Did the Catholic Church Defect in 1917?

Interview with Mr. Michael Creighton discussing whether the Catholic Church defected in 1917.
Subscribe to the Living Echoes e-newsletter here so we can directly communicate in case the social media platforms clamp down on our content: living-echoes....
Promoting the Traditional Catholic Faith as a "Living Echo" of the Fathers Under the Authority and Exhortation of Pope Leo XIII for the salvation of souls

[@matthewwisniewski2962]

The answer to the title of this video is "NO"

[@CatholicHusband]

Correct

[@vaticancatholic-dimond]

In charity, you are promoting outright falsehood. The analysis of the Latin presented in this video (which is a basis for the false conclusions contained in it) is completely wrong. Frankly, it’s not close to correct. Here’s the Latin of Canon 737: “Baptismus, Sacramentorum ianua ac fundamentum, OMNIBUS IN RE VEL SALTEM IN VOTO NECESSARIUS AD SALUTEM, valide non confertur, nisi per ablutionem aquae verae et naturalis cum praescripta verborum forma.” At around 18.07 (and elsewhere), the video claims: “The key word there is salutem, which is the present active subjunctive meaning ‘those who might be saved’.” The video asserts that in canon 737 ‘salutem’ is used as a verb in the subjunctive mood. But that is totally wrong. In this canon ‘salutem’ is very obviously a noun. It’s the accusative form of salus, meaning salvation. It’s the object of the preposition ‘ad’. In fact, ‘ad salutem’ is used in many magisterial texts to mean ‘for salvation’. In this canon ‘salutem’ is not used as a verb or in the subjunctive mood. Indeed, as a verb ‘salutem’ is first person singular, which obviously makes no sense in this context. The fact that ‘salutem’ here is a noun in the accusative case (meaning ‘salvation’), and not a verb, is obvious to anyone who reads or understands Latin. The canon, which is not infallible for reasons explained in our video (John 3:5 Mockers Stumped 1917 Code, Delayed Ensoulment, “Baptism Of Desire”), does teach the idea of ‘baptism of desire’. It states that “Baptism, the door and foundation of the sacraments, necessary to all for salvation in reality or at least in desire, is not conferred validly except through a washing of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” But this error in the canon does not contradict papal infallibility or prove that ‘baptism of desire’ is true because, as our material explains, the Code was not promulgated infallibly. We demonstrate that in our video on the topic with many facts (e.g. canon 1 of the Code). Not all the canons of the Code were promulgated as binding upon all members of the Church. Thus, they weren’t promulgated infallibly. Canon 1 of the Code makes it clear that something doesn’t bind the Oriental Church from its mere inclusion in the Code. Rather, there must be something about “the nature itself of the thing” that attaches to the Oriental Church. Thus, the applicability to the Oriental Church comes from “the nature itself of the thing”, NOT FROM MERE INCLUSION IN THE CODE. Well, error/false doctrine doesn’t have a nature that applies to the Oriental Church (or to anyone). Error does not apply to or bind anyone. That’s the key point. ‘Baptism of desire’ is an error, a novelty, which contradicts the Church’s dogmatic teaching on John 3:5 (and other truths on Church membership, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, Church unity, etc.). Therefore, it does not have a nature that applies to the Oriental Church (or to anyone). Some might reply by stating: no, ‘baptism of desire’ is a true teaching and therefore applies to the Oriental Church. They are wrong, but to show that it’s true (not false), and therefore applicable to the Oriental Church “from the nature itself of the thing” (not from inclusion in the Code), they would need to prove it from something other than the Code (because, as per canon 1, mere inclusion in the Code does not make something binding on the Oriental Church). But it cannot be shown that ‘baptism of desire’ is true and applicable to the Oriental Church from things outside the Code. God protected the Church from teaching the false doctrine of baptism of desire when canon 1 disclaimed that all of its canons were universally binding. Your point about the Council of Nicaea also not being signed (which comes from a point we made in a video) is not comparable to the Code not being signed because Nicaea already had a universal teaching form in virtue of it being an ecumenical council called to define matters of faith. The Code, on the other hand, is a disciplinary measure promulgated for certain members of the Church, not as binding upon the entire Church. Further, the most solemn papal bulls in history were signed. But the fact that the bull of promulgation was not signed is not essential to proving that the Code was promulgated fallibly. Canon 1 of the Code proves the point. Further, the comments about canon 1239 in this video are also wrong. The canon clearly states that catechumens who die without baptism ‘through no fault of their own’ are to be ‘regarded’ or ‘counted’ as baptized and thus given Christian burial. But that is contrary to the traditional, universally-binding law of the Church (which is rooted in unchangeable divine law) that one cannot hold communion after death with those with whom one was not in communion during life. We cover that in our video. A Catholic is not permitted to treat as baptized someone who was not baptized. It’s clearly a bad canon. That was possible because the Code was not infallibly promulgated. In fact, it was novel in certain ways. Your comments about ‘universal’ in the bull of promulgation also don’t prove your point, as explained in our video. Even if there are replies to this comment, we will not necessarily reply, but we thought we should inform you that what you are promoting is blatantly false. The true explanation of this topic is contained in our video.

[@Rosaryofroses]

I have some questions for you. You cite the work "The Life and Miracles of St. Benedict by Pope St. Gregory the Great" (TAN version, 1995) as a source of the "Benedictine Promises". In the original from 1880, however, there is absolutely nothing about the "Benedictine Promises". I read the entire work. Where is TAN getting these from? And why do you have this on your website? Do you realize that because of these so-called "promises", many who read and watch your material follow your monastery implicitly, like a cult, and seem to have greater reverence for your monastery than for saints and the Popes? I believe you should make a public statement about this, to make reparation for any false impressions you may have given, and to make sure people understand that your mission is merely to proclaim the Gospel, not acquire a following for yourselves.

[@vaticancatholic-dimond]

@@Rosaryofroses In response to our factual comments, it’s interesting that you have responded in this fashion. It reveals that you are a scoffer and that you resist the truth. Your apparent deep concern that people are strongly supportive of the work of our monastery also suggests a diabolical envy. That’s commonly why people oppose those who successfully promote or defend the apostolic faith (see Acts 5:17, etc.). They simply lack the humility to recognize how and in whom God has decided to work. Perhaps it should dawn on you that many feel strongly about the work because, by God’s grace and the information we put out, they were converted to the faith and had their lives changed in a positive fashion. Although we will not continue to satisfy the curiosity of bad-willed scoffers such as yourself, another source for the promises about the Order of St. Benedict is the book: The Very Reverend Paul Of Moll, A Flemish Benedictine, Second Edition, Benedictine Convent, 1914, Imprimatur 1910, p. 338. Promise 1 (as recorded in the book) is that the Order will exist until the end of the world. Promise 2 is: “It will, at the end of the world in the final battle, render great services to the holy Church and confirm many in the faith.” Goodbye.

[@Rosaryofroses]

@@vaticancatholic-dimondThe way you responded was very rashly judgemental. I am clearly of good will, any humble soul can see that. You seem to have a problem with wanting to merely promote the Truth, instead of protecting people from any undue attachment to your monastery. Who are you working for: yourselves, or God? The saints always preached for the glory of God alone, and absolutely rejected any excessive attachment to their person. Your response truly reveals the spirit that leads you on.

[@Rosaryofroses]

@@vaticancatholic-dimond "When we are engaged in society with others, our patience is often exercised. We encounter stupid, passionate or importunate people; and we do not look at each of these meetings as a gift from God, who is going to watch how we behave and visit us accordingly." - Fr. Faber

[@awmd]

When we look at Canon 1, we can see what does bind the Oriental Churches. "The Code binds the Oriental Church in the following cases: (a) if there be question of the divine law, natural or positive…. (b) if there be question of faith and Catholic doctrine, for there is no exception of place or persons in matters of dogma and doctrine. Consequently all Catholics are subject to the dogmatic canons of Ecumenical Councils and pronouncements of the Holy See. The decrees of the Roman Pontiffs condemning propositions contra fidem et mores [contrary to faith and morals], the various instructions of the Holy Office, the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, the Congregation for the Oriental Church, and of the Sacred Penitentiary, the prohibition of books and theories opposed to Catholic faith and morals, all pertain to Catholic doctrine." (Abp. Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Canon Law, 2nd ed. pp. 453-454.) “…the Code contains certain canons that are merely doctrinal or even dogmatic in character, for example, canons 108, 218, 329, 737, 801, 803, 1012, 1322, §1″ (Canon Law, p. 428) In the video John 3:5 Mockers Stumped (1917 Code, Delayed Ensoulment, “Baptism Of Desire”), Brother Peter cites pages 444 and 562-563 of the book from Abp. Cicognani mentioned above. There was no citation in the video of what Abp. Cicognani wrote on which teachings of the Code bind the Oriental Churches. Brother Peter did mention that Canon 737 "isn't even a law", but just an erroneous statement. Abp. Cicognani agrees that it isn't a law, but he states that it is "merely doctrinal or even dogmatic in character." This is consistent with the idea that 737 is restating Church doctrines on baptism, and not a discipline or law which could change. Rather than merely being "an erroneous statement", as Brother Peter says in the video, 737 would constitute a contradiction of defined dogma by the Church, promulgated by the authority of the pope if his position is correct. In order to make this claim that the Church led men to error on a solemnly defined dogma concerning matters of faith and morals sound feasible, he compared it to fallible disciplinary teachings of the Rituale Romanum. He states that the error of the Roman Ritual which he cites Woyward and Smith to show was corrected by the 1917 CIC came from a widespread, erroneous teaching which was found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. This was the issue of delayed ensoulment, which was not defined at the time, and remained undefined even though an updated position on it was addressed in the 1917 CIC, as mentioned earlier. The argument in MHFM's video attempts to claim that because the Catechism of the Council of Trent could err on undefined matters concerning faith, that the 1917 CIC could then contradict solemnly defined dogma without being a heretical work. Pope Benedict XV escapes the label of heretic, because they say this was promulgated in his fallible capacity. Those who follow the false doctrine which MHFM claims 737 teaches, believe so because it was promulgated by a man they also believe to have been a true pope. Conversely, the 1983 CIC, every fallible book, speech, allocution, general audience, or homily in the fallible capacities of the post-Vatican II claimants to the papacy which led people to heresy and error serve as proof of heretical depravity for each of them, according to MHFM. In order to save the argument of the 1917 CIC not being a heretical work, Brother Peter says "the reason for this error on baptism in the code not being notoriously heretical, even though it is contrary to definitive Catholic teaching, is that there were Catholic saints and theologians who wrongly believed that unbaptized catechumens could be saved." If we follow this logic, a canon promulgated by a true pope which "is contrary to definitive Catholic teaching" doesn't count as heresy if there were saints and theologians who wrongly believed it. Which other defined dogmas does this apply to? If the 1917 CIC were allegedly infallible according to the Brothers, 737 would only serve to prove that Benedict XV was a false pope, just as heresies in Vatican II prove that Montini was an antipope. Heresy cannot be bound infallibly, and this is obvious. This is what MHFM uses as proof of Vatican II's heretical nature. The idea that the Church can lead people to error and heresy against defined dogma through documents promulgated with solemn language by a true pope and only have the heresy in it remain "non-infallible" is the R&R position of the SSPX on Vatican II and the "magisterium" of its subsequent claimants to the papacy. MHFM justifiably points out the inconsistency and hypocrisy those who hold these R&R positions.

[@awmd]

It is interesting to note that substitutionary BoB, which was apparently taught by more fathers than BoD, is not mentioned in the 1917 CIC where BoD seemed to be found.

[@LivingEchoes1890]

Great point

[@catholicwife]

Wonderful video! So very informative over a very crucial cannon. How simple of an answer! Just knowing the original language changes everything. Thank you Mr. Creighton and Alexander for helping bring this truth to light! May God bless and guard you both !

[@stjohnstorm]

“Even people raised by animals...” totally WOW! Also-raised from dead to be baptized- God is ALL POWERFUL! Really great stuff here! ❤️🙏💙

[@CatholicHusband]

Thank you so much Mary. To God be the glory.

[@franciscowalker5104]

Great interview...I love the presenter...I also like Latin and have that boo by Ludwig OTT...

[@LivingEchoes1890]

Thank you for watching

[@jefftakats2537]

The Roman Catechism acknowledges Baptism of Desire. The Roman Catechism states, “On this class of persons [adults], however, the Church does not confer this Sacrament hastily: she will have it deferred for a certain time; nor is the delay attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned: and should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” This last part seems clear, catechumens (those who publicly intend-or desire-to be baptized) who die before being baptized (e.g., die on Good Friday instead of after receiving the Sacrament at the Easter Vigil) will be admitted into Heaven. Furthermore, did the good thief not actually enter Paradise like Christ said since he was not baptized? Consequently, are we to believe that “the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (Mt. 27:52-53) had all been baptized prior to their death? As long as this “desire” is understood to refer only to catechumens, I do not see error or defect with this and I think it explains how Canon 1239 states catechumens are to “be reckoned as baptized.” It is stated earlier-in “The Forgiveness of Sins”-in the Roman Catechism, “If there be any one means better calculated than another to accomplish this end, it is, carefully to show how great must the efficacy of that which absolves from sin, and restores the unjust to a state of justification. This is, manifestly, an effect of the infinite power of God, of that same power which we believe to have been necessary to raise the dead to life, and to summon creation into existence. But if it be true, as the authority of St. Augustine assures us it is, that, to recall a sinner from the state of sin to that of righteousness, is even greater work than to create the heavens and the earth from nothing, though their creation can be no other than the effect of infinite power; it follows, that we have still stronger reason to consider the remission of sins, as an effect proceeding from the exercise of this same infinite power.” To conclude this thought: if the state of righteousness is necessary for entrance into heaven (as shown from its opposition to sin with Augustine), then catechumens who die before receiving baptism are availed this state of righteousness, because of their public desire for baptism and their repentance for past sins. [Long quotations necessary to avoid out-of-context-accusations.]

[@CatholicHusband]

It is actually an early Church tradition that when the saints rose from their graves in Matthew 27 that they received baptism. The thief also would have been among them, as it is certain he did not go to heaven after his death, because heaven remained closed until Jesus Ascended into heaven. You don't believe the good thief went to heaven before Jesus right?

[@EarlyChristianBeliefs]

Great video! Thank you so much for sharing this interesting discussion. I agree that some early Christian quotes on BoB are not discussing BoB being able to save. However some of the early Christian quotes on BoB clearly do say that BoB can take the place of Baptism. (and some quotes are debatable). I have two questions about that. 1- What do you think of those early writers, some of whom are Saints and Doctors. 2- Why are there no explicit corrections of them from the Church? Thank you.

[@CatholicHusband]

Hello, thank you for watching! Could you give me an example of an opinion that seems to teach exceptions to water baptism?

[@LivingEchoes1890]

This is a really good question. I might do a whole video addressing this, because I think this is one of the main concerns people have.

[@EarlyChristianBeliefs]

@@CatholicHusband Yes, here are some examples of Early Christians speaking of BoB as getting unbaptized believers into heaven as martyrs; Tertulian. Christian Apologist. On Baptism. Ch. 16. c. A.D. 198. “We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, “I have to be baptized with a baptism”, (Luke 12:50) when He had been baptized already. … These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.” Saint Cyprian of Carthage. Bishop and Martyr. Epistle 73/74, Par. 21-22. c. 250 A.D. “… because it is written, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5). On which place some, as if by human reasoning they were able to make void the truth of the Gospel declaration, object to us the case of catechumens; asking if any one of these, before he is baptized in the Church, should be apprehended and slain on confession of the name [of Christ], whether he would lose the hope of salvation and the reward of confession, because he had not previously been born again of water? Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favorers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, join and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said, that He had “another baptism to be baptized with” (Lk. 12:50).” Saint Cyril of Jerusalem. Bishop and Catechist. Catechetical Lecture 3. c. 350 A.D. “If any man receive not Baptism, he has not salvation; except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom.” Saint Augustine of Hippo. Bishop and Doctor of the Church. City of God. Book XIII, Ch. 7. c. 426. A.D. “For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”(John 3:5), made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;”(Matt 10:32) and in another place, “Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.”(Matt 16:25) And this explains the verse, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.”(Ps. 115:15) For what is more precious than a death by which a man's sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold?”

[@CatholicHusband]

​@@EarlyChristianBeliefsThank you for the citations. Let me digest them and I shall respond.

[@EarlyChristianBeliefs]

@@CatholicHusband Thank you!

[@CourtshipOfSedesFather]

Question: The Pope didn’t sign Nicea, yet, everyone believes Nicea. Ok- the Pope didn’t sign the excommunication of Fr. Feeney, yet (mostly) everyone believes in the excommunication of Fr. Feeney. Does that precedent give a pass to all the Sedevacantist traditional priests who staunchly scorn anything relating to Fr Feeney? In other words, since the last True Pope condoned (but didn’t sign) the excommunication (and the subsequent despising of “all things Feeney”) -is it understandable that so many of our sede, validly-ordained priests follow our last True Pope, in this cruel condemnation??

[@EarlyChristianBeliefs]

Good question 🤔

[@CatholicHusband]

This is a good question, let me consider the matter more deeply and I will respond later.

[@Rosaryofroses]

In the Acta Apostolica Sedes online, the official letter of excommunication which was approved by Pope Pius XII mentioned Fr. Feeney as being disobedient, but did not state anything relating to doctrine. It was Cardinal Cushing in "the Pilot", a newspaper in the Boston Diocese that mentioned anything doctrinal. Let us remember what was said of Cardinal Cushing in this video, as it can all be verified.

[@LivingEchoes1890]

Hello Ohiosede, thank you again for the question. I would first ask what proof we have that Pope Pius XII "condoned" the excommunication? I have seen very scant evidence in this regard. As far as signing the documents goes, good question as well. For Nicea and the 1917 Code, the legates and Cardinals respectively had permission from the Pope to sign them. His authority was behind them. For the Fr. Feeney excommunication, I have not seen evidence proving that Pope Pius XII authorized the excommunication or gave permission for the Cardinals to do so. The fact that Suprema Haec Sacra was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See gives very good evidence that this document did not have Papal approval. If Pius XII approved it, why wasn't the whole document published in the Acta like all the other documents? Also, as I said in the interview, if one actually reads the writings of Fr. Feeney, one can see that he wasn't even getting into the details of BOD or BOB. He was preaching "outside the Church there is no salvation, so convert your Protestant and Jewish neighbors." That got him in trouble because Cardinal Cushing was a false ecumenist - this is well documented. It is extremely obvious that "outside the Church there is no salvation" is not a belief Fr. Feeney made up, that's a solemnly defined dogma based on the teachings of Christ in Mark 16:16, Matt. 18:17 and others. So calling someone a "Feeneyite" because he believes a man must convert to Catholicism to be saved, is very ignorant at best, and highly malicious at worst.

[@CourtshipOfSedesFather]

@@LivingEchoes1890 You have great wisdom which is appreciated and I thank you for this reply! On the proof of Pius XII condoning the (faux) excommunication, perhaps not proof but c’mon, did the pope not know that Father Feeney was railroaded? Father Feeney sent the pope a letter asking for help in the United States in like 1949-50, I think. Then in ‘53 the catholic world headlines announce the EXCOMMUNICATION of Father Feeney. How could it be possible that the supreme Pontiff could be completely unaware of what is announced to the world, in the realm of Catholicism? He had to know and did not clear it up, thus condoning? (and plus, going on promoting dudes like Bugnini ...) He was not a tough anti-modernist at all.

[@kevinleclerc9632]

Excellent video ! Wow, Just watched Fr. Jenkins latest video yesterday which dealt with this exact topic. I too adopted The Sedevacantist Views and Agree with them ALL. He reminds ALL The Faithful, that The Code of Cannon Laws is NOT Primarily Infallible but rather Secondary, In Short, it has what can, might and will, as it has been Already used to make changes on many issues. He gives a great example of John Paul II. I highly recommend watching it. Ave Maria

[@sweetdakotafan]

The Church has absolutely changed it's teaching on the ancient salvation doctrine of "Outside the Church, There is no Salvation". If anyone doubts my statement, I suggest that you do some research on the subject. The three supposedly infallible Papal Bulls from the Middle Ages on the salvation doctrine, especially Cantate Domino, clearly prove that the Church has contradicted itself concerning the salvation status of non-Christians and non-Catholic Christians.

[@CatholicHusband]

What did Cantate Domino contradict?

[@sweetdakotafan]

@@CatholicHusband It is what has taken place in recent centuries, especially the 1900's omward, that has contradicted Cantate Domino, supposedly an infallible Papal decree, due to the doctrine of invincible ignorance.

[@CatholicHusband]

@@sweetdakotafan Where did the Magisterium contradict itself?

[@sweetdakotafan]

Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council, signed off on by the Pope. It's documents do not conform to Cantate Domino.

[@CatholicHusband]

​@@sweetdakotafanSo you believe the Church defected?

[@Deuterocomical]

Curious why you are not willing to consider pushing back the sedevacante period in order to resolve this isssue

[@LivingEchoes1890]

Because we don't have to. Thank you for watching the interview.

[@luked7956]

MHFM fans are ultimately faced with that dilemma but don't like to admit it.

[@Deuterocomical]

@@LivingEchoes1890I know you don’t have to, I’m just wondering why you didn’t present that as an option

[@Deuterocomical]

@@luked7956 I think anyone who denies BOD and considers Pius XII a true Pope has this dilemma

[@CatholicHusband]

​@@Deuterocomicalwhat do you mean by "deny BOD"?

[@tomthx5804]

These Protestant videos talking about the Catholic church are always hilarious.

[@LivingEchoes1890]

Hello, Living Echoes is a Traditional Catholic publication.

[@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad]

@@LivingEchoes1890 that guy Tom is a troll. He trolls my channel as well

[@sewmanyquilts8042]

Good job and it’s pretty obvious now people can’t keep making up excuses. It’s obvious

[@BryanKirch]

We all know it happened with Constantine We all know it happened with Luther We all know it happened with John Paul We all know it happened with Francis How could it endure till the end His church failed in 100ad… the king of kings can’t even make a church. We all have to become Jews and wait for the real messiah Or maybe just be Catholic and stay the course

[@rumpelstiltskin9768]

ON the pope didn't sign Nicea- It is my understanding that the Swedenborgians claim that the Cathlics went awry at this council. If true, the "defection" was much earlier thatn 1917.

[@eagle44442]

Since you believe that Mary is 'Co-Redemptrix', does that mean that you believe she is a redeemer along with Jesus?

[@LivingEchoes1890]

I believe that the way the Popes and saints used the title, or taught something of the same substance, is perfectly reasonable and acceptable. Do you reject those Popes and saints as heretical?

[@eagle44442]

@@LivingEchoes1890 I think they were not heretics, but I think it is heretical if obstinately held. But I’m trying to get your belief on it. I asked a specific question on the matter: does that mean that you believe she is a redeemer along with Jesus?

[@eagle44442]

Also which saints do you think taught it?

[@eagle44442]

@@LivingEchoes1890 are you there?

[@eagle44442]

@@LivingEchoes1890 Hey, are you going to respond?

[@paulusmagdaleno]

THEE PROT REVOLT IN THEE CATHOLIC CHURCH: HAPPENED @ THEE 1958 PAPAL CONCLAVE-! = NOVUS ORDO-! + pp.

[@Dlee-eo5vv]

Defected from Apostolic faith long ago,1054 was its death.

[@notsparctacus]

The "Orthodox" was created much later by the Ottomans as a state approved sect.

[@sweetdakotafan]

The Great Schism..... However, Pope Paul and Patriarch Athenagoras annulled the mutual excommunications, but who knows what such acts really meant?

[@Dlee-eo5vv]

@sweetdakotafan might have annulled it but Romes heresies remain.

[@RZApologist]

Hello

[@CatholicHusband]

Thank you for watching and sharing RZ

[@rumpelstiltskin9768]

also, I write from Japan where 99% of the population is not Christian/Catholic and not baptized- it would seem that they are all gonna burn in h- but no one who has lived here and dealt with the people would believe that such "nice" people are condemned. So, I leave this business to GOD almighty. He will examine each heart and decide "who gets in".

[@CatholicHusband]

I agree, God examines the heart. And all who are sincere and cooperative with the actual grace God sends them will then be given the grace to come to a knowledge of the truth of Jesus Christ and be baptized. Don't you believe God can do that?

[@nomorelies7755]

Laity can baptize people not just priests.

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

1054.

[@notsparctacus]

Yes. The Eastern Schismatics defected in 1054.

[@drwalmgc]

Is the 1917 Code of Canon Law directed entirely to the whole Church in its entirety? No. Then it doesn't fulfil conditions for infallibility. Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this [Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental.” Just by the very fact that not everything is binding all the Church: It cannot be infallible. It doesn't matter which parts. We can see clear errors going against the Infallible positions of Session 6 CH.4 of Council of Trent showing that John 3: 5 should be understood as it is written, and Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, so the Canon 1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law providentially points to lack of universality in binding of the Code of Canon Law, so also cannot override the Universal and Extraordinary Magisterium, that should be considered as first before anything of lesser weight. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 66), June 29, 1943: “Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws IMPOSED UPON ALL; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins, and confessors.” Baptized, and unbelievers are lost, the same baptized, and in mortal, unremitted sin. Outside of the Church body there is no salvation, nor remission of sins - It's dogma. How to enter the Church, but by narrow gate? Necessity of baptism is very narrow gate, but it's even narrower when you encounter for maintaining true faith, and maintaining your baptismal robes clean. Rest is just an attempt to appear more palatable to unbelievers, and it's mark of unbelief in divine providence towards those people of good faith. Baptism of desire is a specific flavor of a justification by faith alone.

[@LivingEchoes1890]

"And now, finally, We have checked in every part, approved and ratified the new Code of all Canon Law, which had already been invoked by many Bishops during the Vatican Council and whose drafting lasted twelve whole years. Therefore, having invoked the help of divine grace, strengthened by the authority of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, with our own motion, with certain knowledge and in the fullness of the Apostolic power with which we are invested, with this Constitution of ours, to which we intend to attribute perpetual validity, we promulgate the present Code, as it has been drawn up, and we decree and command that it shall henceforth have the force of law for the whole Church, and we entrust it to your safeguard and vigilance." - Pope Benedict XV, Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, 1917, Feast of Pentecost.

[@drwalmgc]

​@@LivingEchoes1890 We don't disagree in some points, correct me if I am wrong: 1. 1917 Code of Canon Law contains error, contradict tradition regarding ecclesiastical burial of the catechumens who died without baptism, speaks about delayed ensoulment, mentions BOD which goes against divine revelation. 2. If it contains errors - it is provably not infallible. 3. It is not wholly binding the whole Church, as per Canon 1. 4. It cannot wholly bind the whole Church, because it contains errors, at least in parts that errors are found. Now, I know what Providentissima Mater Ecclesia said, and I do not take it lightly... but clearly there is a reason why infallibility didn't work. Maybe it has something to do with a fact that the document was not signed by Benedict XV, but by Cardinal Gasparri and Cardinal De Azevedo. Maybe it suffice to point to Canon 1 of the Code. If it doesn't apply to the whole Church always: It doesn't retain condition for infallibility, and it provably isn't spotless. I don't believe that Benedict XV was an antipope, there are other good reasons why it was not perfect.

[@LivingEchoes1890]

@@drwalmgc What specific error does the 1917 CIC contain and where precisely is the alleged error? Canon 1 says anything which of its nature binds the Church binds the Church. So even though most of the disciplines only apply to the Latin Church, that does not mean other things in the Code do not bind everyone. Also, whether the Code binds the whole Church or not is not relevant to the argument Luke and I put forth. Viz. that if one wants to claim the code taught heresy or error on faith and morals, then this came from Pope Benedict XV while he attempted to use his Apostolic Authority to promulgate the Code. So if you believe Canon 737 for example actually teaches salvation without baptism, then this heresy was given to us under the authority of a true Pope. There are only 2 ways to avoid this: 1) My position, viz. that Canon 737 actually teaches the truth that salvation is only for the baptized, and to say that those who accuse it of teaching against water baptism have misinterpreted the Canon 2) Declare Pope Benedict XV an antipope, and thus the Code was not an act of Papal authority, but of an antipope. But it does not seem like you or MHFM or any of their other followers are willing to do this. You must take either of these 2 positions to save the Church from defection. Because if you choose the untenable option of MHFM, viz. that a true Pope invoked his full Apostolic Authority to teach error and heresy against Trent and John 3:5, then you are a Lefebvrist who picks and chooses what he submits to from true Popes, just like the Novus Ordo, and SSPX. It wouldn't matter whether Pope Benedict XV taught this with malice or simply "erred in good faith", the end result would still be that a true Pope led the Church into heresy and error while invoking his "full Apostolic power". If you continue to claim he is Pope, you dissent from his official acts of authority, which would make you a schismatic, similar to how the SSPX is schismatic against their stated authority. Do you see the problem? MHFM isn't infallible. In fact, they are well documented to have made many errors. Don't throw out the CIC to protect MHFM if that is what you are doing. Defend the Pope and the Magisterium first.

[@drwalmgc]

​@@LivingEchoes1890 I believe that you are coping hard only because you assume that 1917 CoCL cannot contain error while promulgated in such way as it was. I disagree. Fact of the matter is that IT IS NOT IMPOSED UPON ALL, so freedom from error is not guaranteed, it doesn't fulfil all the contitions for infaliability. I am stunned that you read the same text of Canon 1, and you derrive completelly different conclusion. You do allege errors, but you throw baby with a bathwater, you accuse your Pontiff - Benedict XV - to be an antipope. I believe that you are wrong, but I don't know if you considered all implications of that error. Ecclesiastical burrial of unbaptised catechumens, baptism "at least in desire" for salvation, and allegation that heretics may be in good faith, are the main errors. Passive attendance on Protestant, Orthodox liturgy in my opinion may be a source of a scandal, and puts family / friends above God, and who does it: is not worth Him. I never, ever, anywhere claimed that MHFM is infaliable, but you know, the same framework of understanding applies to you, and other experts in the matter. CMRI may point to you in the same manner on BOD question, and you use Divine Revelation of the Scripture + Infaliable Magisterium, while they use fallible cope... and text that you need to mistranslate, and interpret into it hard to have the desired result. In fact: I rather go with my understanding of the Infaliability, its conditions, and mine (which may be wrong, but in a good faith) opinion on how it does apply to the 1917 CoCL while reading that it doesn't entirely apply to ALL, which makes it not entirely infaliable. You, or me may be wrong in good faith about the matter, which also applies to MHFM. Herd scatters when shepherd is striken. That matter would be solved by the Pontiff, but we don't have one, and we agree on that. To begin to consider your position to be true: I would like to understand all around implications of the position, what does it mean... where was the remnant of the faithful during the time after 1917. Is it just scatered minority of people believing in Church Dogmas first, and explaining the faith through those lenses? Do you have a video, or an article about that subject?

[@drwalmgc]

​@@LivingEchoes1890 Btw. I like you personally, I love Church Dogmas, and all those who are trying to uphold them. I understand the sentiment. I think that your speculation on the matter are valuable, is case of the 1917 code the only one that brings you in doubt of Benedict XV validity as a Pontiff, and had he lost his office on1917, or is his whole Pontificate invalid. Is it a matter of 8, or 5 years of invalidity of thatever he did? Discussion is neede, and if fruitful it will bring many more people to accept the Magisterium, and reject anti-magisterium. I frankly do not understand all of the implications of your position... and I was deceived in the past by Novus Ordo. If it wouldn't be for inconsistencies from Divine Revelation: I would be in Vatican 2 still. I really like your aproach.

[@ronaldbobeck9636]

No offense fellows but,you were in the largest Mass killing of Human beings in world history Industrial killing on an epic scale the world had never seen before , Add the Pandemic of the Spanish Flu and you have over 20 million+ Casualties in 5 years . The out come of those events shook the foundations of the Church through the world in one of the readings I had for a class I took ,the effect of that was the roaring 20 's . Paris and Berlin.were "dens of inquiries" Instead of Sex ,Drugs and Rock and Roll replace Jazz and welcome to Europe. Even Moscow until the death of Leinn.

[@BlessedThursday-1901]

Ni

[@tradicnykatolik_sk]

Canon 1239 of 1917 Code: “1. Those who die without baptism are not to be accorded ecclesiastical burial. 2. Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be reckoned as baptized.” Alex and Michael doctor this canon, and insert there "apparently". Rather than to admit that 1917 is not infallible and does not bind all in all canons. Also, Canon 1 does not say everything in the code on faith and morals binds the oriental. (Again doctoring and misinterpreting Canon 1 in this instance, to try to convey a different meaning.) The Code says: Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this [Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental.” If it was binding all on everything on faith and morals, that would mean the Church has erred. But what rather this Canon says, is those THINGS, by their nature, means those things of themselves (not from the code), have a binding force. For example: when code references Councils, those things mentioned in the code, have a binding force from the nature itself. From the thing's principle of operation (i.e. from the nature itself of the thing).

[@LivingEchoes1890]

Hello Kristian, thank you for watching the interview. Is it your position that there is not a single canon in the code which infallibly binds the Latin and Oriental Churches? If you do believe some canons do infallibly bind the Latins and Orientals, could you give me an example or two?

[@tradicnykatolik_sk]

@@LivingEchoes1890 Code would bind Orientals in the canons, that derive its binding force from for example: Councils or infallible Catholic teaching. Code sometimes references such Councils in various canons. Canon 188.4 that cites Cum Ex (infallible papal Bull), would be an example.

[@LivingEchoes1890]

@@tradicnykatolik_sk I agree, so Canon 737 is not dealing with faith and morals that was previously defined by the Church?

[@tradicnykatolik_sk]

@@LivingEchoes1890 That Canon actually is on faith and morals, but misinterprets Trent, sess. 6, chap. 4. That is a theological error as well. That is another canon of 1917 which would pose a problem for you. If you believe 1917 is infallible on faith and morals, and you have to admit even 737 taught error, then you deny concept of infallibility. If you don't admit it teaches error, you defending that which is contrary to the rule of faith; rule of faith, even you are trying to establish (i.e. Water Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, referencing bull Exultate Deo). You go obstinately against rule of faith, in your dishonesty and profound bad will. Unwilling to admit 1917 is not infallible, and failing to condemn its problematic canons as either erroneous or heretical.

[@Rosaryofroses]

@@tradicnykatolik_sk Do you not realize that Mr. Creighton and Mr. Lanshe are relying on the original Latin of the 1917 Code? Further, if you wish others to know the truth (or what you perceive to be true), pointing out imaginary faults is no way to do it. Stay simple and deal with the matter at hand.

[@christopherfeeney1962]

Just WHO the hell is this guy???? I mean, c'mon. He has NO understanding of the principles of interpretation of canon law, theology, etc