I will expound the three common errors found among those who claim to hold to the true Faith.

Feeneyism error

I want to distinguish what Fr. Feeney (1897-1978) actually believed (not just taught) from the teaching of those who would later hold to the misguided belief in the system carrying Fr. Feeney’s name. Feeneyism– as a branch of thinking– is an offshoot from the true belief in water baptism, as the teaching of the Catholic Church on the necessity of water baptism. Perhaps, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for his disobedience than for heresy; likewise, I hold to the possibility that he too did believe in the theological explanation of baptism of desire as taught by the saints, especially from St. Thomas Aquinas, (limited to those who have the basis of belief in the essential matters of faith as revealed to the Church) but never notoriously promote it.

The distinction is on the necessity by precept and the necessity of means. It is true that water baptism is necessary for eternal salvation; that is, it is necessary, as a necessity by precept, from the command of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The theological virtue of sanctification demands justification as a necessity of means, by which a person is snatched from the kingdom of Satan, being disposed to receive sanctifying grace for the human faith, added to it the necessary perfection of supernatural charity, which would, in turn, become divine faith. The basis for this belief is from God who is all-powerful and all-merciful.

Now, in order to understand the latter (by necessity of means), one must subject oneself to all the truths taught by the Catholic Church, from the dogmas of faith to the theological truth and conclusion. There are no contradictions and they should not be in conflict. Also, one is obliged in faith, to ascertain the fact that what happens (in the process of justification) by the interior movement of grace must correspond and result in the exterior, outward sign or action, vice versa.

What happens during the reception of the Sacrament of baptism is by an event of the outward sign which signifies the interior grace received. What happens during the reception of “baptism of desire” or “of blood” is the reception of actual grace, may also be interior and sanctifying, by the outward person‘s faith. Why it is not always acknowledged as the same situation is because the necessity by precept is still wanting, the fact the person has not received the actual Sacrament of baptism by law, but the person is still intact as “within” the Church by grace.

If the person receives the grace of justification for his human faith added with charity, who is ready to obey God, believes in divine faith, on the authority of God revealing, lives an honest and upright life, happens to find the explicit faith in the Catholic Church, then the person is obliged under the New Law to receive the Sacrament of baptism once he/she encounters the visible Church.

The former, the necessity by precept, God commands and works by the law. The latter, the necessity of means, God acts, through the mediator Jesus Christ, as an intervention, on those who are invincibly ignorant of the true Catholic Religion, believes with implicit faith, from which the person has to readily accept, not merely the willingness to accept.

This is the first error of “The Three Common Errors”.

Displacement error

Today’s crisis in the Church allows for so many errors and heresies to run rampant without any ecclesiastical censure or prohibition. Hence, this is merely an analysis of the event that has occurred within the structure and relationship of the Church with the members who are publicly professing to be Catholic. It is, in no way, a declaratory judgment on any individual. The objective of which is to show forth the problem and predicament of the displacement error, which would ultimately lead the person on a strayed path and consequently onto road of perdition.

The idea that a person can passively or quietly accept the heresies on ecclesiastical level, or even on an ecumenical council, which counters the spirit and faith of the Catholic Church, accepting on authority of those who have institutionalized the teaching of the council and heresy, as the only and rational path onto salvation and from the destruction of the Church.

Another term for the displacement error is a “draw-back” error. The error which subsequently finds solace only in public and manifest heretics as having jurisdiction, for the one objective explanation and solution to the crisis in the Church. One faction would readily admit that these public and manifest heretics have lost their office in the Church, while their Modernist-in-chief remains valid and legitimate. The other faction would question or even doubt the status of the whole façade, but would admit that jurisdiction still reside one way or another for the necessity of the Catholic Church. All these beliefs are gravely erroneous and injurious to the faith.

While those who have accepted the pure and unadulterated faith never compromise, believing on the authority of God revealing, that the Church cannot be in a disillusioned or confused state, which isn’t possible either way, they remain steadfast to the doctrine handed down to them, acting on the motive of faith in divine and ecclesiastical law.

It can be said that there are those who are in invincible ignorance and who are part of the conciliar structure. But invincible ignorance is not and has never been a sacrament onto salvation. Whether these people remain in their illegitimate position or not, their spiritual position still could allow them to cooperate with divine grace. It must be clearly understood, that people in the state of sin, who are not cooperating with the grace of God, can perform good works. To deny this is heresy. Hence, we see the so-called “restoration of tradition” in the “Summorum Pontificum” communities.

It cannot be said that those who adhere the full and complete doctrine and faith of the Church are in invincible ignorance. Why is that? It is because there is no other revelation or teaching from the magisterium to be believed in order to be saved. Hence, it is the complete requirement and acceptance from God. Likewise, to propose that there is a mystery still not understood does not demand interior or exterior assent on part of the faithful.

“since God, who clearly sees, inspects, and knows the minds, the intentions, the thoughts, and the habits of all, will, by reason of His goodness and kindness, never allow anyone who has not the guilt of willful sin to be punished by eternal sufferings…”

Consequently, we know from the teachings of the Church that:

“it is perfectly well known Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who are contumacious against the authority of that same Church, and who are pertinacious separated from the unity of that Church and from Peter’s successor, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been entrusted by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation.”

The displacement error or the “draw-back” error falls into this category of condemnation. It is providential that we have this pronouncement from Quanto conficiamur moerore as an assurance for those who accept the whole and complete faith handed down to them, but is a deadly pronouncement for those who would willingly and contumaciously counter the faith received by the Apostles by passively accepting public and manifest heretics as having jurisdiction.

see also–

Freyism heresy- the belief which admits that the pope can act and believe contrary to divine and ecclesiastical law and still remain the pope.

Kramerism heresy- the belief which admits that only those who have the knowledge of Catholic doctrine are really Catholic, rejecting the notion that baptized children are Catholic before they make use of reason.

This is the second error of “The Three Common Errors”.

Lienart’s non-validity error

This issue is a complicated one, as it stems from the symptom of legalism. The error is an issue for those who are erroneous in interpretation of law and office. The matter of the issue is from the fact that Lienart was historically a Freemason, and therefore he could not have been able to transmit the priesthood and the episcopacy on that fact alone. His intention would have been defective or contrary to the Church’s, especially having attain the 33rd degree of Freemasonry.

Hence, therefore, all priests and bishops from Lienart are invalid and illegitimate.

This issue may be complicated, but the solution is an easy one.

The truth to the fact is that there have been many Freemasonic bishops and priests prior to Lienart’s time. They were recognized as valid and legitimate by the Church. There was never any doubt or suspicion on the fact that the solemn ceremony and sacred rite have been performed and accomplished according to the prescription of the Church. All the external sign or evidence are there to support the authenticity of the events (consecration and ordination) which in fact did happen. The Church does not allow suspicion to be hold on those matters that are as solemn as the ceremony of making a bishop or a priest. Nevertheless, even if such event was questionable or doubtful, there has to be evidence on the part of one who is making the extraordinary claim, a claim which is beyond his competency of authority to make if he/she is a layman.

Also, Leo XIII (1810-1903) has said:

“Now, if a person has seriously and duly used the proper matter and form for performing or administering a sacrament, he is by that very fact presumed to have intended to do what the Church does.” (Bull Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896.)

There is no doubt that having the intention of doing what the Church does is provided for from the fact that the proper matter and form have been administered.

In order to understand that the acts of jurisdiction of ones who are excommunicated are illicit but valid (before a legal declaration), we resort to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which upholds the acts of ones excommunicated (in this case a Freemason). Thus, showing forth that we are guaranteed and protected by church law from confusion and error.

This is the third error of “The Three Common Errors”.