Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Poll

What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?

Heretics
5 (12.5%)
Propagators or Error but not heretics
7 (17.5%)
Rash
3 (7.5%)
Other (explain in comments)
25 (62.5%)

Total Members Voted: 40

Voting closed: March 02, 2024, 02:45:27 PM

Author Topic: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?  (Read 14194 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
« Reply #30 on: February 12, 2024, 08:12:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Great.  Thanks.  We're all aware of the passage.  We don't agree with your interpretation of it.  Remove the English comma before "or the desire thereof" and then you get closer to how we read this.

    Also, this has nothing to do with Feeneyism (as called out by the OP), since Father Feeney rightly points out that this passage is speaking justification and not of salvation.

    And in case you think Father Feeney invented the distinction, there were post-Tridentine theologians who held that infidels, for instance, could be justified but not saved.  St. Ambrose, in the famous Valentinian passage, holds that those who desire Baptism could be "washed" (aka justified) but not "crowned" (aka saved).
    It's funny how St. Alphonsus, a lot smarter than you read this passage as proving Baptism of Desire, and the reason why he labelled BOD as de fide!  

    Don't risk your salvation for novelty!  Just obey the Church and believe. It's so easy.   Pride is a nasty sin.   


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
    « Reply #31 on: February 12, 2024, 08:53:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's funny how St. Alphonsus, a lot smarter than you read this passage as proving Baptism of Desire, and the reason why he labelled BOD as de fide! 

    Don't risk your salvation for novelty!  Just obey the Church and believe. It's so easy.  Pride is a nasty sin. 
    You are projecting your pride on to others and revealing your own dishonesty. St Alphonsus version of BoD contradicts Trent on initial justification, this was already mentioned earlier.

    You should just obey the Church which teaches those who desire baptism must be rushed to be baptized when in danger of death otherwise they are lost, as Pope Siricius teaches.


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
    « Reply #32 on: February 12, 2024, 08:56:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's funny how St. Alphonsus, a lot smarter than you read this passage as proving Baptism of Desire, and the reason why he labelled BOD as de fide! 

    Don't risk your salvation for novelty!  Just obey the Church and believe. It's so easy.  Pride is a nasty sin. 
    It gets even worse for you because as Lad pointed out this decree is on justification. I.e Justification of desire not baptism of desire.

    It's almost as if you didn't read the thread. Instead you are blinded by your own pride. Plenty of quotes where given earlier from the Church, showing there is only water baptism. So once more take your own advice and obey the Church and stop being so prideful.

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 3514
    • Reputation: +2021/-447
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
    « Reply #33 on: February 12, 2024, 09:33:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Cushing, who evidently had the only copy of it, sat on it for a couple years until the Cardinal who had allegedly signed it died.
    .

    This story gets repeated constantly by Feeneyites, but from what I can tell it is false. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani died in 1951. This website says the letter was published in 1949:


    Quote
    Less than three months after the Marchetti-Selvaggianni letter was published in part in The Pilot, Father Feeney was expelled from the Jesuit Order on October 28, 1949.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 42061
    • Reputation: +24068/-4346
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
    « Reply #34 on: February 12, 2024, 09:53:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's the full chronology.  There's a distinction between ...

    1) the publication date on the docuмent itself (August 8, 1949)
    2) publication of some parts of it in The Pilot (I keep mis-remembering this as The Irish Ecclesiastical Review) (September 3, 1949)
    3) publication of the entire docuмent in The Pilot (September 4, 1952)
    4) publication in Acta Apostolicae Sedis -- NEVER

    Rahner's edition of the Enchiridion Symbolorum cites The Pilot article in 9/4/1952, the first time it appeared in full anywhere.

    Quote
    On August 8, 1949 — almost four months after the silencing of Father Feeney — the Holy Office issued a docuмent, a letter addressed to the Archbishop of Boston and signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, known as Protocol No. 122/49.*


    On September 3, 1949, this Protocol was published in part in The Pilot, the official news organ of the Archdiocese of Boston.

    Three years later, on September 4, 1952, it was published in full in The Pilot under cover of an explanatory memorandum from Archbishop Cushing.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 42061
    • Reputation: +24068/-4346
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
    « Reply #35 on: February 12, 2024, 09:58:41 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Plus, I love it how some sedevacantists also pretend that everything written before some magical morning in, say, 1958, or 1962 were all orthodox and then the Church groaned and somehow woke up Modernist, getting out of the wrong side of the bed that morning.  Perhaps the exact moment of this transformation was on September 12, 1962 at 8:43 AM and 30 seconds.

    No, the Modernists were all over the place in the 1940s and 1950s.  Cushing was an open heretic, which by SV terms means he was no longer the Bishop of Boston, since manifest heresy deposes ipso facto, right?  Cushing openly, publicly, and repeatedly denied EENS, calling it "nonsense", and some of the statements by Father's Jesuit superiors were even more egregious.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 42061
    • Reputation: +24068/-4346
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
    « Reply #36 on: February 12, 2024, 10:09:48 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's funny how St. Alphonsus, a lot smarter than you read this passage as proving Baptism of Desire, and the reason why he labelled BOD as de fide! 

    Don't risk your salvation for novelty!  Just obey the Church and believe. It's so easy.  Pride is a nasty sin. 

    This is the kind of arrogant crap we see from these types (and he's too much of a coward to put his name to the posts).  St. Alphonsus does not equal the Church.  But you're likely just another depraved EENS-denying heretic who tries to pretends that "the Church" promotes his heresies, but since you post Anonymous like some coward, I have no way to confirm or deny that.

    There are other theologians who disagree with St. Alphonsus on lots of individual points, including St. Peter Canisius, also a Doctor of the Church, the difference being that St. Peter was actually AT Trent and directly involved in it.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
    « Reply #37 on: February 12, 2024, 10:35:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There are other theologians who disagree with St. Alphonsus on lots of individual points, including St. Peter Canisius, also a Doctor of the Church, the difference being that St. Peter was actually AT Trent and directly involved in it.

    This is an example of how you misread and leap to conclusions, following up on the Dimonds. It's the same modus operandi. I'll address this more in the relevant threads. 



    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
    « Reply #38 on: February 12, 2024, 10:36:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is an example of how you misread and leap to conclusions, following up on the Dimonds. It's the same modus operandi. I'll address this more in the relevant threads.



    That was me. 
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 42061
    • Reputation: +24068/-4346
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
    « Reply #39 on: February 12, 2024, 11:18:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is an example of how you misread and leap to conclusions ...

    There's nothing being "misread" here.  I follow all the points made by the Dimonds and evaluate their validity (sometimes they're faulty or there's a logical gap, etc.) but in this case there's no other conclusion to be made.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
    « Reply #40 on: February 12, 2024, 11:41:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is the kind of arrogant crap we see from these types (and he's too much of a coward to put his name to the posts).  St. Alphonsus does not equal the Church.  But you're likely just another depraved EENS-denying heretic who tries to pretends that "the Church" promotes his heresies, but since you post Anonymous like some coward, I have no way to confirm or deny that.

    There are other theologians who disagree with St. Alphonsus on lots of individual points, including St. Peter Canisius, also a Doctor of the Church, the difference being that St. Peter was actually AT Trent and directly involved in it.
    Who I am doesn't matter.  Feeneyites, from my experience ignore the real issues and love to focus on ad hominem and other distractions.  Anonymity forced you to face the truth, not me.

    Your beliefs are in direct contradiction to de fide teaching from Trent.  Ignore this at your own peril. 


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 42061
    • Reputation: +24068/-4346
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
    « Reply #41 on: February 12, 2024, 11:56:21 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Who I am doesn't matter.  Feeneyites, from my experience ignore the real issues and love to focus on ad hominem and other distractions.  Anonymity forced you to face the truth, not me.

    Your beliefs are in direct contradiction to de fide teaching from Trent.  Ignore this at your own peril.

    No, you launched in with the ad hominems, o anonymous hypocrite (and coward).

    It's just been splained to you that at no point does Father Feeney (the subject of this thread) deny anything taught by Trent.  He believes in justification by votum, which is exactly what you claim Trent teaches.  There's no "direct" contradiction.  You just beg the question and wag your finger at the "pride" and make absurd sanctimonious statements like "Ignore this at your own peril".

    Instead of begging the question, try to refute the actual arguments, where Trent doesn't actually teach what you claim it does and want to believe that it does.  You simply beg the question that is says what you claim and then spew BS on top of it.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
    « Reply #42 on: February 12, 2024, 12:00:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Father Feeney holds that there's justification by votum.  Explain, o anonymous windbag, how this isn't what Trent is teaching.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
    « Reply #43 on: February 12, 2024, 12:07:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Feeneyites, from my experience ignore the real issues and love to focus on ad hominem and other distractions. 
    That's a good one being that anti-Feenyite arguments start with ad hominem against Fr. Feeney himself.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: What Should Feeneyites be Condemned as?
    « Reply #44 on: February 12, 2024, 04:47:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Unlike St. Alphonsus, St. Peter Canisius was in fact a theologian at Trent (spoke twice during the Council and was involved in everything that took place there).  He saw no teaching of "Baptism of Desire" in Trent, and it can be proved a dozen different ways that there was no such teaching.



    As even the Dimonds note,  Canisius published his catechism in 1555. In 1566, 10 years later, the official Catechism of the Council of Trent was published. You should read the preface to it in the attached link for its authority and influence. As most of us know, the Catechism said this:


    Quote

    Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once


    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.


    https://www.saintsbooks.net/books/The%20Roman%20Catechism.pdf

    Before the Catechism of the Council of Trent, of course, baptism of desire was taught and believed throughout the Church. It was clearly taught in the Summa of St. Thomas, and it was thought that St. Augustine also taught it (for example, St. Thomas asserts  that he did). I say that it was "thought" that St. Augustine taught it to prescind from the claim by Feeneyites that say he didn't; it was accepted until the Feeneyite controversy that St. Augustine did. 

    Yet it is said that Peter Canisius published a catechism in 1566 that rejected BoD on the basis that he asserts the necessity of baptism and quotes John 3:5. Well, St. Thomas asserted the necessity of baptism and cited John 3:5 (Summa, Third part, Q. 68, Art. 1:


    Quote
    On the contrary, It is written (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized."


    I answer that, Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Romans 5:18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Galatians 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.

    Yet St.Thomas also recognized BoD. So you have a similar statement by him on the absolute necessity for baptism, yet he at the same time acknowledged BoD. 

    So the language in Canisius's catechism asserting the necessity of baptism doesn't necessarily mean he rejects the possibility of a BoD under an exceptional case anymore than St. Thomas does. 

    But it is said that Canisius cited statements by the fathers which assert that even catechumen can't be saved without receiving the sacrament, and Augustine and Ambrose are cited. Ambrose, like Augustine, also was understood to teach baptism of desire (e.g., the Funeral Oration of Valentinian) and both were cited by St. Thomas in that regard. 

    What you will not see in Canisius is a direct reject of BoD, which, again, was an established teaching per the great doctors of the Church, Sts. Anselm, Augustine and Thomas. Very odd. Then you have the major Catechism of Trent coming after Canisius's catechism, and Canisius never objects, makes a statement contrary to it, etc. 

    In almost, nay, in every case where something is cited against BoD, it's a sub silentio "denial" of the BoD exception to sacramental baptism otherwise universally recognized necessity by all doctors and saints who recognize BoD while also making similar statements to Canisius. Despite the "wanderings" away from the "truth" of the sacraments absolute "necessity" per Feeneyites, nobody comes forward and says, "no, there is no exceptions for BoD." Nobody. 

    I said this elsewhere, regarding St. Dismas and the assertion that he couldn't have gone to heaven because the "gates" weren't open until Jesus's Ascenion, or is it Resurrection - they can't get that straight: the pro-Feeney group seemingly peruse statements for a possible "gotcha" use to deny BoD. They should rather spend their time thinking about what would be contradictions between the great doctors on BoD if they were right about no justification or salvation without the sacrament and how it is indeed possible to reconcile sacramental necessity and a universe were BoD could coexist. 

    But, nay, it's more fun to indulge in the fire of being a Feeneyite, and blow up rhetorical dynamite on Catholic forums . . . .

    I know because I was one, and it was a helluva lot of fun.

    DR