must exercise (cfr. can. 100) a jurisdiction which chiefly looks to the welfare of society as such, and at the same time must wield a power which directly touches the realm of conscience. Thus the Apostles were endowed with spiritual power from above. They as well as their successors were given the threefold power of making laws, deciding cases, and applying punishment. At the same time they also received the power of binding and loosing, which is exercised in the Sacrament of Penance. Moreover, St. Paul solved cases outside a strictly speaking private or internal tribunal, yet touching the conscience of individuals, as in the case of the incestuous man of Corinth and the two blasphemers. In addition, cases not necessarily connected with sacramental absolution may occur and have always occurred, e. g., the need of dispensing from vows, occult irregularities and impediments, absolving from occult censures, etc. This, then, is the range of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in foro externo and in foro inferno, which latter touches the conscience of individuals. The word jurisdiction is derived from ins dicendi, which means the right of taking cognizance of a case and deciding it according to law or equity. In general, jurisdiction may be said to be “a public faculty to rule or govern others.” This definition covers both jurisdiction in foro externo and jurisdiction inforo interno, because, though the latter touches conscience, it is the public authority of the church which bestows that power over the consciences of the faithful.
You have heard but you do not understand.
“If they see the heresy and don’t think it’s heresy, it doesn’t mean it’s hidden, it means they are heretical as well.”
Technically, that’s true. It’s still be public. But for all intents and purposes, it’s pretty much hidden.
No, it could mean they are ignorant of Catholic doctrine or that they interpret it in an orthodox manner.
No, you’re just wrong as always.
“You’re finished.”
No, my friend, you’re finished (alongside the heresy of sedevacantism). I’ve put a nail in the coffin of your diabolical sect.
You’ve not done anything but make yourself look foolish. We put the nail in the coffin of your diabolical sect a long time ago, which is why you can’t defend it. Your religion is full of heresy. Your pope puts out heresy often. You even defend things like altar girls, which is indefensible. You think you know your religion better than your popes. Lol. You don’t realize how utterly absurd your arguments are, but perhaps you do, which is why you don’t put your name on it.
“We’re not talking about the office but Apostolic succession. It’s not necessary for bishops to fully succeed to attain apostolic succession.”
Those who have merely material succession are not the legitimate successors of the apostles. this is clearly taught by Fr. Salaverri. and Van Noort
Fr. Salaverri continues in Book III, Chapter III, Article II,
1176. Apostolicity fundamentally is the perennial identity in the Church of the mission, which Christ gave the Apostles when he instituted the Church. Apostolicity is distinguished into at least three forms:
1). Of origin, which is the essential identity, not only specific but also individual of the constitution of the contemporary Church with that which took its beginning with th eApostles and from the Apostles.
2). Of doctrine, which the objective and individual identity of the doctrine fo the contemporary Church with the deposit of doctrine received from the Apostles and handed on.
3). Of succession, which is the juridical identity of the power of teaching, sanctifying and ruling of the contemporary Church with the ordinary power of the Apostles handed on by a legitimate succession.
…
1178. The apostolicity of succession is distinguished in two ways: 1) material, is the mere continuation of one person after another in the same office, without a necessary permanence of the same law; 2) formal, is the replacement of one person in the right sand obligation of another in some office, without any change in the law.
Apostolicity of formal succession is, therefore, that apostolicity of succession defined previously under 3); this will be direct, if by an uninterrupted succession it goes back to a certain apostle, the first pastor of the same Church; but it will be indirect, if the first in the series of successors properly received his jurisdiction from the pastor of another Church, who can legitimately confer it.
…
1180. The apostolicity of formal succession is proved, in which others are included.
A. What Christ instituted perpetually in the Church is its necessary property. But Christ instituted perpetually the juridical identity of the power of the Church of all ages with the ordinary power of the Apostles, to be handed on by a formal succession. Therefore the apostolicity of formal succession is a necessary property of the Church.
The consequence is clear, because the minor is the definition of the apostolicity of succession. The major is certain, because it is the definition of a necessary property.
The minor is explained: 1) Christ the juridical identity of power, because he conferred on the Apostles no other power except his own mission, and as one destined to endure perpetually, as was already proved John 17:18; 20:21; Matt 28:18-20; John 14:16-26.
The minor is explained: 2) The identical power of the Apostles is to be handed on perpetually by formal succession, because perpetuity is promised by Christ to the same Apostles: Matt. 28:20; John 14:16; but not to the same persons physically; therefore to the same ones morally or juridically, that is without any change of law, or by formal succession.
Our bishops are successors to the Apostles but they don’t carry ordinary jurisdiction. Theologian Bp Gerard de Laurier did not hold the same view as others. I don’t necessarily hold that ordinary jurisdiction is absolutely required. They do carry what’s necessary in order to keep the Church going. You might find other theologians that disagree as well, but you can’t make a dogma out of opinions.
“Van Noort is giving his opinion, which is contradicted by other theologians such as Berry and Ott. Opinions don’t make a dogma.”
Where is it contradicted? And it is the common doctrine of the church otherwise you don’t have apostolicty of government, since the authority over the internal forum is derived from the public authority. This is clearly stated by Fr. Augustine in the quote above.
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is defined by early 20th century canonist Fr. Francis Hyland as the public authority given to the Church to govern the baptized faithful toward the goal/end of their eternal salvation. He writes,
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction may be defined as “potestas publica regendi homines baptizatos in ordine ad salutem aeternam a Deo vel ab Ecclesia concessa.” The power of jurisdiction is divided by reason of the forum in which it is exercised into jurisdiction of the external forum and jurisdiction of the internal forum. Jurisdiction of the external forum has reference primarily and immediately to the common good and regulates the actions of the faithful to the Church as a visible society.
According to Fr. Hyland, ecclesiastical jurisdiction is ordered primarily toward the common good (i.e., the Church as a visible society). Without permanent jurisdiction of the external forum, the Church as a visible society would cease to exist. Therefore, the Sedevacantist belief that there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction destroys the visibility of the Church.
Again, you’re giving opinions. If the Church is required that bishops have ordinary jurisdiction, then at least one bishop has it even if I don’t know who he is. I don’t think it’s required. However, you have a bigger problem because none of your bishops are Catholic. Therefore, you don’t have jurisdiction either. Ott tells us that apostolic succession might be found in the early Anglican Church. Berry tells us that apostolic succession is found in the Eastern Church but serves as a negative mark since they don’t have the faith.
““Body” means visible Church. Game over! You’re wrong again.”
The “sin” of heresy DOES NOT of its very *nature* sever one from the BODY (visible unity) of the church. Since of its very *nature* is the rejection of doctrine, which can occur privately or be externally manifested. The extent of publicity is an *accident*. (in Aristotelian terms). This is basic logic. So what Pius XII is referring to is the crime of notorious heresy, not the sin of heresy which all theologians and canonist take to mean mental sin. As Fr. Augustine writes, “For a sin (e. g., mental apostasy or heresy) may be committed by the mind only, whereas a crime supposes an external act.”
Likewise, as theologian Ludwig Lercher S.J. argues,
There does not appear any reason why occult heretics more than other sinners should be excluded from the body of the Church. Heresy is not the gravest of all mortal sins: hatred of God is greater. Therefore if other very grave sins do not exclude from the body of the Church, neither does occult heresy. Public heretics are excluded not because of the gravity of their fault, seen that even material heretics [i.e., innocent] are outside the Church. The reason for their exclusion is the nature of the Church as a society which demands a unity in the profession of the same faith.
Occult heresy is not the issue. It’s public heresy only. You actually cite Lercher who is against you. He says, “Public heretics are excluded… The reason for their exclusion is the nature of the Church as a society which demands a unity in the profession of the same faith.” NONE OF YOUR BISHOPS PROFESS THE SAME FAITH! You are in trouble. Thank you for arguing on my behalf. LOl.
One of the conditions of notoriety is that not only must the heretic be under ecclesiastical censure, but that the community must know that the delinquent is under ecclesiastical censure.
Fr. Charles Herbermann
The matter of censures was seriously affected by the Constitution “Ad vitanda” of Martin V in 1418. Prior to this constitution all censured persons, known to be such by the public, were to be avoided (vitandi), and could not be communicated with in divinis or in humanis, i. e. in religious or in civil intercourse.
Likewise, Fr. Hyland writes,
It is notorious by notoriety of fact when a delict, which ***is publicly known to be punished by excommunication,*** is committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any artifice or excused by any subterfuge of law.87 Notoriety either of law or of fact suffices to bring an excommunicate under the legislation of Canon 1066.88
Censures are not for popes and cardinals. Can. 188.4 spells it. I quote the theologians here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/canon-188-4-and-defection-of-faith-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-iii/
The ‘form’ of apostolic succession is the authority to govern (i.e., jurisdiction in the external forum). Jurisdiction primarily exists for the external ordering of society as such (i.e., common good). Without authority in the external forum, you can’t order society toward its common good, which negates the visibility of the church.
I disagree. We don’t have bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, yet we are visible, with the 4 marks and are working toward the common good of society. YOUR RELIGION DOESN’T HAVE ANY OF THE 4 MARKS. SEE https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/12/21/missing-the-marks-the-church-of-vatican-2/
The necessity of formal apostolic succession is also contained in the decree of PA
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
The reason for the necessity of the public jurisdiciton is toward the ordering of society as such toward the end for which she was instituted.
the pope must formally succeed St. Peter.
yet Christ instituted the college of apostles, which are formally succeeded by the college of bishops, which means, that there must exist other bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.
WE don’t deny the jurisdiction of the pope. And, you just helped our position with your argument. The Church can exist just fine without a pope, which means it can exist without ordinary jurisdiction.
Thanks for mentioning Fr. Berry. I’m wondering whether you actually read the sources you cite.
“Finally, the Church is Apostolic in ministry (or succession), because the authority which Christ conferred upon the Apostles has come down through an unbroken line of legitimate successors in the ministry of the Church.
Apostolicity of origin and of doctrine are easily understood without further explanation, but some knowledge of succession is necessary for a proper conception of apostolicity of ministry. Succession, as used in this connection, is the following of one person after another in an official position, and may be either legitimate or illegitimate. Theologians call the one formal succession; the other, material. A material successor is one who assumes the official position of another contrary to the laws or constitution of the society in question. He may be called a successor in as much as he actually holds the position, but he has no authority, and his acts have no official value, even though he be ignorant of the illegal tenure of his office. A formal, or legitimate, successor not only succeeds to the place of his predecessor, but also receives due authority to exercise the functions of his office with binding force in the society. It is evident that authority can be transmitted only by legitimate succession; therefore the Church MUST have a legitimate, or FORMAL, succession of pastors to transmit apostolic authority from age to age. One who intrudes himself into the ministry against the laws of the Church receives no authority, and consequently can transmit none to his successors.
E. Sylvester Berry, “The Church of Christ An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treaties,” (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1927), 77-78.
You didn’t quote all of it. Why? You left out the part of the Eastern Orthodox. What’s funny is that Berry condemns you not me. Your bishops have no authority because they don’t profess the faith. Your bishops are not legitimate. They have gone against the laws of the Church and God. Your bishops aren’t even valid bishops, much less, Catholic ones. Your pope denies the Catholic faith.
“You didn’t quote all of it. Why? You left out the part of the Eastern Orthodox. What’s funny is that Berry condemns you not me. Your bishops have no authority because they don’t profess the faith. Your bishops are not legitimate. They have gone against the laws of the Church and God. Your bishops aren’t even valid bishops, much less, Catholic ones. Your pope denies the Catholic faith.”
You are a liar and a heretic.
SPERAY REPLIES: I see that you can’t defend the fact that none of your bishops are Catholic.
Fr. Berry writes,
“Most of the Orthodox churches of the East have valid Orders, and to that extent may be called Apostolic; they have Apostolic succession of the power of Orders. In some cases they may also have a material succession of bishops from Apostolic times, but this avails them nothing, since they lack both unity and Catholicity, — two essential marks of the true Church. In no case do they have legitimate succession; there is no transmission of jurisdiction because they have withdrawn from communion with Rome, the center and source of all jurisdiction.
SPERAY REPLIES: They have Apostolic succession of the power of orders. Notice also that might also have a material succession. But they don’t have unity or Catholicity but our sede bishops do have unity and Catholicity.
pp. 103-104
On page 78 he also writes,
“Succession in the Church differs from that in other societies from the fact that there is a twofold power to transmit, — the power of Orders and the power of jurisdiction or government. The power of Orders is purely spiritual and concerned directly with the conferring of grace; it is obtained through the Sacrament of Orders validly received and cannot be revoke by any power of the Church. For this reason, the power of Orders may be obtained by fraud or conferred against the will of the Church by anyone having valid Orders himself, and therefore does not depend upon legitimate succession.
Jurisdiction is authority to govern and must be transmitted in the Church as in any other society; it can be conferred only by a lawful superior, according to the constitution and laws of the society and may be revoked at any time. Consequently jurisdiction in the Church can neither be obtained nor held against the will of her supreme authority; sufficient therefore, that a church have valid Orders; it must also have legitimate succession of ministers, reaching back in an unbroken line to the Apostles, upon whom our Lord conferred all authority to rule His Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: We most certainly have succession of ministers.
…
Thesis. The Church of Christ is Necessarily Apostolic in Origin, Doctrine, and Ministry.
…
c) Ministry. It is evident that there can be no authority in the Church save that which comes directly or indirectly from her Divine Founder, Jesus Christ. But there is not the slightest intimation in Scripture or tradition that Christ ever promised to confer authority upon the ministers of the Church; consequently it can only be obtained by lawful succession from those upon whom Christ personally and directly conferred it, i.e., from the Apostles. In other words, the Church must be Apostolic in her ministry by means of a legitimate succession reaching back in an unbroken line to the Apostles.
E. Sylvester Berry, “The Church of Christ An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treaties,” (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1927), 78-80
SPERAY REPLIES: Our bishop didn’t break away like the Eastern Orthodox and your bishops with heresy. Our succession may not have ordinary jurisdiction because of the situation of not having a pope, but they do have a ministerial succession with the power of jurisdiction supplied by the Church in our extraordinary circumstance. What’s your explanation for your religion that broke away in heresy?
“I disagree. We don’t have bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, yet we are visible, with the 4 marks and are working toward the common good of society. ”
You have yet to put forth any sources in support of your absurd thesis. Without ordinary jurisdiction, the church as a visible society ceases to exist. canon 196 of the 1917 code clearly contradicts as well as all the canonists and theologians I’ve read. In fact, I’m still waiting for you to cite Fr. Ludwig Ott as to where he contradicts me. I have the book on my desk, waiting for you to give me the page number.
SPERAY REPLIES: What’s absurd is the idea that Francis is pope. As for Ott, he wrote: In addition, it is uncertain whether the consecration of the Anglican Archbishop Matthew Parker (1559), on whom the apostolic succession in the Anglican Church depends, was performed by a validly consecrated consecrator or by a consecrator who was consecrated at all.
“WE don’t deny the jurisdiction of the pope. And, you just helped our position with your argument. The Church can exist just fine without a pope, which means it can exist without ordinary jurisdiction.”
Besides being a liar and a heretic, are you also stupid? How does the passage from PA support your conclusion that the church can exist without the pope? What it says is that Pope must FORMALLY succeed the apostle Peter, not that the church will always have a pope every minute of its existence. Ordinary jurisdiction always exists in the church through the college of bishops.
This is your last comment I’m approving since you won’t be calling me a liar and heretic, you liar and heretic. You see, two can play that game and it gets nowhere. The Church exists every time a pope dies. Sometimes the Church exists for many years without a pope. Suarez tells us that the Church can go for a generation without a pope. Other theologians tell us the same as I’ve posted them elsewhere on my site. The conclusion is that since the Church must have a pope, his universal jurisdiction must be passed on, etc. and yet the Church can and has survived for many years without a pope, the Church doesn’t have to have a pope to exist or else it ceases to exit every time a pope dies. Yet, the pope is more important than the bishops and if it can exist without a pope, it can exist without ordinary jurisdiction in its bishops.
All you give are opinions and opinions don’t make dogma. I have a whole website showing how your popes aren’t popes for the fact they don’t profess the Catholic faith and your pope doesn’t come close. Your religion is heretical which is impossible and yet you’re going to attack sedevacantism over jurisdiction. We all admit that if it’s necessary than it exists even if we don’t know where and how, but I don’t think it’s necessary anyway. That’s an opinion unless you can show that papal teaching that says it absolutely must exist.
Now take your garbage and go away you devil. You’re a rotten liar who can’t defend his own religion, nor do you even try.
“Occult heresy is not the issue.”
The issue is your view that “heresy of its very nature” severs one from the body of the church. As I already explained, heresy of its very nature is the rejection of dogma, the extent of publicity is an “accident” of heresy. So the statement “heresy of its very nature” severs one from the body of the church is false, which is why I quoted Lercher who explains that it is not the nature of heresy that severs one from the body of the church, since there are far more grievous sins, but rather its publicity.
SPERAY REPLIES: You just said the teaching of Pope Pius XII is false for it is he who taught, ““For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” and Van Noort explains how this applies. YOU SAY IT IS FALSE! Lercher is not rejecting it. He says that “occult heresy” does not exclude. He’s talking about occult when Pope Pius XII, Van Noort, and I are referring to public or manifest heresy.
“Censures are not for popes and cardinals. Can. 188.4 spells it. I quote the theologians here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/canon-188-4-and-defection-of-faith-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-iii/”
It is ironic that you link that article. since In the comment section you write, “Visibility simply refers to external forum.” Since you guys don’t have jurisdiction in the external forum, you’ve destroyed the visibility of the church..
SPERAY REPLIES: We do have jurisdiction supplied by the Church. But the article specifically shows why you’re completely wrong about heresy.
Canon 2197 distinguishes three levels of publicity: occult, public and notorious. Only those who are notorious in fact are severed from the body of the Church. Notoriety requires that (1) the heresy be disseminated to the majority of the community (this is the majority view among the canonists), and (2) be perceived as heresy. Note that according to Cardinal Billot, it is notorious heresy that severs one from the body of the church, and not merely public heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES:I see that you get your info from John Salza and I deal with it on Salza’s Second Error at https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/john-salza-on-sedevacantism-part-1/
“Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Billot didn’t believe a pope can be a heretic in any sense of the word. He writes: Moreover, if, bearing in mind the Providence of God, it is impossible for a Pontiff to fall into occult or merely internal heresy, he can much less fall into an exterior and notorious heresy that would carry along with it far, far greater unbecoming developments. But the divinely established order utterly requires that the Supreme Pontiff as a particular person cannot be a heretic, even by losing faith internally. “For the Pontiff not only must not and cannot preach heresy, but he also must always teach the truth, and he will do it without a doubt, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brothers. But how, I ask, will a heretical Pontiff confirm his brothers in faith and always preach the true faith? If nothing else, God can wrest from his heretical heart a confession of the true faith, just as he once put words into the mouth of Balaam’s ass. But that would be violent and not in accord with the usual workings of the Providence of God, Who regulates all things in an agreeable manner.”
Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church… A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”
SPERAY REPLIES: A crime is notorious notorietate facti when it is publicly known and has been committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any artifice or be excused by any legal assumption or circumstantial evidence.
“We all admit that if it’s necessary than it exists even if we don’t know where and how”
You just destroyed the visibility of the church again. as a self-appointed expert in canon in law you really are stupid.
I’m not a self appointed expert or else I wouldn’t quote the experts for it all. I have shown that you are the one stupid as you oppose Pope Pius XII and the very experts you use. LOL.
Now I finished with you. No more.
Card. Manning said the Church “for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth.” So it’s possible that we don’t know who, where, or how bishops exist with ordinary jurisdiction. You’re actually criticizing Manning and the Fathers.
why don’t you post the quote from Fr. Berry? Are you afraid to admit that you are a liar?
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope, I posted and answered it. Now are you going to reveal your name or are you afraid to admit that you’re the liar?
“Pope Pius XII, Van Noort, and I are referring to public or manifest heresy.”
Pius XII doesn’t mention the word public.
SPERAY REPLIES: The whole context is about public heresy.
I simply take what Van Noort says regarding the internal sin of heresy “destroys the interior unity of the faith from which unity of profession is born, separates one from the body of the Church dispositvely, but not yet formally,” and apply it the passage by Pius XII.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not talking about internal sin of heresy, Robert Siscoe? He says quite plainly that formal and material heretics are outside of the BODY of the Church.
“A crime is notorious notorietate facti when it is publicly known and has been committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any artifice or be excused by any legal assumption or circumstantial evidence.”
I already gave you two quotes above showing that an essential element of notoriety is the perception that a crime qua crime has occurred.
SPERAY REPLIES: NO, you misrepresent the plain teaching that heretics are outside of the Church.
look at what your stupid friend here says:
Benns then attacks both bishops because they signed the documents of Vatican II. Since they signed the documents they were “heretics” and “outside the Church.” Therefore, they cannot be presumed to have valid sacraments. As demonstrated above, as long as the Catholic Rite is used (which it always was), the intention is presumed correct. Were Lefebvre and Thuc heretics? No. The documents were signed under the appearance of coming from legitimate Church authority, and the “pope” asked them to sign. The essence of heresy is denial of a dogma with stubborn resistance to the Church’s authority. The bishops at Vatican II were in a unique situation of having a false pope, and many didn’t want to even contemplate such an event. After the heresy became apparent when the bishops went home after the Council, almost all did accept it.
However, suppose, ad arguendo, they were heretics. They weren’t declared heretics, for by what authority could they be declared such?
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/05/betrayed-by-benns.html
My friend is not stupid but you are. You can’t even understand very simple sentences. You’re like the Feeneyites that twist everything.
“Nope, are you going to reveal your name or are you afraid to admit that you’re the liar?”
ahhahah! If you go read chapter 8 of Marks of the Church by Bellarmine, you’ll see that you’re incompetent and don’t know basic theology
Okay, since you don’t deal with the fact that your religion isn’t Catholic nor will you reveal who you are, not can you understand simple things, I see no reason to continue. I’m wasting my time with a fool. The rest of your comments will be sent to spam. Btw, Bellarmine destroys your counterfeit religion. It’s your religion that has none of the marks according to Bellarmine.
There is no question in my mind that this is the same idiot who argued with me in the Novus Ordo Watch combox defending Lumen Gentium #16 that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics.
Oh, so this guy is obsessed with sedevacantists. Well, he won’t be getting anymore time here. He’s probably over at Introibo, too. Reminds me of the Feeneyites who don’t know how to stop. They have a sickness of soul!
The Vatican II sect certainly has incurred the wrath of Almighty God as per Pope St. Pius V papal bull Quo Primum. Since the sect did change the Holy Mass This in itself is evidence enough to embrace the Sedivacantant position. I believe the Vatican II heresy is a chastisement from God because of modernism in the Church. The “Third Secret” of Fatima points to this time in Church history, is it the “Great Apostasy’ my thoughts say no. My belief is the Vatican II sect will fall. We see it crumbling every day. Christ’s bride will rise from the Catacombs immaculate and perfect to battle antichrist after the Great Apostasy. Our Lady will triumph according to Fatima. That triumph will include the Church’s victory. I understand we differ on this since I read your book TKTTA but this isn’t a salvation issue just differing opinions.
While I agree with you that there certainly are people who fit your description of Feeneyism, I would have to point out that Fr. Feeney isn’t one of them. And probably not many of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (his followers) either. Your description would better fit the followers of the Dimonds or Fr. Wathen. Fr. Feeney on the other hand explicitly affirmed Baptism of Desire and he explicitly affirmed that BOD does justify the recipient. What he taught was that no one can be saved unless they first receive water baptism. He didn’t go into detail about how someone who is justified by BOD could fail to be saved. But certainly the criteria for reception of BOD does not rule out the possibility of receiving it well before death. In which case, one would also have to receive the grace of final perseverance in order to be saved. Fr. Feeney believed that those who received the grace of final perseverance would also receive the grace of water baptism. In any case, it is ironic that Fr. Feeney is condemned for beliefs that he never held. And if you read the arguments against Fr. Feeney in the 1940s, they never mention any of your accusations against him.
I’ve read many things from Fr. Feeney. He believed in a type of Baptism of Desire, but believed that such persons went to neither heaven or hell. When asked where such individuals went, he would simply reply that he didn’t know. Let me direct you to an article about Fr. Feeney and other bizarre and heretical teachings that came from him: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-sickness-of-soul.html
You didn’t even mention the Angelic Theologian who clearly taught there to be three kinds of baptism (ST III:66:11).
I’m thoroughly bewildered by the depth of stupidity of your guest commenters and even more so by their efforts to defend their stupidity. Your answers were terrific and I applaud your tolerance, time and trouble to address them. How anyone can be so lost and twisted with understanding the Catholic Faith is beyond comprehension…just a world full of dumb-ass I suppose. It’s a crying shame. Keep up the good work!