Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on May 02, 2021, 09:05:54 PM
-
At dinner tonight after Mass, I just learned that a lot of people at my SSPX chapel are borderline or full blown Feeneyites. Baptism is necessary baby! Father Feeney was a saint!
-
How... I mean, just how can the SSPX corporation tolerate this? It's like being an anti-vaxer.
They must purge the crypto Feeneyites by making them step on an image of Father Feeney.
Those who refuse, must go through extreme water torture.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fhellochristian.com%2Fresources%2Fuploads%2Farticle%2F2016%2Ffe59b0758058a88bb298610b57ce35e8.png&f=1&nofb=1)
That will teach them to appreciate BOD and BOB.
-
Praise God! Outside the Church there is absolutely no Salvation! This comment by the OP makes me hopeful for a restoration. This grave error of baptism of desire and invincible ignorance is what has caused this horrible apostasy. I am a young guy that goes to the SSPX, and I know I can't be the only one there who believes in the dogma of the sacrosanct council of Florence, of the Nicene Creed, and of John 3:5. Godspeed!
-
This is very odd. Feeneyites are banned from most sedevacantist chapels that I know of. What is the SSPX policy on Feeneyites attending and receiving the sacraments?
-
Chapel Feeneyites are made to wear an arm tattoo.
(https://www.tattoomenow.com/tattoo-designs/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Letter-F-Tattoo-13-on-forearm-190x300.jpg)
After they convert to BOD/BOB they have to get it surgically erased.
-
Replies 1 and 4 were contributed by Incredulous.
-
Great news indeed. At least some people recognize the true theological roots of this Crisis.
-
This is very odd. Feeneyites are banned from most sedevacantist chapels that I know of. What is the SSPX policy on Feeneyites attending and receiving the sacraments?
Sometimes Feeneyites are allowed if they don't spread the error, and the priest determines they are honestly ignorant of Catholic teaching on BoD and BoB.
-
Great news indeed. At least some people recognize the true theological roots of this Crisis.
How can you possibly believe that, you, with all that you know.
Strikes me everytime.
I outgrew Feeneyism and dogmatic sedevacantism, but I see you're still going on strong with no end in sight.
I think they call that pertinacity.
-
Replies 1 and 4 were contributed by Incredulous.
You be right... My Dear!
-
How can you possibly believe that, you, with all that you know.
I know that EENS is at the core of the theological crisis ... because it's true. It's simple and easily-demonstrable fact. Father Feeney knew this before Vatican II happened and delivered the goods on the theological trends already out there long beforehand.
I'm not speaking here about the narrower issue regarding BoD proper, but about the broader EENS question. And only the "Feeneyites" seem to "get it" when it comes to that issue.
-
How can you possibly believe that, you, with all that you know.
Strikes me everytime.
I outgrew Feeneyism and dogmatic sedevacantism, but I see you're still going on strong with no end in sight.
I think they call that pertinacity.
The Water Baptism folks see it the opposite way.
BOD/BOB dilute Catholicism's mandate to promote the Faith.
Because any jew, Hindu, protestant or muslim can gain entry to Everlasting Life, by merely wishing it.
It's a fraud perpetuated to break down Catholic confidence and resolve.
-
The Water Baptism folks see it the opposite way.
BOD/BOB dilute Catholicism's mandate to promote the Faith.
Because any jew, Hindu, protestant or muslim can gain entry to Everlasting Life, by merely wishing it.
It's a fraud perpetuated to break down Catholic confidence and resolve.
I don't see it like that at all. I still see the need to promote the Faith no matter what.
Whether someone gets saved via bod/bod is God's and no one else's concern and not a heresy or error in the slightest.
I understand how anyone can fall for Feeneyism today because I fell for it myself. It's just about pure ignorance and being misled.
But for someone like Ladislaus, who actually knows how theology works, to fall for it, is inexcusable.
-
I know that EENS is at the core of the theological crisis ... because it's true. It's simple and easily-demonstrable fact. Father Feeney knew this before Vatican II happened and delivered the goods on the theological trends already out there long beforehand.
I'm not speaking here about the narrower issue regarding BoD proper, but about the broader EENS question. And only the "Feeneyites" seem to "get it" when it comes to that issue.
Oh yeah as if modernism is just about denying EENS.
-
Forgot to remove the anonymous in previous 2 posts.
-
It's just about pure ignorance and being misled. But for someone like Ladislaus, who actually knows how theology works, to fall for it, is inexcusable.
Just disregard Ladislaus and and those mean SSPX Feeneyites and go to the Novus Ordo, where everyone believes that all nice people in all religions are saved.
-
This is very odd. Feeneyites are banned from most sedevacantist chapels that I know of. What is the SSPX policy on Feeneyites attending and receiving the sacraments?
The reason the sedes ban Feeneyites is because they are exactly the same as the Novus Ordo in banning real Catholics from membership. EENS is enemy number one to the Jєωιѕн nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr of which the sedes are a small but important part, so of course they must reject it. Remember Father Cekada said it was easier for a Christ-hating Jew to get to heaven than a Feeneyite. I would bet that Cekada is with a lot of Christ hating Jews right now.
-
Oh yeah as if modernism is just about denying EENS.
Modernism is a real phenomenon, but it was not Modernism that was taught at Vatican II.
Name any error of Vatican II, and all the ones typically cited by Traditional Catholics are directly related to EENS.
-
Modernism is a real phenomenon, but it was not Modernism that was taught at Vatican II.
Name any error of Vatican II, and all the ones typically cited by Traditional Catholics are directly related to EENS.
This was my post. Name one Modernist principle that was actually taught at Vatican II. Did Vatican II teach that the meaning of doctrine changes over time? Did Vatican II teach evolution? Did Vatican II undermine the historicity of Sacred Scripture?
-
...believes that all nice people in all religions are saved.
So that's what the Saints that taught bod/bod said?
Not even the 20th century theology manuals ever teach such a thing, or the Baltimore Catechism etc.
-
This was my post. Name one Modernist principle that was actually taught at Vatican II. Did Vatican II teach that the meaning of doctrine changes over time? Did Vatican II teach evolution? Did Vatican II undermine the historicity of Sacred Scripture?
Because modernism means doctrine changes with the times, they used that excuse to change everything, so of course I see modernism as the main driver of V2.
Then again it was all probably just a communist plot disguised as "Modernism" to sell it easier.
Either way, I don't see EENS as the one and only cause. That's just ridiculous.
That's like attributing Communism to a denial of EENS.
-
Remember Father Cekada said it was easier for a Christ-hating Jew to get to heaven than a Feeneyite. I would bet that Cekada is with a lot of Christ hating Jews right now.
You should not say that about Fr. Cekada, he and I had plenty of blowout arguments about a BOD over the years and he was an avowed sede and all, yet in His limitless mercy, God saw fit that Fr. Cekada receive the sacrament of Extreme Unction (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/extreme-unction-(the-anointing-of-the-dying)-great-indeed-are-it's-effects/) before he died. I pray for his soul daily as should we all.
The only thing we CAN be sure of, is that he now knows with absolute certainty that God can and will - and wants to, provide the sacrament of baptism for all who sincerely desire it.
-
That's like attributing ƈσmmυɳιsm to a denial of EENS.
The heart of Communism is belief in evolution.
-
You should not say that about Fr. Cekada, he and I had plenty of blowout arguments about a BOD over the years and he was an avowed sede and all, yet in His limitless mercy, God saw fit that Fr. Cekada receive the sacrament of Extreme Unction (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/extreme-unction-(the-anointing-of-the-dying)-great-indeed-are-it's-effects/) before he died.
But did he repent of his EENS-denying and sedeism heresies? The sacrament would be useless without that.
-
I heard that the CMRI denies extreme unction to dying Feeneyites unless they recant of their Catholicism on their deathbeds.
-
You should not say that about Fr. Cekada, he and I had plenty of blowout arguments about a BOD over the years and he was an avowed sede and all, yet in His limitless mercy, God saw fit that Fr. Cekada receive the sacrament of Extreme Unction (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/extreme-unction-(the-anointing-of-the-dying)-great-indeed-are-it's-effects/) before he died. I pray for his soul daily as should we all.
The only thing we CAN be sure of, is that he now knows with absolute certainty that God can and will - and wants to, provide the sacrament of baptism for all who sincerely desire it.
Why shouldn't he say it? It's a perfectly logical thing to say when you believe bod/bob are "heresies."
I believed the same thing when I was a Feeneyite.
Just like the Dimondites, who tap dance and declare such and such that wasn't a Dimondite has gone to Hell every time they die.
It's the logical thing to do for them.
-
Remember in the anonymous forum there are trolls.
-
It's the logical thing to do for them.
As the Cure of Ars treated Voltaire, so do the Feeneyites treat Cekada.
-
Why shouldn't he say it? It's a perfectly logical thing to say when you believe bod/bob are "heresies."
I believed the same thing when I was a Feeneyite.
Just like the Dimondites, who tap dance and declare such and such that wasn't a Dimondite has gone to Hell every time they die.
It's the logical thing to do for them.
He shouldn't say it because, having received the sacrament of extreme unction, we Catholics presume that he died as one of the faithful departed. In case you do not know what a sacrament is, "a sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace".
If you have faith in the power of the sacrament, then you know he died a member of the faithful departed. If you have no faith in the power of the sacrament, then continue being logical I guess.
-
Can’t we just agree that we need to pray for the conversion of all Feeneyites and sedes, and leave it at that?
-
Can’t we just agree that we need to pray for the conversion of all Feeneyites and sedes, and leave it at that?
This forum is a Feeneyite and sede forum. Because both groups are allowed when they are banned from the other forums, they come here and dominate.
-
This forum is a Feeneyite and sede forum. Because both groups are allowed when they are banned from the other forums, they come here and dominate.
It's all about attaining salvation, the validity of the pope is not our concern because there is nothing we can do about it either way, otoh, the necessity of the sacrament of baptism of course is our concern, because no one enters the kingdom of God without it and there is something we can (and must) do about receiving it.
-
This forum is a Feeneyite and sede forum. Because both groups are allowed when they are banned from the other forums, they come here and dominate.
This is either Meg or Johnson.
I enjoy your conflation of the two, since most sedes are also the most anti-Feeneyite out there, which I can explain but don't feel like it now.
-
He shouldn't say it because, having received the sacrament of extreme unction, we Catholics presume that he died as one of the faithful departed. In case you do not know what a sacrament is, "a sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace".
If you have faith in the power of the sacrament, then you know he died a member of the faithful departed. If you have no faith in the power of the sacrament, then continue being logical I guess.
Not even in Novus Ordo textbooks have I read such a thing.
Even THEY say that there is such a thing as receiving sacraments unworthily and without any effect. They even give precisely this same example of the lifelong sinner who confesses on his deathbed, but since he never confessed in life when he was healthy, he didn't know how to do a good confession at the hour of death and consequently did not profit from the sacrament.
Go back to reading the catechism why don't you.
Oh wait, it's "heretical" and all you need is a Denzinger.
-
Can’t we just agree that we need to pray for the conversion of all Feeneyites and sedes, and leave it at that?
For the Feeneyites, yes.
-
For the Feeneyites, yes.
Neither group requires "conversion" ... that's the view of the dogmatists, and it's absurd. Many in the Novus Ordo do not require conversion either, just a correction and enlightenment.
-
Not even in Novus Ordo textbooks have I read such a thing.
Even THEY say that there is such a thing as receiving sacraments unworthily and without any effect. They even give precisely this same example of the lifelong sinner who confesses on his deathbed, but since he never confessed in life when he was healthy, he didn't know how to do a good confession at the hour of death and consequently did not profit from the sacrament.
Go back to reading the catechism why don't you.
Oh wait, it's "heretical" and all you need is a Denzinger.
Ok, so we know now that you have no faith whatsoever in the sacrament. Fwiw, it is not up to any of us to decide whether he received the sacrament worthily or not, we who do not know what goes on behind closed doors cannot possibly know what his disposition was, all we can know is that he was a priest who was dying and that he received this sacrament, which as St. Thomas Aquinas says: "This Sacrament prepares a man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life in the body."
I supplied this link (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/extreme-unction-(the-anointing-of-the-dying)-great-indeed-are-it's-effects/) earlier - spend 4 minutes and read it and learn what this sacrament does, and fyi, it does this whether you believe it or not.
-
Neither group requires "conversion" ... that's the view of the dogmatists, and it's absurd. Many in the Novus Ordo do not require conversion either, just a correction and enlightenment.
Ok, let’s pray for the correction and enlightenment of the Feeneyites and sedes then. Whatever gets them to abjure their errors.
-
Neither group requires "conversion" ... that's the view of the dogmatists, and it's absurd. Many in the Novus Ordo do not require conversion either, just a correction and enlightenment.
The sedes definitely need conversion. Sometimes I wonder if they are just a bunch of autists and also infiltrators looking to start confusion and leading good people away from the Church. Feeneyites are just Catholics.
-
The strange thing about sedes hating Feeneyites is that they claim to oppose the errors of Vatican II while championing the greatest of those errors. Sedevacantism would make a lot more sense if they rejected Pope Pius XII and went back a little farther. Then they could also reject the 55 Holy Week and NFP.
-
Sometimes Feeneyites are allowed if they don't spread the error, and the priest determines they are honestly ignorant of Catholic teaching on BoD and BoB.
If that "priest" was a priest of Our Lord, having a mandate from a bishop with an apostolic mandate of Our Lord, and he determined that some of his sheep were honestly ignorant of some Catholic teaching, in short: if and he was a true priest, then he would remove the "honest ignorance" of his sheep and simply tell them about the said Catholic teaching.
If he doesn't, but rather tells you about their purported ignorance, then I, if I was in your place, would hurry up and run away from that laughable "priest", and repent to have it let happen to have met hin.
-
One of the Feeneyites at my chapel had a conversation with our last pastor and he said that the arguments he gave against Feeneyismm were not convincing so he remained convinced that Feeneyism was the truth.
-
One of the Feeneyites at my chapel had a conversation with our last pastor and he said that the arguments he gave against Feeneyismm were not convincing so he remained convinced that Feeneyism was the truth.
Well then, how then can the pastor talk about "honest ignorance" of the Catholic Faith? Wasn't he able to indicate binding "anti-Feeneyite" teaching of the Church to that "Feeneyite".
Either your pastor was able to present proof to that "Feeneyite", then the ignorance couldn't be called "honest" anymore. Our he wasn't, then your pastor is at least dishonest.
-
Previous post is of mine.
-
The strange thing about sedes hating Feeneyites is that they claim to oppose the errors of Vatican II while championing the greatest of those errors. Sedevacantism would make a lot more sense if they rejected Pope Pius XII and went back a little farther. Then they could also reject the 55 Holy Week and NFP.
It makes me cringe whenever I see the image of Pope Pius XII on Novus Ordo Watch's twitter account.
-
The strange thing about sedes hating Feeneyites is that they claim to oppose the errors of Vatican II while championing the greatest of those errors.
I believe that the sedevacantist contempt for Feeneyism dovetails with their exaggerated notion of infallibility, where they effectively hold that every single utterance of any pope is tantamount to an infallible and dogmatic definition ... for all intents and purposes. So they give a lot more weight to the so-called Suprema Haec than it deserves.
Unfortunately, BoD/BoB have become distractions, because that is not the core issue. EENS is. But BoD keeps resurfacing because the enemies of EENS insist upon using BoD as the weapon with which they constantly try to undermine it. So one finds the overreaction of the Dimonds in declaring all forms (and articulations) of BoD to be heretical.
-
Christ was crucified because He told the world that He and the Catholic Church are necessary for Salvation. They brutally put Him to death for teaching there is no salvation in any other. To hear people suggest there might be salvation without Christ, beyond the Church, without baptism, is not only deplorable, but denies the sufferings and death of Our Lord. Wouldn't want to be anyone saying it.
-
The Water Baptism folks see it the opposite way.
BOD/BOB dilute Catholicism's mandate to promote the Faith.
Because any jew, Hindu, protestant or muslim can gain entry to Everlasting Life, by merely wishing it.
It's a fraud perpetuated to break down Catholic confidence and resolve.
PAC (Perfect Act of Contrition) dilutes Catholicism's mandate to confess ones sins to a priest.
Because any fornicator, idolater, adulterer, thief, or drunkard can gain entry to Everlasting life by merely wishing it.
When will people see the true fraud of PAC?
-
Sedes or any other trad who oppose the true meaning of Baptism and EENS commit logical fallacy. What's the point of being sede or trad, if other souls of false religions and atheism can make it to Heaven simply because they "desire" Christ or they're "righteous souls" in their own false religions or non-religion?
You're no different than the Novus Ordo. You are TRAD FORM with NEW RELIGION SUBSTANCE.
-
This is either Meg or Johnson.
I enjoy your conflation of the two, since most sedes are also the most anti-Feeneyite out there, which I can explain but don't feel like it now.
Definitely Meg.
-
BoD and Bob are teachings of the Church. Once the Feeneyites accept those teachings there will not be any problem. The Church cannot have two contradictory teachings.
-
BoD and Bob are teachings of the Church. Once the Feeneyites accept those teachings there will not be any problem. The Church cannot have two contradictory teachings.
BoD and BoB are propositions of speculative theology that have been allowed by the Church.
BoD was rejected by the vast majority of Church Fathers, and the Fathers who believed in BoB felt that it was actually the Sacrament taking place, and not a substitute or an exception.
-
BoD and Bob are teachings of the Church. Once the Feeneyites accept those teachings there will not be any problem. The Church cannot have two contradictory teachings.
They are not Church teachings, the terms "baptism of blood/desire" have never been used, not even one time in any official Church docuмent ever.
-
BoD and BoB are propositions of speculative theology that have been allowed by the Church.
Allowed? The Church has solemnly forbidden to teach, preach, or believe anything else but what is written in "cuм hoc tempore".
-
They are not Church teachings, the terms "baptism of blood/desire" have never been used, not even one time in any official Church docuмent ever.
The Council or Trent and Catechisms approved by the Pope.
-
Allowed? The Church has solemnly forbidden to teach, preach, or believe anything else but what is written in "cuм hoc tempore".
Trent did not teach Baptism of Desire.
-
BoD and BoB are propositions of speculative theology that have been allowed by the Church.
Allowed? The Church has solemnly forbidden to teach, preach, or believe anything else but what is written in "cuм hoc tempore".
Trent did not teach Baptism of Desire.
Exactly. And that's why you're wrong, saying "BoD and BoB are propositions of speculative theology that have been allowed by the Church." The truth is, the Church has solemnly forbidden to teach, preach, or believe anything else but what is written in "cuм hoc tempore". Now, since "Trent did not teach Baptism of Desire", the Church has solemnly forbidden to teach, preach, or believe Baptism of Desire. (the same is case for BoB).
The sacrosanct Council of Trent has not only not allowed, but rather forbidden to teach, preach, or believe BoD or BoB.
To sum it up: Your statement "BoD and BoB are propositions of speculative theology that have been allowed by the Church." is wrong. The truth is: "BoD and BoB are propositions of speculative theology that have been forbidden by the Church."
-
DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION
Proem.
Whereas there is, at this time, not without the shipwreck of many souls, and grievous detriment to the unity of the Church, a certain erroneous doctrine disseminated touching Justification; the sacred and holy, oecuмenical and general Synod of Trent,[/b] lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost,–the most reverend lords, Giammaria del Monte, bishop of Palaestrina, and Marcellus of the title of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, priest, cardinals of the holy Roman Church, and legates apostolic a latere, presiding therein, in the name of our most holy father and lord in Christ, Paul III., by the providence of God, Pope,-purposes, unto the praise and glory of Almighty God, the tranquillising of the Church, and the salvation of souls, to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and sound doctrine touching the said Justification; which (doctrine) the sun of justice, Christ Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, taught, which the apostles transmitted, and which the Catholic Church, the Holy Ghost reminding her thereof, has always retained; most strictly forbidding that any henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise than as by this present decree is defined and declared.
The Confession of Faith of the Vatican Council made this teaching part of the Confession of the Catholic faith. So, it's a good idea, to read and chew every word of this intro and the whole decree.
-
The Council or Trent and Catechisms approved by the Pope.
Nope, neither term is used in either Trent or it's catechism. On the contrary, both specifically teach that reception of the actual sacrament itself is necessary for salvation.
-
If the Church hasn’t allowed BoD, how do you explain the canonization of St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus, both of whom taught BoD?
-
I believe that the sedevacantist contempt for Feeneyism dovetails with their exaggerated notion of infallibility, where they effectively hold that every single utterance of any pope is tantamount to an infallible and dogmatic definition ... for all intents and purposes. So they give a lot more weight to the so-called Suprema Haec than it deserves.
Unfortunately, BoD/BoB have become distractions, because that is not the core issue. EENS is. But BoD keeps resurfacing because the enemies of EENS insist upon using BoD as the weapon with which they constantly try to undermine it. So one finds the overreaction of the Dimonds in declaring all forms (and articulations) of BoD to be heretical.
I don't see the "sedevacantist contempt" for Feeneyites. Do some have contempt? Yes. But I think you see that in other trad groups as well. When I think of the posters right here currently on this board who are the most anti-Feeneyite, they aren't sedevacantist.
-
I don't see the "sedevacantist contempt" for Feeneyites. Do some have contempt? Yes. But I think you see that in other trad groups as well. When I think of the posters right here currently on this board who are the most anti-Feeneyite, they aren't sedevacantist.
Lots of SSPX chapels tolerate Feeneyites, whereas some sedevacantists have gone so far as to refuse the Last Rites to a dying Feeneyite. Bishop Kelly and the SSPV treat Feeneyites like they do adherents of the CMRI ... as non-Catholics. Bishop Sanborn et al. have a similar attitude. CMRI strongly opposes it. So the bulk of animosity against Feeneyites does come from the sedevacantist camp. Apart from the Dimonds and Bishop Webster (and a priest who was ordained by him), I know of no sedevacantist Feeneyites.
Sean Johnson is unique in his vocal opposition to Feeneyism among R&R. There’s also XavierSem but he’s not R&R and also upholds a view of the Church’s infallibility nearly identical with that of the most dogmatic sedevacantists. All of the other vocal opponents of Feeneyism have been sedevacantusts ... such as LoT. What they all have in common is the Cekadist position that theologians are an organ of infallibility.
-
I'm a Thomist. I believe in Baptism of Desire and of Blood, which is taught by the Catholic Church under His Holiness Pope St. Pius X. The Anti-Modernist Saintly Pontiff who combated that great heresy. Hence, it is absurd - and heretical - to claim that BOD/BOB is heresy.
I firmly oppose Dimondism. Dimondism is the denial of the de fide doctrine taught in Trent and its Catechism that Baptism of Desire can justify and save. I am with St. Thomas in believing that God will bring all His elect to explicit faith in Christ for their salvation. I would even be open to the Augustinian theory that God, in addition, will bring them to Sacramental Baptism, if it weren't for the absurdities and extremism of some like the Dimonds. The Dimonds take pleasure in damning souls. That's obvious from their videos. That has never been the teaching of the Church and was not the opinion of St. Augustine either. The Dimonds anathematize 99% even of Catholics. They would be schismatic on just that count, to the exclusion of all other things.
Trent and its Catechism did teach the Doctrine of Baptism of Desire, and of Blood, which is the most perfect form of Baptism of Desire. That is plain, and has been the unanimous reading of Trent for 500 years. Not even Fr. Feeney or SBC today denies that Trent teaches that Baptism or its voto justifies. The voto of Baptism is included in the Baptism of Blood, because Martyrdom itself is the Perfect Act of Love. God loves everyone and gives everyone the chance to make Perfect Acts of Contrition.
It is difficult, but not impossible, for good-willed non-Christians to do so. If they persevere in doing so, they will be given the Grace of Catholic Faith, and Catholic Faith in Christ, before their deaths, and so be saved as Christians.
-
I'm a Thomist. I believe in Baptism of Desire and of Blood, which is taught by the Catholic Church under His Holiness Pope St. Pius X. The Anti-Modernist Saintly Pontiff who combated that great heresy. Hence, it is absurd - and heretical - to claim that BOD/BOB is heresy.
The Catholic Church does not and never has taught baptism of blood or baptism of desire.
Trent and its Catechism did teach the Doctrine of Baptism of Desire, and of Blood, which is the most perfect form of Baptism of Desire.
No, Trent and its catechism do not teach baptism of desire and of blood - you claiming that they do only makes you a liar.
-
Trent and its Catechism did teach the Doctrine of Baptism of Desire, and of Blood, which is the most perfect form of Baptism of Desire. That is plain, and has been the unanimous reading of Trent for 500 years. Not even Fr. Feeney or SBC today denies that Trent teaches that Baptism or its voto justifies. The voto of Baptism is included in the Baptism of Blood, because Martyrdom itself is the Perfect Act of Love. God loves everyone and gives everyone the chance to make Perfect Acts of Contrition.
I agree with everything else but this. Trent simply stated that justification cannot happen without the desire for it. Its language leaves open the possibility that the "desire" alone suffices for justification, but it does not explicitly state this as it did for the Sacrament of Confession. Trent could have used the "saltem" language or else "vel ... vel" as it did for Confession, but did not. So, on the surface, the text could mean that either is sufficient or that both are required. Also, if Trent had intended to be dealing with the "Three Baptisms," it's difficult to explain why there's no mention of Baptism of Blood. This definition, read the pro-BoD way, actually rules out BoB as something distinct from BoD, effectively reducing it to the ex opere operantis effect of desire.
But even if you read is as saying that the desire itself suffices for justification, theologians distinguish between justification and salvation. In order to get to the next step, you have to argue syllogistically and assert that a person who dies in a state of justification is necessarily saved. This assumes that God would ever allow this scenario to happen (vs. St. Augustine's opinion to the contrary) and it seems to run counter to the example of the Old Testament just. Really the biggest argument for this comes from the condemnation of Baius, but I've studied that and what was being condemned was something entirely different asserted by Baius ... which I could go into but won't here. As you know, several theologians held that infidels could be justified but not saved ... so that distinction made by Father Feeney was not of his own invention but has been around a long time, from the post-Tridentine theologians.
-
To Reply #63. What do you call this then, from the Catechism of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X? "A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286
Go on, just declare His Holiness Pope St. Pius X an Invalid Heretical Modernist AntiPope, and be done with it! That'll show everyone.
Ladislaus, your position is reasonable. As distinguished from the Dimonds and what they claim, which even you regard as schismatic for the reason that it condemns Doctors like St. Alphonsus and St. Robert whom the Church has approved, I would say your view is almost acceptable. I could easily be convinced of it upon further study. Some early Church sources do suggest the OT just in limbo were baptized. I do not regard the Augustinian position of SBC today as being even slightly problematic. I see them as allies in the Faith.
God Bless.
-
To Reply #63. What do you call this then, from the Catechism of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X? "A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286
Go on, just declare His Holiness Pope St. Pius X an Invalid Heretical Modernist AntiPope, and be done with it! That'll show everyone.
Ladislaus, your position is reasonable. As distinguished from the Dimonds and what they claim, which even you regard as schismatic for the reason that it condemns Doctors like St. Alphonsus and St. Robert whom the Church has approved, I would say your view is almost acceptable. I could easily be convinced of it upon further study. Some early Church sources do suggest the OT just in limbo were baptized. I do not regard the Augustinian position of SBC today as being even slightly problematic. I see them as allies in the Faith.
God Bless.
That's not from Trent's catechism, and it was certainly never taught by the church, not at Trent nor at any other Council of the Church.
Aside from that fact, the absence of anything equals nothing at all, so the absence of baptism is nothing at all, which means that nothing at all is supplied by baptism of blood or desire - and that is truth.
-
I agree with everything else but this. Trent simply stated that justification cannot happen without the desire for it.
You are misquoting Trent.
Trent actually says that justification cannot happen *with* the desire thereof:
"And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written..."
-
If the Church hasn’t allowed BoD ...
The Church has not only not allowed, but most strictly forbidden to teach, preach, or believe ...
If the Church hasn’t allowed BoD, how do you explain the canonization of St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus, both of whom taught BoD?
Vincent of Lérins says in his Commonitory that God allows for errors in the teachings of Fathers, Doctors, etc. to try people, to make sure they love truth more than men.
-
The Church has not only not allowed, but most strictly forbidden to teach, preach, or believe ...
Vincent of Lérins says in his Commonitory that God allows for errors in the teachings of Fathers, Doctors, etc. to try people, to make sure they love truth more than men.
I agree with St Vincent that God allowed BoD speculation because it has led ultimately to this testing of faith (in addition to a few other things like evolution).
I have not seen any proof that the Church has forbidden speculation regarding Baptism of Desire. What is the proof for your assertion?
-
See the quote from the Decree on Justification on the previous page.
-
See the quote from the Decree on Justification on the previous page.
That doesn't address the issue at all. You need to connect the dots here for those of us who just aren't seeing it. All that PROEM says is that it's forbidden to contradict the Treatise on Justification. So it remains to be demonstrated that the Treatise on Justification precludes the possibility of BoD.
-
You are misquoting Trent.
Trent actually says that justification cannot happen *with* the desire thereof:
"And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written..."
Unfortunately, the quote says the exact opposite of what you are claiming. A solid grasp of basic grammar and syntax should make this clear enough. I am well aware this message will not be received. No biggie.
-
All that PROEM says is that it's forbidden to contradict the Treatise on Justification.
Not true, read again!
most strictly forbidding that any henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise than as by this present decree is defined and declared.
Trent did not teach Baptism of Desire.
-
Not true, read again!
This does not mean that all Catholic teaching is contained in Trent. What it means is that nothing taught there can be contradicted by anyone.
-
This does not mean that all Catholic teaching is contained in Trent. What it means is that nothing taught there can be contradicted by anyone.
You don't seem to be honest. Are you fooling yourself? Or are you really not able to read and understand some 15 lines of text?
What it means is that nothing taught there can be contradicted by anyone.
It means what it says, and not what you want it to mean. It says that the sacred and holy, oecuмenical and general Synod of Trent expounds
to all the faithful of Christ the true and sound doctrine touching the said Justification; [...] most strictly forbidding that any henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise than as by this present decree is defined and declared
... with respect to the topic of the Decree (Justification).
This does not mean that all Catholic teaching is contained in Trent.
Indeed.
-
This does not mean that all Catholic teaching is contained in Trent. What it means is that nothing taught there can be contradicted by anyone.
As I said above (forgot to click on silly box), grammar and syntax are clearly NOT the strength of this particular adversarius.
-
Great news indeed. At least some people recognize the true theological roots of this Crisis.
Cardinal Cushing who rush off to get Fr Feeney excommunicated, at the bidding of young Havardman Bobby Kennedy, was also fervent indifferentist well before V2.
I'm wary of the term for St Dismas was hardly baptised in a formal way unless by the water which flows from our Saviour - a Feeneyite would set the matter in context. It savours of a go to term to attack those trads someone dislikes. Jansenist was used to be used that way once, when nearly all those originally so dubbed were more disgusted at Jesuit Probabalism, which bl Innocent XI later condemned. It means nothing and everything.
-
Thank you Ladislaus and Prayerful. You bring it together quite well. I read the Boston Heresy Case. Fr. Feeney knew his Faith, knowledge, his attitude and behavior speak well of him to save souls from the enemy! He and others saw to it to teach well so that there would not be a loss of Faith.
I am watchful of the enemy, how they do the KAB. Knowledge, begets attitude, begets Behavior. The enemy is very clever, the demons working through the radical jews as Our Lady said would happen.
All it takes is just one letter changed in a word, such as "same" to "similar" in the Apostles Creed to start havoc.
Thank You!
-
You don't seem to be honest. Are you fooling yourself? Or are you really not able to read and understand some 15 lines of text?
It means what it says, and not what you want it to mean. It says that the sacred and holy, oecuмenical and general Synod of Trent expounds
... with respect to the topic of the Decree (Justification).
Indeed.
You’re really helping to discredit the anti-BoD position with this nonsense. Makes me wonder whether you’re a troll.
-
You’re really helping to discredit the anti-BoD position with this nonsense. Makes me wonder whether you’re a troll.
No one should have answered the coward that started this thread. There is no reason to post something like this as an anonymous. Besides, these anonymous threads can easily be used extended forever by one person posting strawmen to make himself look good.
-
You’re really helping to discredit the anti-BoD position with this nonsense. Makes me wonder whether you’re a troll.
No one should have answered the coward that started this thread. There is no reason to post something like this as an αnσnymσus. Besides, these αnσnymσus threads can easily be used extended forever by one person posting strawmen to make himself look good.
-
You’re really helping to discredit the anti-BoD position with this nonsense. Makes me wonder whether you’re a troll.
DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION
Proem.
Whereas there is, at this time, not without the shipwreck of many souls, and grievous detriment to the unity of the Church, a certain erroneous doctrine disseminated touching Justification; the sacred and holy, oecuмenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, –the most reverend lords, Giammaria del Monte, bishop of Palaestrina, and Marcellus of the title of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, priest, cardinals of the holy Roman Church, and legates apostolic a latere, presiding therein, in the name of our most holy father and lord in Christ, Paul III., by the providence of God, Pope,– purposes, unto the praise and glory of Almighty God, the tranquillising of the Church, and the salvation of souls, to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and sound doctrine touching the said Justification; which (doctrine) the sun of justice, Christ Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, taught, which the apostles transmitted, and which the Catholic Church, the Holy Ghost reminding her thereof, has always retained; most strictly forbidding that any henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise than as by this present decree is defined and declared.
Trent did not teach Baptism of Desire.
It's most strictly forbidden to believe, preach, or teach Baptism of Desire, or Baptism of Blood.
-
Definitely Meg.
Actually, it wasn't me this time. I don't know enough about BoD/BoB to really speculate. Though I do think that this forum is mostly for sedes and sedewhatevers.
I do tend to lean toward BoB though. I was looking through my St. Andrew Daily Missal yesterday, reading about the various saints on their feast days, and I came across a saint who was a catechumen who was martyred before was baptized. This is from page 1072 in the St. Andrew missal:
January 23
St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr
Red vestments
"A foster-sister of St. Agnes, the virgin Emerentiana, who while still a catechumen shed tears on the tomb of her friend who had just been martyred. Some Pagans mocked at her grief. She, full of the divine virtue of which Jesus is the source (Collect), reproached the idolaters with their cruelty towards Agnes, and they in their fury stoned her on that very tomb. Baptized in her own blood, she went to join for evermore her Spouse and her sister (about 304)."
-
and I came across a saint who was a catechumen who was martyred before was baptized. This is from page 1072 in the St. Andrew missal:
January 23
St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr
Red vestments
"A foster-sister of St. Agnes, the virgin Emerentiana, who while still a catechumen shed tears on the tomb of her friend who had just been martyred. Some Pagans mocked at her grief. She, full of the divine virtue of which Jesus is the source (Collect), reproached the idolaters with their cruelty towards Agnes, and they in their fury stoned her on that very tomb. Baptized in her own blood, she went to join for evermore her Spouse and her sister (about 304)."
She was canonized by her bishop (year unknown) before the end of the 11th century when the Church required that all beatification & canonization must have Holy See approval, and not be done solely by bishops.
-
She was canonized by her bishop (year unknown) before the end of the 11th century when the Church required that all beatification & canonization must have Holy See approval, and not be done solely by bishops.
So all beatifications and canonizations before the 11th century are suspect? That's a whole lotta saints.
-
No one should have answered the coward that started this thread. There is no reason to post something like this as an αnσnymσus. Besides, these αnσnymσus threads can easily be used extended forever by one person posting strawmen to make himself look good.
You make a good point. In αnσnymσus, it's very easy for someone to introduce and mobilize a number of sock puppets. It's a favorite tactic of governments to demonize the opposition toe planting people in the opposition to make them look bad. I'll refrain from further comment on this thread.
There's no proof that St. Emerentiana wasn't already baptized with water. During times of persecution, the Church commanded that catechumens all be baptized even though they would continue on in the status of catechumen to receive further instruction. They continued to be called catechumens even though they were Baptized because their formation wasn't complete yet. There's direct proof of this. There are numerous references to known baptized Catholics (including the case of a priest) who were spoken of by the Fathers as having been baptized in their own blood as a second Baptism that washed them of actual sin so they would directly enter Heaven without any Purgatory. So this is not conclusive proof of anything. Baptism of Blood, furthermore, is a completely distinct notion to the Fathers, with many of them believing in BoB but rejecting BoD. And they believed in BoB because they believed that it was the actual Sacrament, with all the "sacred elements", with blood supplying for water and the angels pronouncing the form of Baptism.
These types of quotes have been dealt with at least a hundred times already, but people keep slapping the same things out there as if they were new and provide a sudden smoking-gun proof of the position.
-
You make a good point. In αnσnymσus, it's very easy for someone to introduce and mobilize a number of sock puppets. It's a favorite tactic of governments to demonize the opposition toe planting people in the opposition to make them look bad. I'll refrain from further comment on this thread.
There's no proof that St. Emerentiana wasn't already baptized with water. During times of persecution, the Church commanded that catechumens all be baptized even though they would continue on in the status of catechumen to receive further instruction. They continued to be called catechumens even though they were Baptized because their formation wasn't complete yet. There's direct proof of this. There are numerous references to known baptized Catholics (including the case of a priest) who were spoken of by the Fathers as having been baptized in their own blood as a second Baptism that washed them of actual sin so they would directly enter Heaven without any Purgatory. So this is not conclusive proof of anything. Baptism of Blood, furthermore, is a completely distinct notion to the Fathers, with many of them believing in BoB but rejecting BoD. And they believed in BoB because they believed that it was the actual Sacrament, with all the "sacred elements", with blood supplying for water and the angels pronouncing the form of Baptism.
These types of quotes have been dealt with at least a hundred times already, but people keep slapping the same things out there as if they were new and provide a sudden smoking-gun proof of the position.
True; we don't have proof that St. Emerentiana wasn't baptized with water. But surely, the Holy See in the 11th century (or whenever she was officially canonized) would have known about catechumens being baptized with water while still a catechumen in times of persecution. If what you say is true, then the Holy See must have also taken that into consideration, or perhaps you believe that you have more knowledge that the Holy See at that time, and that the Holy see was ignorant of the situation.
She is described as being baptized with blood. I'll take that as the true situation until there's proof otherwise.
-
Sorry, that's my post above this one. I forgot to check that non-anonymous box.
-
She is described as being baptized with blood. I'll take that as the true situation until there's proof otherwise.
Well, that's the problem. Martyrs are referred to in the Church Fathers as having been baptized in their own blood ... even if they're baptized Christians, so that expression is inconclusive.
Here's St. John Chrysostom on St. Lucian:
Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a Baptism; for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is a taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul; and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood.
He's speaking here about the martyrdom of St. Lucian. St. Lucian was a priest, already baptized.
This is that tradition where martyrs are cleansed of all sin by martyrdom and thus go straight to heaven without any Purgatory time, so they are said to receive a second baptism, a washing of their sins.
-
Well, that's the problem. Martyrs are referred to in the Church Fathers as having been baptized in their own blood ... even if they're baptized Christians, so that expression is inconclusive.
Here's St. John Chrysostom on St. Lucian:
He's speaking here about the martyrdom of St. Lucian. St. Lucian was a priest, already baptized.
This is that tradition where martyrs are cleansed of all sin by martyrdom and thus go straight to heaven without any Purgatory time, so they are said to receive a second baptism, a washing of their sins.
The St. Andrew Missal says that she was martyred as a catechumen, and that she was baptized by blood. It's quite clear.
-
Dang, I did it again! Forget to check the non-anonymous box for the above post.
-
https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/h056rp.Sebaste.html
-
FWIW, this entire issue is a phenomenon limited pretty much exclusively to modern America. Make of that what you will.
-
The St. Andrew Missal says that she was martyred as a catechumen, and that she was baptized by blood. It's quite clear.
Well.....Catechumens were sometimes referred to as such even after Baptism.
Pope St. Sylvester I, First Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D., Can. 2: “For a catechumen needs time and further probation after baptism...”
-
“In his book Church History, Father John Laux, M. A., writes:
‘If he [the Christian] was destined to lose his life, he had been taught that martyrdom was a second Baptism, which washed away every stain, and that the soul of the martyr was secure in immediate admission to the perfect happiness of heaven.’
“Fifth, when a martyr is referred to as a ‘catechumen,’ it does not always mean he was not yet baptized. A catechumen was a person learning the Faith, as a student in a class called a catechumenate, under a teacher called a catechist. That students continued in their class even after they were baptized is confirmed conclusively by these words of Saint Ambrose to his catechumens: “I know very well that many things still have to be explained. It may strike you as strange that you were not given a complete teaching on the sacraments before you were baptized. However, the ancient discipline of the Church forbids us to reveal the Christian mysteries to the uninitiated. For the full meaning of the sacraments cannot be grasped without the light which they themselves shed in your hearts.” (On the Mysteries and On the Sacraments, Saint Ambrose)
-
https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/h056rp.Sebaste.html
There is no proof that the fortieth martyr of Sebaste was unbaptized, whose identity is unknown. The accounts of the story reveal that he “cried out with a loud voice that he was a Christian,” probably because he was already a baptized Catholic who was spurred on to martyrdom by the example of the other thirty-nine. Further, in the Roman Martyrology under the date of September 9, we read:
“At Sebaste in Armenia, St. Severian, a soldier of Emperor Licinius. For frequently visiting the Forty Martyrs in prison, he was suspended in the air with a stone tied to his feet by order of the governor Lysias…”
It is certain that Severian was not the fortieth martyr (from the date and circuмstances of his death), but we see from this account that other people and soldiers were able to visit the forty in prison. Thus, the forty martyrs easily could have baptized any soldiers who showed interest and sympathy with their cause, including the one who joined himself to them eventually (if he wasn’t already baptized). Thus, there is nothing that proves that the fortieth martyr was unbaptized, and we know that he was from the truth of our Faith.
-
Well.....Catechumens were sometimes referred to as such even after Baptism.
Pope St. Sylvester I, First Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D., Can. 2: “For a catechumen needs time and further probation after baptism...”
"Sometimes" isn't proof that St. Emerentiana was baptized with water before she was martyred. Not by a longshot. I trust the St. Andrew missal to mean what it says, even though it is not infallible. Our opinions here on the subject are not infallible either, no matter how many docuмents we may quote on either side of the issue.
-
"Sometimes" isn't proof that St. Emerentiana was baptized with water before she was martyred. Not by a longshot. I trust the St. Andrew missal to mean what it says, even though it is not infallible. Our opinions here on the subject are not infallible either, no matter how many docuмents we may quote on either side of the issue.
It really is just as easy to speculate that God provided Baptism to these glorious martyrs through an unseen miracle to supply His requisites for salvation, as it is to use our want of knowledge as proof of its dispensability. What we do not know is not a proof of anything.
If the Church honors anyone as a saint, according to her own teaching, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized.
From Who Shall Ascend?, Fr. quotes Brother Francis:
"St. Alphonsus de Liquori tells us that there were approximately eleven million martyrs in the first three centuries of the Church's history. Out of these eleven million martyrs, and the thousands of others which have been recorded since by
various Church historians, there are about ten cases in which the martyrs are reported to have died without baptism. In not one of these cases can we assert or conclude positively that these persons were not baptized".
-
It really is just as easy to speculate that God provided Baptism to these glorious martyrs through an unseen miracle to supply His requisites for salvation, as it is to use our want of knowledge as proof of its dispensability. What we do not know is not a proof of anything.
If the Church honors anyone as a saint, according to her own teaching, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized.
From Who Shall Ascend?, Fr. quotes Brother Francis:
"St. Alphonsus de Liquori tells us that there were approximately eleven million martyrs in the first three centuries of the Church's history. Out of these eleven million martyrs, and the thousands of others which have been recorded since by
various Church historians, there are about ten cases in which the martyrs are reported to have died without baptism. In not one of these cases can we assert or conclude positively that these persons were not baptized".
Speculation is all that we can really do here. However, the St. Andrew missal is not speculating. That's not how the Church works.
-
The St. Andrew Missal says that she was martyred as a catechumen, and that she was baptized by blood. It's quite clear.
What part of catechumens were baptized in times of persecution and still called catechumens didn’t you understand? So St. Andrew’s Missal is the new Denzinger? I have one and there’s a fair bit of Modernism in it.
-
Speculation is all that we can really do here. However, the St. Andrew missal is not speculating. That's not how the Church works.
St. Andrew’s Missal? I’ve about heard it all now. :facepalm:
-
What part of catechumens were baptized in times of persecution and still called catechumens didn’t you understand? So St. Andrew’s Missal is the new Denzinger? I have one and there’s a fair bit of Modernism in it.
For some trads, anything that doesn't line up with their views must be Modernist. I know that the St. Andrew missal is not infallible. Do you believe that your opinions are infallible?
-
St. Andrew’s Missal? I’ve about heard it all now. :facepalm:
So I guess we need to throw out that missal, since it is Modernist, and instead go with our own opinions?
Evidently, the Theosophist Luciferian Madame Blavastky was right - she said that there is no religion higher than Truth. Trads seem to think the same way.
-
It is in the Officium Divinum. Prayed by clerics and religious for centuries.
And it does not say that St. Emerentina never was baptized with water.
-
To Reply #63. What do you call this then, from the Catechism of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X? "A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286
Go on, just declare His Holiness Pope St. Pius X an Invalid Heretical Modernist AntiPope, and be done with it! That'll show everyone.
Ladislaus, your position is reasonable. As distinguished from the Dimonds and what they claim, which even you regard as schismatic for the reason that it condemns Doctors like St. Alphonsus and St. Robert whom the Church has approved, I would say your view is almost acceptable. I could easily be convinced of it upon further study. Some early Church sources do suggest the OT just in limbo were baptized. I do not regard the Augustinian position of SBC today as being even slightly problematic. I see them as allies in the Faith.
God Bless.
And I in turn have no issues with this position you articulate here. I have no problem with BoD when it’s not extended into Anonymous Catholicism. I just have not been convinced that it exists. Most of the Fathers rejected it. St. Augustine was, by his own admission, just speculating. And St. Ambrose distinguished between the washing of BoD and the crowning of the Sacrament. Based on the paucity of Patristic witness to it, I see no evidence that this was revealed directly. And I haven’t read any argument which proves that it derives necessarily from other revealed truth. But I remain open, as Fr. Feeney did, to correction by the Church ... when we get a pope who is recognizable as orthodox.
BoB has much more support but there’s a lot of indication that the Fathers considered it an extraordinary form of the actual Sacrament rather than a substitute.
-
BoB has much more support but there’s a lot of indication that the Fathers considered it an extraordinary form of the actual Sacrament rather than a substitute.
That's something that I, for one, can agree with. An extraordinary form of the sacrament rather than a substitute.
-
That's something that I, for one, can agree with. An extraordinary form of the sacrament rather than a substitute.
I’ll dig up the quotes that back this up. St. Cyprian called it the Sacrament and a Manual of Church Dogma from the 5th century (long attributed to St. Augustine but certainly from someone within his circle) declares that there’s no salvation without the Sacrament of water except for martyrdom in which all the sacred elements (i.e. matter and form) are present.
-
There is no proof that the fortieth martyr of Sebaste was unbaptized... The accounts of the story reveal that he “cried out with a loud voice that he was a Christian,” probably because he was already a baptized Catholic who was spurred on to martyrdom by the example of the other thirty-nine.
Groundless speculation is extremely useful in such discussions. There is no proof that he was, in fact, baptized, either. C'est la vie.
This endless, fruitless discussion is always so very invigorating and enlightening.
Again, this is a modern American issue with which no one else bothers.
-
An extraordinary form of the sacrament rather than a substitute.
Just as the God of Nature is not bound by His own laws to the extent that He cannot do as He pleases, occasionally setting them aside to perform a miracle, so He is not bound to limit Himself ONLY to the Sacraments He established to communicate the graces thereof. It isn't really that difficult to comprehend, even if such occurrences are as rare as (or even rarer than) miracles related to the laws of nature. Cannot receive the Holy Eucharist? Make a spiritual communion. Cannot confess when in a dire situation? Make a perfect act of contrition. Praying is as easy as breathing. It strikes me as totally sensible that God would happily and eagerly meet any of His feeble creatures more than halfway in order to give them the graces they need.
-
Oops! Just got home after a long day working Mothers' Day brunch. The two posts above are mine. Cheers.
-
Just as the God of Nature is not bound by His own laws to the extent that He cannot do as He pleases, occasionally setting them aside to perform a miracle, so He is not bound to limit Himself ONLY to the Sacraments He established to communicate the graces thereof.
God does not lie, when he says that it's not without water and the holy spirit.
-
God does not lie, when he says that it's not without water and the holy spirit.
Thank you for the predictably profound contribution, delivered in gutless, anonymous fashion.
The SACRAMENT requires water (the matter) and the proper form. The GRACE of the Sacrament is an entirely different thing, and there is no reason whatsoever that the God of the Sacraments cannot give the GRACE of the Sacrament outside/apart from the Sacrament itself. This is precisely what happens when one makes a spiritual communion.
I eagerly await your profound, anonymous response.
-
Unless I am missing something, he was corrected. Didn't take.
Just as one can receive a Sacrament yet fail to receive the grace thereof (due to improper dispositions), so can one receive the grace of certain Sacraments without receiving the Sacrament itself. Does it happen often? Dunno. Don't care. Not my business as it is infinitely above my pat grade.
-
Unless I am missing something, he was corrected. Didn't take.
Just as one can receive a Sacrament yet fail to receive the grace thereof (due to improper dispositions), so can one receive the grace of certain Sacraments without receiving the Sacrament itself. Does it happen often? Dunno. Don't care. Not my business as it is infinitely above my pat grade.
The above was my reply to your comment, Ladislaus, about being open, as Fr. Feeney, to correction, etc. Sorry for any confusion.
-
This is precisely what happens when one makes a spiritual communion.
You sound like a novus ordo.
-
You sound like a novus ordo.
Considering your profoundly insightful post about Schwab being -- GASP! -- a Jew, I am not too worried about your take on anything.
Spiritual communion is a completely traditional concept and practice, you ignorant, blind bastard.
-
Considering your profoundly insightful post about Schwab being -- GASP! -- a Jew, I am not too worried about your take on anything.
Spiritual communion is a completely traditional concept and practice, you ignorant, blind bastard.
Silly box. C'est la vie.
-
Spiritual communion is a completely traditional concept and practice, you ignorant, blind bastard.
Says the "man" who wears skirts.
"Spiritual communion" is totally novus ordo and designed to keep people in mortal sin while they make "spiritual communions" every Sunday as if that will save their souls.
Btw, a majority of people still don't know that Schwab is a jew. Don't project what you know onto others. You're not very wise, even if already informed about a particular issue.
-
Says the "man" who wears skirts.
"Spiritual communion" is totally novus ordo and designed to keep people in mortal sin while they make "spiritual communions" every Sunday as if that will save their souls.
Btw, a majority of people still don't know that Schwab is a jew. Don't project what you know onto others. You're not very wise, even if already informed about a particular issue.
Believe what you want. Ignorant men of bad will are not worth my time. Pax.
-
"Spiritual communion" is totally novus ordo...
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/AnteMissam/Acts.html
As I said, you are completely ignorant, punk.
-
You drew first blood by calling me a "bastard".
Keep wearing your plaid skirts like a girl and advocating "spiritual communion" like the novus ordo.
I was firm because you are bull-headed and wrong. I will keep mercilessly drawing blood from punks like you who don't know whereof you speak yet pretend the contrary, at least until a modicuм of humility manifests itself.
I am amused you both searched for me and have a problem with a kilt. You DO know Jesus Christ didn't wear pants, right?
-
And punks wear skirts. That means you're the punk.
LOL :laugh2:
Go say that in Scotland. You'll get snapped like a twig, boy.
-
You drew first blood by calling me a "bastard".
Uh, McDumbAss :fryingpan:
You erroneously stated that spiritual communion is Bogus Ordo. First Blood was drawn by you. Too bad you cannot handle what you have brought upon yourself. Such are children when they foolishly mess with grown men. May you begin to learn your lesson.
-
Says the coward who hides in anonymity, and too low IQ to realize even your username still makes you αnσnymσus in real life. Perhaps you put too much value in internet accounts that have absolutely no intrinsic value, and you're worried about its "reputation". You're another effeminate.
And "spiritual communion" is, indeed, novus ordo.
Anyone here may know my name. Many do and have for years. You may rest assured my IQ surpasses your own by a lot, for whatever that is or is not worth. As for effeminacy and the absurdly-groundless charge thereof, so what?
Maybe when you are burning in Hell, which I hope you avoid but fear will be the case, you can be allowed to tell St. Alphonsus (among others) that spiritual communion is from the Bogus. Goodbye.
-
Are you implying that you're a tough guy?
You wear knee highs with your skirts? That's effeminate.
So obsessed with wedding pics...lol.
Such is the traditional formal-wear in unquestionably manly regions. Am I tough? Come find out. ;)
-
Thank you for the predictably profound contribution, delivered in gutless, αnσnymσus fashion.
[...]
I eagerly await your profound, αnσnymσus response.
If read you must, then read on, letting the love of Truth be your guide. Don’t ask who wrote it. Just pay attention to what’s said.
Just as the God of Nature is not bound by His own laws to the extent that He cannot do as He pleases, occasionally setting them aside to perform a miracle, so He is not bound to limit Himself ONLY to the Sacraments He established to communicate the graces thereof.
God does not lie, when he says that it's not without water and the holy spirit.
The SACRAMENT requires water (the matter) and the proper form. The GRACE of the Sacrament is an entirely different thing, and there is no reason whatsoever that the God of the Sacraments cannot give the GRACE of the Sacrament outside/apart from the Sacrament itself. This is precisely what happens when one makes a spiritual communion.
You are talking nonsensical homemade theology. Next, you probably will tell us that you're a bishop by the grace of God, because "there is no reason whatsoever that the God of the Sacraments cannot give the GRACE of the Sacrament outside/apart from the Sacrament itself."
I never said that you can't receive absolutely no (sanctifying) grace before actually receiving certain sacraments. So you don't disprove anything I said. You put out a strawman. Not very smart! Gotta wakeup earlier than that.
-
Quo vadis Domine (http://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sxpyuuhps/sopq/p2/profile/Quo%20vadis%20Domine/), your cowardice and effeminacy doesn't end.
LOL.... you nutcase, heretic!
-
You are talking nonsensical homemade theology...
I never said that you can't receive absolutely no (sanctifying) grace before actually receiving certain sacraments.
Double negatives reveal more than the ignoramus intends or realizes. So, my "homemade theology" is nonsense, yet you do not actually disagree with my statement that the Sacrament and the grace of the sacrament are separate (although intended to be united) things, and that the latter may be obtained apart from the former? Your concession is accepted and appreciated. Bottom Line: One may, in fact, receive the grace of certain Sacraments without receiving the Sacrament itself.
-
Quo vadis Domine (http://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sxpyuuhps/sopq/p2/profile/Quo%20vadis%20Domine/), your cowardice and effeminacy doesn't end.
at least you're honest about how you continue to evade bans and make accounts
-
This was me....
Do you imagine how much time Croix wastes in a day making new screen names and new email accounts? I really feel sorry for him. No sane person would act like this.
Croix, seriously, give it up. Do you have no shame?
-
Double negatives reveal more than the ignoramus intends or realizes.
"and though my lack of education hasn't hurt me none" Sounds like Paul Simon was your teacher.
Ever heard about "stylistic devices"?
So, my "homemade theology" is nonsense, yet you do not actually disagree with my statement that the Sacrament and the grace of the sacrament are separate (although intended to be united) things, and that the latter may be obtained apart from the former? Your concession is accepted and appreciated. Bottom Line: One may, in fact, receive the grace of certain Sacraments without receiving the Sacrament itself.
You obviously do understand, what Trent teaches about two of seven sacraments, but not about the other five. Good luck on your further way, whereever your heading!
-
The unmistakable sign of TRIPLE effeminacy!!!! :laugh2:
Oops! That was just me having some fun. Pardon moi... ;)
-
At dinner tonight after Mass, I just learned that a lot of people at my SSPX chapel are borderline or full blown Feeneyites. Baptism is necessary baby! Father Feeney was a saint!
In the U.S. of A. they say Feeneyism (Feeney was simple Priest and Jesuit). Elsewhere it's just called Catholicism to believe that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation.
The Council of Trent explains that one can't even have faith, have hope, or have charity, if not justified by the sacrament of baptism. After quite some preparation, by the sacrament, man
receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity.
The faith is not an opinion of man. The faith must be infused by the sacrament, infused into a man desiring the faith.
A Catechumen may, in a human way, already be convinced that the one true religion is the one true religion, but that's not the true faith. Before they're baptized, they can do no more than beg for the true faith:
This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism;
No justification without causes:
the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith
No faith without sacrament.
Some folks talk about "supernatural faith". Well, that's what is infused from above at the reception of the sacrament, as quoted above. All else would be "self redemption" by being "nice".
-
(https://cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/liberation/M5M5HP3VNBU7SO5PE6HUKZ7MDM.jpg)
While it is true that the great missionaries of the sixteenth century still were convinced, that those, who are not baptized, are lost forever, and that this explains their missionary commitment, this conviction was finally abandoned in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council. From this a deep double crisis arose. [...]
If one can be saved in a different way, it is no more evident, why a Christian should be bound to the necessity of the christian faith and morals. [...]
Intervista al papa emerito Joseph Ratzinger-Benedetto XVI (http://www.avvenire.it/Cultura/Pagine/Facciamoci-plasmare-da-Cristo-.aspx)
-
(https://media.herder.de/urheber/400/karl-rahner-11205.jpg)
Francis Xavier would tell the Japanese, which he wanted to convert, that their ancestors as a matter of course are damned to hell. Also, an Augustine, following his theology, would have had to answer in the same manner, and this attitude belonged up to almost our days to the basic pathos of christian missionary work in midst of the pagans.
-
You [The Worm] may rest assured my IQ surpasses your own by a lot, for whatever that is or is not worth.
"IQ" is Jєωιѕн "science". And this, your hybris, is awkward, distressing, embarrasing.
-
You sound like a novus ordo.
Nonsense. It was the good and ancient custom that few received in the church, instead making Spiritual Communion. St Alphonsus Liguori provided a common text many centuries ago. The rebels from the west country of England in 1549 denounced in article 3 of their manifesto that people Communicate each Sunday.
-
Quote from: Änσnymσus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=61275.msg746076#msg746076) on Sat May 08 2021 18:06:25 GMT+0530 (India Standard Time)
It's most strictly forbidden to believe, preach, or teach Baptism of Desire, or Baptism of Blood.
It is most strictly forbidden to deny Baptism of Desire, since the Council of Trent taught it. Thanks for the reference showing Dimondism is condemned by the Council. Trent taught BOD. No one is permitted to teach contrary to Trent. Therefore, no one is permitted to deny Baptism of Desire. If you were right, why did the Church teach Baptism of Desire in Her own Canon Law? Obviously, you are not right.
Note that the Council of Trent said there is no justification without Baptism "aut ejus voto" - that's a reference to the Baptism of Desire right there. Trent taught that there are Three Sacraments of which the Effects can be received in Desire: Baptism, Penance and the Eucharist, through Baptism of Desire, Perfect Contrition and Spiritual Communion respectively, using the term "voto" in each case.
Trent also implied and taught BOD in two other places, one in that Canon where it says no one can be justified without the sacraments, "aut eurom voto" (or the desire of them) implying that the Desire of Two Sacraments avails the Grace of Justification. These two Sacraments, as is clear from the whole Council, can only be Baptism and Penance. Then it says Penance is necessary for Salvation as Baptism itself is necessary. But Penance is necessary in re or in voto, since the Desire for Penance justifies as the Council plainly taught. Hence, since the Council said Baptism is necessary for salvation in the same way, it follows that the same is true for Baptism as well.
Now, here is Trent's Catechism, which repeats the doctrine, as plain as day. Desire for Baptism, joined to contrition or repentance over past sins avails to Grace and Justice, i.e. to the Grace of Justification, so that the person who thus dies justified may be saved: "On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
From: http://www.mycatholicsource.com/mcs/pc/sacraments/catechism_of_the_council_of_trent_baptism.htm
Ladislaus, I go with St. Robert. In the patristic age, it was not yet settled, although it is implied by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, Bp. Eusebius and the Council of Orange. It is fairly clear in Acts 10 that Cornelius was filled with the Holy Spirit before Baptism. Thus St. Peter and St. Luke in that passage, and St. Augustine, St. Thomas and Fr. Haydock commenting on it. In the Middle Ages, it was settled in response to a "dubia" by Pope Innocent III, and the Council of Trent dogmatized it. All post-Trent Catechisms are unanimous in teaching BOD, and not a single one condemns it. Hence, it is impossible imo for BOD to be false or objectively heretical.
The only disputed issue pre-Vatican II was Salvation by Explicit Faith vs Implicit Faith in Christ. That can of course still be disputed now.
-
"Spiritual communion" is totally novus ordo and designed to keep people in mortal sin while they make "spiritual communions" every Sunday as if that will save their souls.
Worm, you need to education in tradition. We were taught at school in the fifties how to make a Spiritual Communion.
Spiritual communion available when unable to receive Eucharist
By Abbot Jerome Kodell, OSB
Subiaco Abbey
.....
Spiritual communion isn’t as much a part of the Catholic vocabulary and consciousness as it was in the past, though it is just as real an opportunity for eucharistic grace as it ever was. Ironically, the encouragement of actual reception of the Body and Blood of Christ at Mass and the routine availability of eucharistic Communion today, a wonderful development begun in the time of Pope Pius X and emphasized by the Second Vatican Council, may have helped cause this other eucharistic gift to be overshadowed in our time.
What is spiritual communion? St. Thomas Aquinas described it as “an ardent desire to receive Jesus in the most holy sacrament and lovingly embrace him” at a time or in circuмstances when we cannot receive him in sacramental Communion.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent devoted a special section to spiritual communion in its program of renewal in the late 16th century. In the past, instruction manuals gave as the most familiar situation, the need of a mother to stay home from Sunday Mass to care for a sick child, thereby missing the opportunity for Communion.
What is spiritual communion? St. Thomas Aquinas described it as “an ardent desire to receive Jesus in the most holy sacrament and lovingly embrace him” at a time or in circuмstances when we cannot receive him in sacramental Communion.
In such cases, the mother could make an act of spiritual communion, uniting herself with the Mass in her parish church and receive the spiritual benefit of Communion. The opportunities for receiving spiritual communion are limitless, but particular circuмstances make it appealing in our time. Today there are many Catholics who may not be able to receive Communion because of a marriage not recognized by the Church. Often they are in a process of getting their marital status rectified, but until that is done, they cannot participate.
But they are not prohibited from receiving Communion spiritually and receiving strength from the grace of the sacrament during a waiting period which is often painful. As the availability of priestly ministry decreases, daily Mass becomes more and more scarce, and some communities may not regularly have even a Communion service on Sunday. In our mobile society, people who otherwise might be at Mass are frequently on the move.
Spiritual communion needs no special instruction; it only requires the same disposition as the actual reception of the sacrament and a turning to Jesus with the heart. These days as we experience a renewal of eucharistic adoration, those who come to spend time in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament are receiving spiritual communion, even though they may not have called it by that name.
Prayer of Spiritual Communion
No particular prayer or formulary is required, though there are acts of spiritual communion in Catholic prayer books to help focus a proper intention. One of the most popular is that composed by St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“My Jesus, I believe that you are present in the Blessed Sacrament.
I love you above all things and I desire you with all my heart.
Since I cannot now receive you sacramentally,
I ask you to come spiritually into my heart.
I embrace you as if you were already in my heart
and unite myself to you completely.
Please do not let me ever by separated from you.”
-
Go figure.......
"I have said that a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death as one of "the faithful departed."
Were he to be revivified immediately after death – were he to come to life again – he would not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by water.
Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get into the Church Militant without it. It is an odd procedure for priests of the Church Militant to be shunting people off to the Church Triumphant before these people have enrolled in the a Church Militant, which fights the good fight and preserves the Faith". - Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life
-
Go figure.......
"I have said that a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death as one of "the faithful departed."
Were he to be revivified immediately after death – were he to come to life again – he would not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by water.
Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get into the Church Militant without it. It is an odd procedure for priests of the Church Militant to be shunting people off to the Church Triumphant before these people have enrolled in the a Church Militant, which fights the good fight and preserves the Faith". - Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life
The insistence that baptism of desire can provide salvation is a vicious attack on baptism. Baptism by faith alone is protestantesque empty promise. This is proven above. Shame on promoters pushing an ineffective means to salvation that defies the Word of God. Q. Why baptism of desire? A. So that fewer will be baptized through false confidence.
-
Ladislaus, I go with St. Robert. In the patristic age, it was not yet settled ...
Being "not yet settled" is an understatement. It simply didn't exist apart from some admitted speculation, whereas 5-6 Church Fathers rejected it. If anything there's a Patristic Tradition against the notion, as both Rahner and Fr. Jurgens (the Patristic scholar) both concede.
-
The insistence that baptism of desire can provide salvation is a vicious attack on baptism. Baptism by faith alone is protestantesque empty promise. This is proven above. Shame on promoters pushing an ineffective means to salvation that defies the Word of God. Q. Why baptism of desire? A. So that fewer will be baptized through false confidence.
My position is that there can be a baptism of desire, loosely speaking, that can justify, but which does not suffice for salvation. I found lots of Patristic evidence which suggests that the Fathers believed that, while martyrdom and desire/intent/will ("piety and zeal" as St. Ambrose calls it) can "wash", i.e. remit sin, but that they cannot crown or give "glory" (i.e. allow the reception of the beatific vision and therefore salvation). I find this to be the most consistent position to address all the issues on every side and it matches what the Fathers wrote about.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology
-
In the U.S. of A. they say Feeneyism (Feeney was simple Priest and Jesuit). Elsewhere it's just called Catholicism to believe that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation.
The only person in the entire world that had to be dealt with was Feeney, an American -- and he wasn't being praised, but censured.
Feeneyites are a complete waste of time. The colossal nature of their pride is only challenged by their ignorance and ability to see reality as a whole from a healthy, proper perspective. Leave them to God.
-
My position is that there can be a baptism of desire, loosely speaking, that can justify, but which does not suffice for salvation. I found lots of Patristic evidence which suggests that the Fathers believed that, while martyrdom and desire/intent/will ("piety and zeal" as St. Ambrose calls it) can "wash", i.e. remit sin, but that they cannot crown or give "glory" (i.e. allow the reception of the beatific vision and therefore salvation). I find this to be the most consistent position to address all the issues on every side and it matches what the Fathers wrote about.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology
But regardless of what the fathers opined, Trent spoke definitively on the matter. Does this mean or does this not mean that "Rome has spoken, the case is closed?" ("Roma locuta; causa finita est”)
Speaking of justification as regards specifically the sacrament of baptism, Trent sites John 3:5 is to be understood as it is written.
Then in one of the canons speaking of *all* the sacraments, Trent condemns the idea of justification through faith alone - which is what a BOD / BOB is. Trent condemns saying that without the sacraments, or without the desire thereof that men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification.
-
My position is that there can be a baptism of desire, loosely speaking, that can justify, but which does not suffice for salvation. I found lots of Patristic evidence which suggests that the Fathers believed that, while martyrdom and desire/intent/will ("piety and zeal" as St. Ambrose calls it) can "wash", i.e. remit sin, but that they cannot crown or give "glory" (i.e. allow the reception of the beatific vision and therefore salvation). I find this to be the most consistent position to address all the issues on every side and it matches what the Fathers wrote about.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology
Obviously, you did not understand what you read.
Please quote any of the Fathers declaring that those who die in a state of Grace are damned.
That’s idiotic.
-
Obviously, you did not understand what you read.
Please quote any of the Fathers declaring that those who die in a state of Grace are damned.
That’s idiotic.
Exactly! Wondering why even the most anti baptism of desire people still want to crack open that door. It's closed. Baptism is the door.
-
Obviously, you did not understand what you read.
Please quote any of the Fathers declaring that those who die in a state of Grace are damned.
That’s idiotic.
I never said that they are damned. You obviously didn't read anything in that link before running your virtual mouth.
-
I never said that they are damned. You obviously didn't read anything in that link before running your virtual mouth.
So would they be in the Limbo of the Fathers?
-
My position is that there can be a baptism of desire, loosely speaking, that can justify, but which does not suffice for salvation.
Two types of justification?
-
Two types of justification?
As opposed to 3 (or 4) types of Baptism?
-
Does someone know chapels or bishops that officially do NOT teach BOD? All I know is Bishop Webster, Fr. Crawford, and maybe a few others. Anyone else?!
-
Does someone know chapels or bishops that officially do NOT teach BOD? All I know is Bishop Webster, Fr. Crawford, and maybe a few others. Anyone else?!
Well, I’ve been attending Immaculate Heart of Mary in Akron and in the 36 years I’ve gone there I never once heard Father Carley mention BoD. In fact, I rarely heard anything about it from most SSPX priests. I think that most of them just don’t care about it much either way.
-
Well, I’ve been attending Immaculate Heart of Mary in Akron and in the 36 years I’ve gone there I never once heard Father Carley mention BoD. In fact, I rarely heard anything about it from most SSPX priests. I think that most of them just don’t care about it much either way.
I don't see why they would. BoD and BoB are both applicable to extremely narrow and rare circuмstances.
-
I don't see why they would. BoD and BoB are both applicable to extremely narrow and rare circuмstances.
Depends on who you ask. Some apply BoD to any "Hindu in Tibet" who tries to follow the natural law and means well.
-
Depends on who you ask. Some apply BoD to any "Hindu in Tibet" who tries to follow the natural law and means well.
That was me. I understand some today love to apply it to every Tom, Dick and Harry who said a nice word or smiled once in their life, it's unfortunate that many today like to stretch an extraordinary mercy of the Church to fit every naturally kind person resulting in the Feyneeyite error of rejecting it.