Sedevacantism

 We have not broached the subject of Sedevacantism, because we like to stay focused on The Dogma and the current crisis in the Church. Frankly the Sedvacantism problem is so convoluted that we couldn't dedicate time to a full rebuttable.

Frankly most of the rebuttals we have seen, appeared weak to us. Searches for upcoming crisis with the SSPX must have triggered this video into our feed and we were pleasantly surprised. We are thankful for the work done in this video documentary.

This is a well done expose of Sedevancantism. I think the producers of this documentary may not know, that like Traditionalists exits inside the Church in communion with the Pope, so too the majority of "Feeneyites" are also in communion with the Church. It is a small sliver of Sedevancantists who reject Baptism of Desire, mainly the Dimond brothers.

The Dimonds do some good work on EENS but we cannot agree with them about Sedvacantism nor some other matters they hold, like rejection of NFP.

We don't post much because time is short and we covered a majority of the topics we wanted to cover.

In any case watch this documentary

'Implicit Faith in Christ' Does Not Suffice for Justificatio

By Brother André Marie (from  https://catholicism.org/ )

 

FATHER Thomas Crean, O.P., Dr. Alan Fimister, and Dr. John Joy have authored a twenty-five-page scholarly article, written in the scholastic format, in the pages of the theological journal, Divinitas. Called “Can a Person Be Justified by ‘Implicit Faith in Christ’?,” the article is available for purchase as a download from the Divinitas website (at $4.28, it’s a bargain).

The article’s abstract gives the scope of the work of these three scholars:

In this article the question is treated whether explicit faith in Christ is necessary for justification. The introduction specifies the state of the question, lays out the thesis that is being defended, and gives the reasons for the scholastic format of the article. The objections are then stated. The arguments stem from both speculative and positive theology involving all possible sources: Scripture, Magisterium, Church Fathers, etc. The respondeo affirms explicit faith in Christ as a necessity of means for justification, insisting on the gratuity and supernaturality of salvation. The contrary opinions of some later theologians are then briefly exposed. Lastly the objections are each answered individually.

The authors opted to use the scholastic format, first stating the objections to their thesis (eighteen of them!), then a sed contra (“on the contrary”), then the detailed development of their own thesis, followed by answers to the objections. All this is in the fashion of Saint Thomas Aquinas and other mediaeval scholastic theologians. Crean, Fimister, and Joy adopt this method not as an exercise in creative anachronism, but, as they say, in order to separate their own positive statement of the thesis they are upholding from their replies to objections against it.

Pope Pius IX Did Not Teach Salvation Outside The Church

 While we don't agree with Sedevacantism the Dimonds do excellent work on EENS. Here is an excellent job on the controversy of Pius IX:

The Errors of the Laisneyites

 Catholic Vox editor: Here we present an older defense of EENS defened by Michael Malone, against Fr. Laisney of the SSPX.

=================================================

FOREWORD In a September 1998 article in The Angelus, house organ for the Lefebvre Society of St. Pius X, Fr. François Laisney attacked Fr. Leonard Feeney (R.I.P.) and the dogmas of the Catholic religion for which he was so famous for championing in this, an age of heresy run wild. My refutations of Fr. Laisney's positions are delivered consecutively, as in a debate.   Mike Malone Three Errors of the Feeneyites By Rev. Fr. François Laisney   Error I. Misrepresentation of the Dogma, "Outside the Church There Is No Salvation." The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." It is scarcely a misrepresentation to take the Popes literally when they define a dogma of the Church which must be taken literally if it is to be taken at all. On the contrary, it is a misrepresentation of a defined dogma to say that it does not really means what it literally says. And to lump all such who take the Popes at their word "Feeneyites" is to categorize all faithful and orthodox Catholics, indeed including even little recently-baptized infants, as followers of Fr. Feeney. Catholics do not "take their doctrine" from Fr. Feeney, nor, in fact, do all those who believe literally what the Church teaches. Even if Leonard Feeney had never existed, we would have to believe what the Popes have defined for us. Logically, we might then be called "Eugene-the-Fourthites" or "Innocent-Thirdites" or "Boniface-Eighthites," and so on. Besides, why denigrate the good name of a priest personally exonerated by a reigning Pontiff by calling his close associates "Feeneyites"? In English, such unsolicited slurs go back at least to the days of Shakespeare, when the members of the Company of Jesus were named by those who detested the truths taught by them "Jesuites." But, for the sake of concision - and since even the name "Jesuit" came into such unequalled glory even in the days of Shakespeare - we will allow Fr. Laisney's appellation, although both uncharitable and inaccurate, to stand.   The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation." This is absolutely untrue, since no Catholic is permitted to hold any particular interpretation of dogma but they must indeed believe, as Trent defined infallibly, that without baptism of water there is no salvation whatsoever possible (Canon V, On The Sacrament of Baptism). Moreover, to misrepresent the Feeneyite crusade as one solely for water, thus reducing the over-all "package," does not follow at all, nor is it a true representation of the totality and impact of Fr. Leonard Feeney's crusade for the conversion of America.

The Catholic Dogma -- Book by Rev. Michael Müller, C.SS.R

 

 

Full book found here

http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/The_Catholic_Dogma/Contents.html

The Catholic Dogma - Contents

---

   The Catholic Dogma
    by Rev. Michael Müller, C.SS.R

"Extra Ecclesiam Nullus omnino Salvatur."
"Out of the Church there is positively no Salvation." - Fourth Lateran Council, 1015

"Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur."
"Not to oppose erroneous Doctrine is to approve of it, and not to defend at all true Doctrine is to suppress it." - Innocent III.

Index
Preface
Chapter I. Introductory
Chapter II. The Infallible and only True Guide to Heaven
Chapter III. The Great Revolt Against Christ
Chapter IV. Dishonesty of His Impudence Bishop Coxe
Chapter V. Refutation of the False Assertions of Rev'ds Sir Oracle, Cronin and Young.

Chapter V - PART I.

There is no salvation out of the Church.

§  1. S.O begins to comment on some answers, contained in our little work, "Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine," (first edition)
§  2. S.O. continues to speak ex cathedra.
§  3. S.O. examines and explains the question and answer, "Have Protestants any faith in Christ?  A. They never had.
§  4. What Catholic faith is.
§  5. What Protestants' belief in Christ is.
§  6. More false oracles of Sir Oracle.
§  7. S.O. declares truth to be rant and abuse.
§  8. S.O. continues to declare false what is true.
§  9. S.O. declares wholly untrue what he cannot understand.
§ 10. S.O. avows that our conclusion is correct, but tells more d--d lies.
§ 11. S.O. declares that the final sentence of the Eternal Judge, "I know you not--Depart from me, etc." will fall, not on Protestants, but only on bad Catholics; but from his own words it is proved that Protestants, too, are included in that sentence.
§ 12. S.O. declares the honest life of Protestants a standing reproach to bad Catholics.
§ 13. S.O.'s. pharisaical language.

Chapter V - PART II.

Those who live in heresy without being guilty of the sin of heresy.

§  1. Natural Law.
§  2. The written Law.
§  3. The New Law or the Law of Grace.
§  4. Conscience in general.
§  5. Kinds of conscience:

1. The right or true conscience.
2. The certain conscience.
3. The timorous or tender conscience.
4. The doubtful conscience.
5. The lax conscience.
6. The perplexed conscience.
7. The scrupulous conscience.
8. The erroneous or false conscience.

§ 6. What heretics are not guilty of the sin of heresy -- Refutation of Rev. A. Young's erroneous doctrine on divine faith of material heretics.
§ 7. Invincible or inculpable ignorance neither saves nor damns a person.
§ 8. How Almighty God leads to salvation those who are inculpably ignorant of the truths of salvation.
§ 9. Those who sincerely seek the true religion.
§ 10. S.O. on confession.
§ 11. S.O. points out the road to heaven for heathen and Protestants of every denomination.
§ 12. S.O. gives us credit for our correct doctrine in a way very dishonorable to himself.
§ 13. S.O. as Catechist.
§ 14. Liberalism condemned by the Church.

Karl Rahner and the Unspoken Framework of (Much of) Modern Theology - OnePeterFive

 

onepeterfive.com

Peter Kwasniewski, PhD

---

Charles Coulombe’s interesting remark in a recent article that Pius XII, for all his intransigence against dogmatic modernism, allowed Father Karl Rahner, S.J., to be the editor of the prestigious Denzinger prompted me to take up the question of Rahner’s theology and the immense influence it has had on modern Catholic discourse. His influence is such that it is no longer even felt or perceived as such, but has successfully created an atmosphere, a set of implicit assumptions, a mental miasma within which many theologians and students work without even realizing that it is Rahnerian rather than Catholic. Just as for many centuries nearly every work of theology and spirituality bore the unmistakable imprint of St. Thomas—whether he was expressly cited or not—so too, the unmistakable imprint of the Jesuit of Innsbruck is to be found nearly everywhere, including in authors who are styled “conservative.”[1]

Inevitably, a figure of Rahner’s magnitude, who published dozens of volumes of dense material, is not someone it is easy to summarize, and I offer the following “big picture” fully recognizing that it will lack nuance. However, I am convinced there is a big picture at work; that we can accurately identify what it is; and that it is sufficient for assessing his impact and raising critical questions about it. Every thinker has certain guiding ideas that coalesce around a few major themes, and if one can find out what those are, one has a sort of “key” to the rest.

Explaining the Faith - Freemasonry: Meaning and Mission

 What is Freemasonry and why does the Catholic Church condemn it? Is it justified or a misunderstanding? Join Fr. Chris Alar as he gives the history and meaning behind this secret society and what their defined mission actually is.

Roe v. Wade

 We can only praise God for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  Not much else to say. Mary Immaculate Queen Triumph and Reign !!

Saint Ambrose and Valentinian

 from web.archive.org The whole fascinating story is well documented in the book by  Bro. Robert Mary, “Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation”, 

An often used example of a candidate for supposed "baptism of desire" was the young Roman Emperor, Valentinian II, a catechumen who, at the age of twenty, was assassinated in the year 392. He had planned to be baptized in Milan by his dear friend, Saint Ambrose. The memorial oration delivered by the Saint is constantly cited as a "proof" that the early Church believed in "baptism of desire." The quote from the oration usually begins with these words:

But I hear you grieve because he did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism . . .

Let us stop Saint Ambrose at this point and reflect on what he just said. All of the faithful assembled for the memorial service are grieved. Why are they grieved? Saint Ambrose says they are grieved because there is no evidence that the Emperor, a known catechumen, had been baptized before his death. But if "baptism of desire" was something contained in the "Deposit of Faith" and part of the Apostolic doctrine, why would they be grieved? Did not Valentinian earnestly desire Baptism?

Was the Fatima Consecration Valid?

Here is a good discussion of the Fatima consecration. We at Catholic Vox think it was properly done.  Only time will tell if it was. Obviously it was not done properly before because there was no dramatics conversion of Russia.