Author Topic: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?" (Read 3154 times)

jerm · « **on:** March 06, 2020, 11:22:48 AM »

To clarify before starting, I'm not using Feeneyite in a derogative way. I'm very sympathetic to the position as a result of rejecting EENS, especially since I have some understanding of the crisis the Church is going through and may or may not have stalked Ladislaus' posts about it.

I frequently see the criticism that every known bishop in the world believes in Baptism of Desire, and so, "Feeneyism" cannot be correct. I've seen two objections: first, just because a Bishop believes in BoD as most people believe in it doesn't mean they're a formal heretic. Many Eastern Bishops, for example, are likely only material heretics. However, it still doesn't seem intuitive that it would help the Church, and it appears absurd to me that the Church's apostolicity would only be preserved by material heretics. Then again, I can't say it's impossible, and in this strange time, it may be the correct answer.

The other objection is that we don't know whether or not there is a Bishop out there who denies Baptism of Desire, and thus, we can't say the Church has defected. However, the visibility of this potential Bishop appears to be a major problem for this position.

What do you all think? Could there be a way to reconcile this problem (if you believe it to be one)?

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 06, 2020, 11:25:10 AM »

Quote from: jerm on March 06, 2020, 11:22:48 AM

To clarify before starting, I'm not using Feeneyite in a derogative way. I'm very sympathetic to the position as a result of rejecting EENS, especially since I have some understanding of the crisis the Church is going through and may or may not have stalked Ladislaus' posts about it.

I frequently see the criticism that every known bishop in the world believes in Baptism of Desire, and so, "Feeneyism" cannot be correct. I've seen two objections: first, just because a Bishop believes in BoD as most people believe in it doesn't mean they're a formal heretic. Many Eastern Bishops, for example, are likely only material heretics. However, it still doesn't seem intuitive that it would help the Church, and it appears absurd to me that the Church's apostolicity would only be preserved by material heretics. Then again, I can't say it's impossible, and in this strange time, it may be the correct answer.

The other objection is that we don't know whether or not there is a Bishop out there who denies Baptism of Desire, and thus, we can't say the Church has defected. However, the visibility of this potential Bishop appears to be a major problem for this position.

What do you all think? Could there be a way to reconcile this problem (if you believe it to be one)?

Honestly, I just can't believe it. Ladislaus will always be smarter than me, but I'm not absolutely convinced that BOD (even for more than Catechumens) contradicts Florence/EENS per se, and I think its kind of ridiculous/almost believing in a paper church once you start saying all the bishops are wrong. It could be true, but I really doubt it.

jerm · « **Reply #2 on:** March 06, 2020, 11:46:23 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on March 06, 2020, 11:25:10 AM

Honestly, I just can't believe it. Ladislaus will always be smarter than me, but I'm not absolutely convinced that BOD (even for more than Catechumens) contradicts Florence/EENS per se, and I think its kind of ridiculous/almost believing in a paper church once you start saying all the bishops are wrong. It could be true, but I really doubt it.

Even if it's extremely incorrect, I don't think anyone will be damned for believing in BOD for or beyond catechumens with the exception of the most obstinate heretics who simply reject EENS.
I guess St. Alphonsus being a Church doctor supports this.
I'm inclined to accept BOD, but if I was shown irrefutable proof to the contrary I would absolutely jump on it.

Stubborn · « **Reply #3 on:** March 06, 2020, 12:33:44 PM »

Quote from: jerm on March 06, 2020, 11:22:48 AM

To clarify before starting, I'm not using Feeneyite in a derogative way. I'm very sympathetic to the position as a result of rejecting EENS, especially since I have some understanding of the crisis the Church is going through and may or may not have stalked Ladislaus' posts about it.

I frequently see the criticism that every known bishop in the world believes in Baptism of Desire, and so, "Feeneyism" cannot be correct. I've seen two objections: first, just because a Bishop believes in BoD as most people believe in it doesn't mean they're a formal heretic. Many Eastern Bishops, for example, are likely only material heretics. However, it still doesn't seem intuitive that it would help the Church, and it appears absurd to me that the Church's apostolicity would only be preserved by material heretics. Then again, I can't say it's impossible, and in this strange time, it may be the correct answer.

The other objection is that we don't know whether or not there is a Bishop out there who denies Baptism of Desire, and thus, we can't say the Church has defected. However, the visibility of this potential Bishop appears to be a major problem for this position.

What do you all think? Could there be a way to reconcile this problem (if you believe it to be one)?

As regards the idea that all the bishops can't be wrong, please watch from about 1:16:21 - 1:17:05

Beyond that, what I have found is very simple, almost too simple actually, imo it all boils down to these two things;
1) In regards to a BOD, Trent is consistently misquoted, even by the saints, to make Trent to say that which it does not say at all and
2) The speculations of the fathers, doctors, theologians and saints are quoted either as if their speculations are official teachings of the Church, or their speculations are superior to Trent, or that Trent agreed with them - usually all of the above.

jerm · « **Reply #4 on:** March 06, 2020, 12:46:27 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on March 06, 2020, 12:33:44 PM

As regards the idea that all the bishops can't be wrong, please watch from about 1:16:21 - 1:17:05

Beyond that, what I have found is very simple, almost too simple actually, imo it all boils down to these two things;
1) In regards to a BOD, Trent is consistently misquoted, even by the saints, to make Trent to say that which it does not say at all and
2) The speculations of the fathers, doctors, theologians and saints are quoted either as if their speculations are official teachings of the Church, or their speculations are superior to Trent, or that Trent agreed with them - usually all of the above.

May I have some context for the video? Who is Fr. Hesse? Is he reliable?

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 06, 2020, 12:56:33 PM »

Quote from: jerm on March 06, 2020, 12:46:27 PM

May I have some context for the video? Who is Fr. Hesse? Is he reliable?

He was a solid priest, and brilliant, but I don't think he denied BOD anyways. Also his argument in that segment is off, obviously I don't think numbers makes right, but he's treating Islam as a monolithic thing like Catholicism, where in actuality there are sunni and shia sects who might disagree much like Catholics and EOs or whatnot. (I don't know all the details here.)

jerm · « **Reply #6 on:** March 06, 2020, 01:28:37 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on March 06, 2020, 12:56:33 PM

He was a solid priest, and brilliant, but I don't think he denied BOD anyways. Also his argument in that segment is off, obviously I don't think numbers makes right, but he's treating Islam as a monolithic thing like Catholicism, where in actuality there are sunni and shia sects who might disagree much like Catholics and EOs or whatnot. (I don't know all the details here.)

Yeah. And my issue is more with apostolicity and the possibility of every bishop being a heretic or the Church becoming completely invisible than it is with numbers. If I was concerned about numbers, I wouldn't be Catholic at all.

Stubborn · « **Reply #7 on:** March 06, 2020, 01:45:14 PM »

Quote from: jerm on March 06, 2020, 12:46:27 PM

May I have some context for the video? Who is Fr. Hesse? Is he reliable?

Fr. Hesse was ordained NO, but came to tradition a few years after he was ordained. There are a lot of his talks out there on youtubes of which I probably listened to 98% - he is entirely orthodox in his preaching. The context of that part of the video he was talking about excommunications and schism labels that have been handed out to trads by the NO hierarchy.

The point of me posting the video was to demonstrate that all the bishops can indeed be wrong about a BOD was in answer to your saying: "I frequently see the criticism that every known bishop in the world believes in Baptism of Desire, and so, "Feeneyism" cannot be correct". Per Trent, all the bishops who believe in it are wrong.

Far as I know, none of them has had to make preaching a BOD their life's mission, they all simply go along to get a long, though would certainly defend it if pressed, but as it is, as you said, they are only wrong, not formal heretics over it.

IMO, the ones who have allowed themselves to become formal heretics over a BOD, are the ones who consistently promote it as though it is a dogma they are willing to die for as they condemn all who disagree.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** March 06, 2020, 01:47:37 PM »

I do believe that Baptism of Desire for anyone other than catechumens, or those at least with explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, is heretical ... OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING.

This has not, however, been explicitly condemned as such by the Church, and so a person would not be a formal heretic for believing in it.

So, for instance, it's always been dogma that Our Lady was immaculately conceived, and so the position of St. Thomas Aquinas was OBJECTIVELY heretical. Yet it was not an act of formal heresy for him (or others) to embrace it due to lack of ecclesiastical definition.

I am arguing that BoD for anyone other than catechumens is heretical in the material/objective sense, not in the formal sense. I make arguments from defined Church dogma and doctrine to make my case.

But, and this is where the Dimonds are mistaken, I can put together the most solid airtight syllogism anyone has ever seen, but the logic is still based on my private judgment. There can always be some missing distinction, and it's up to the Church to define or condemn things.

So, for instance, if I were a priest, and someone had a loose understanding of BoD, I might try to correct him, but I would not refuse him the Sacraments on that account.

jerm · « **Reply #9 on:** March 06, 2020, 01:55:13 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on March 06, 2020, 01:45:14 PM

Fr. Hesse was ordained NO, but came to tradition a few years after he was ordained. There are a lot of his talks out there on youtubes of which I probably listened to 98% - he is entirely orthodox in his preaching. The context of that part of the video he was talking about excommunications and schism labels that have been handed out to trads by the NO hierarchy.

The point of me posting the video was to demonstrate that all the bishops can indeed be wrong about a BOD was in answer to your saying: "I frequently see the criticism that every known bishop in the world believes in Baptism of Desire, and so, "Feeneyism" cannot be correct". Per Trent, all the bishops who believe in it are wrong.

Far as I know, none of them has had to make preaching a BOD their life's mission, they all simply go along to get a long, though would certainly defend it if pressed, but as it is, as you said, they are only wrong, not formal heretics over it.

IMO, the ones who have allowed themselves to become formal heretics over a BOD, are the ones who consistently promote it as though it is a dogma they are willing to die for as they condemn all who disagree.

The problem is that unless every Bishop can defect, or heretics can have jurisdiction, then BOD must be right unless a materially heretical Bishop- assuming there are some, though it's completely unknown who is or who isn't among the Bishops given no BOD- can have supplied jurisdiction, which I admit to be a possibility, though I can't know for sure about that yet.
But it would seem to contradict cuм Ex as well as the visibility of the Church. It might be correct still, though.

Stubborn · « **Reply #10 on:** March 06, 2020, 02:19:30 PM »

Quote from: jerm on March 06, 2020, 01:55:13 PM

The problem is that unless every Bishop can defect, or heretics can have jurisdiction, then BOD must be right unless a materially heretical Bishop- assuming there are some, though it's completely unknown who is or who isn't among the Bishops given no BOD- can have supplied jurisdiction, which I admit to be a possibility, though I can't know for sure about that yet.
But it would seem to contradict cuм Ex as well as the visibility of the Church. It might be correct still, though.

You would do well to listen to Fr. Hesse's whole talk in the above youtube video. He gets into the whole idea of a heretical hierarchy. All bishops who in any way support the NO and permit the new "mass" at all are heretics - in my opinion. Their belief in a BOD is among the least things to worry about imo. If any or all of them ever start preaching it like Lover of Truth used to do - over and over and over consistently ignoring any correction, then I would likely think differently.

Consider also that there is at least one good reason that none of them, or for that matter, no one at all actually preaches a BOD, it is because to do so exposes the error for what it is - obvious error, which is easily repudiated using dogmatic decrees. Pretty much the only time the subject gets brought up at all is to slander Fr. Feeney, deny the dogma EENS, and reward salvation to those outside of the Church, though not necessarily in that order.

jerm · « **Reply #11 on:** March 06, 2020, 02:39:36 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on March 06, 2020, 02:19:30 PM

You would do well to listen to Fr. Hesse's whole talk in the above youtube video. He gets into the whole idea of a heretical hierarchy. All bishops who in any way support the NO and permit the new "mass" at all are heretics - in my opinion. Their belief in a BOD is among the least things to worry about imo. If any or all of them ever start preaching it like Lover of Truth used to do - over and over and over consistently ignoring any correction, then I would likely think differently.

Consider also that there is at least one good reason that none of them, or for that matter, no one at all actually preaches a BOD, it is because to do so exposes the error for what it is - obvious error, which is easily repudiated using dogmatic decrees. Pretty much the only time the subject gets brought up at all is to slander Fr. Feeney, deny the dogma EENS, and reward salvation to those outside of the Church, though not necessarily in that order.

Again, I don't deny that a great, great number of the Bishops can be heretical, and a small group can be right. But, it seems to me that there has to be at least one Bishop, one legitimate successor to the apostles, at all times, who carries on the true faith. The faith has never just been held by laypeople and priests, and if there are no remaining bishops who haven't fallen into heresy, then it seems to me that the apostolic succession started by Christ Himself would have expired. And if only material heretics carry on the succession, which is impossible to prove, then the Church isn't a visible hierarchy anymore...
"[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]The material visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; a [/color]society[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some secret tie." -the Catholic Encyclopedia[/color]

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** March 06, 2020, 02:48:17 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 06, 2020, 01:47:37 PM

I am arguing that BoD for anyone other than catechumens is heretical in the material/objective sense, not in the formal sense. I make arguments from defined Church dogma and doctrine to make my case.

But, and this is where the Dimonds are mistaken, I can put together the most solid airtight syllogism anyone has ever seen, but the logic is still based on my private judgment. There can always be some missing distinction, and it's up to the Church to define or condemn things.

So, for instance, if I were a priest, and someone had a loose understanding of BoD, I might try to correct him, but I would not refuse him the Sacraments on that account.

I do not believe in a BOD even for catechumens because first, Trent says more than once that the sacrament itself is necessary for salvation and nowhere does it even suggest otherwise. Second, I firmly believe that whether by miracle or not, God always will as He always has, provide the sacrament to everyone who sincerely desires it whether it be a catechumen or a native on a desert island. Those who die without it did not sincerely desire it. For me, it's just that simple.

At Trent, the Church defined the necessity of the sacrament for salvation. As for justification, She never even guarantees justification via desire, rather, She in fact condemns the idea that without the sacraments or without the desire for the sacraments, that men can obtain the grace of justification, but that is not guaranteeing justification via desire, certainly not guaranteeing salvation via desire.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #13 on:** March 06, 2020, 03:01:25 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 06, 2020, 01:47:37 PM

I do believe that Baptism of Desire for anyone other than catechumens, or those at least with explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, is heretical ... OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING.

This has not, however, been explicitly condemned as such by the Church, and so a person would not be a formal heretic for believing in it.

.
This adjective-- "objective"-- is prefixing the word "heresy" a lot these days. And here, as well as other places I see this use, it is never doing the kind of heavy lifting that it should, given its meaning. Objective things are things that really are. Heresy really is a proposition that is in direct denial or doubt of something that is to be held with divine and Catholic faith. A proposition that is not in direct denial or doubt of something that is to be held with divine and Catholic faith is simply not heresy, never mind of the "objective" variety.
.
I think people might be too concerned with the difference between heretical beliefs and orthodox ones. Instead they should focus on correct beliefs versus incorrect ones. That line is much clearer, whereas the various degrees of error are far more debatable. What you are describing is not heresy by your own description, even if it is ultimately wrong.
.
The world would be a better place if people stopped using the expressions like 'objective heresy.'

jerm · « **Reply #14 on:** March 06, 2020, 04:30:11 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on March 06, 2020, 02:48:17 PM

I do not believe in a BOD even for catechumens because first, Trent says more than once that the sacrament itself is necessary for salvation and nowhere does it even suggest otherwise. Second, I firmly believe that whether by miracle or not, God always will as He always has, provide the sacrament to everyone who sincerely desires it whether it be a catechumen or a native on a desert island. Those who die without it did not sincerely desire it. For me, it's just that simple.

At Trent, the Church defined the necessity of the sacrament for salvation. As for justification, She never even guarantees justification via desire, rather, She in fact condemns the idea that without the sacraments or without the desire for the sacraments, that men can obtain the grace of justification, but that is not guaranteeing justification via desire, certainly not guaranteeing salvation via desire.

On the one hand, I can see where this perspective comes from. On the other, I don't see how the entire Church could be wrong about it. The Church is a visible society, but if there is a Bishop rejecting BoD out there, then he isn't preserving the Church's unity whatsoever.

Author Topic: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?" (Read 3154 times)

jerm

Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"

ByzCat3000

Re: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"

jerm

Re: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"

Stubborn

Re: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"

jerm

Re: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"

ByzCat3000

Re: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"

jerm

Re: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"

Stubborn

Re: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"

Ladislaus

Re: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"

jerm

Re: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"

Stubborn

Re: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"

jerm

Re: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"

Stubborn

Re: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"

Mithrandylan

Re: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"

jerm

Re: Are any Bishops "Feenyites?"