Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Daegus on August 20, 2011, 06:49:41 AM
-
I know that baptism of desire is a topic that has been discussed here before, and I'm sure everyone is tired of discussing it, but I don't understand how it can possibly be reconciled with Catholic dogma. (Also, before you call me a "Feeneyite", please note that my denial of baptism of desire really has nothing to do with him and I don't know much about the man anyways)
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, 1547, On Baptism, Canon II:"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."
Shouldn't this decree of the Council of Trent disprove the whole BoD argument anyways? From what I understand, BoD does not in any way involve water and so I don't understand how anyone can say it is even a baptism at all. I accept Baptism of Blood because I have understood to be similar to a second baptism which applies only to those who have already been baptized.
I am incredibly hesitant to believe in baptism of desire because from what I do understand it does seem heretical. Even if certain saints have taught it or Popes have been of the opinion that it is possible/true, that really isn't enough for me if it is contrary to dogma.
Anyways, don't BoD advocates also say that BoD does not actually imprint the indelible mark of baptism on a person's soul? If that's true, how can it be said to be a baptism at all?
Without getting to into this, I want to know what you think.
-
I know that baptism of desire is a topic that has been discussed here before, and I'm sure everyone is tired of discussing it, but I don't understand how it can possibly be reconciled with Catholic dogma. (Also, before you call me a "Feeneyite", please note that my denial of baptism of desire really has nothing to do with him and I don't know much about the man anyways)
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, 1547, On Baptism, Canon II:"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."
Shouldn't this decree of the Council of Trent disprove the whole BoD argument anyways? From what I understand, BoD does not in any way involve water and so I don't understand how anyone can say it is even a baptism at all. I accept Baptism of Blood because I have understood to be similar to a second baptism which applies only to those who have already been baptized.
I am incredibly hesitant to believe in baptism of desire because from what I do understand it does seem heretical. Even if certain saints have taught it or Popes have been of the opinion that it is possible/true, that really isn't enough for me if it is contrary to dogma.
Anyways, don't BoD advocates also say that BoD does not actually imprint the indelible mark of baptism on a person's soul? If that's true, how can it be said to be a baptism at all?
Without getting to into this, I want to know what you think.
I know, I know ... says it all. If you know, why are you starting this thread? :wink:
-
I know that baptism of desire is a topic that has been discussed here before, and I'm sure everyone is tired of discussing it, but I don't understand how it can possibly be reconciled with Catholic dogma. (Also, before you call me a "Feeneyite", please note that my denial of baptism of desire really has nothing to do with him and I don't know much about the man anyways)
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, 1547, On Baptism, Canon II:"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."
Shouldn't this decree of the Council of Trent disprove the whole BoD argument anyways? From what I understand, BoD does not in any way involve water and so I don't understand how anyone can say it is even a baptism at all. I accept Baptism of Blood because I have understood to be similar to a second baptism which applies only to those who have already been baptized.
I am incredibly hesitant to believe in baptism of desire because from what I do understand it does seem heretical. Even if certain saints have taught it or Popes have been of the opinion that it is possible/true, that really isn't enough for me if it is contrary to dogma.
Anyways, don't BoD advocates also say that BoD does not actually imprint the indelible mark of baptism on a person's soul? If that's true, how can it be said to be a baptism at all?
Without getting to into this, I want to know what you think.
I know, I know ... says it all. If you know, why are you starting this thread? :wink:
Did you.... Did you even read the thread? :sleep:
I'm trying to get a better understanding of BoD and why it may or may not be heretical =.=
-
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
(Translated by John Daly)
St. Alphonsus is a Saint and Doctor of the Church. One should not make caricatures of the salutary doctrine of the Church, pulling definitions out of their proper context.
-
You are a catechmen or have faith but are denied baptism.
One who persecutes the church comes and asks you:"Do you believe in Jesus being The Son of God?"
If you say "yes" you are killed.
If you say "no" it is a grave sin.
If you say "yes", you die unbaptized.
If you say "no", the persecutor will rejoice and God will be offended.
The dillema has no other solution expect believing in BOB or BOD.
-
You are a catechmen or have faith but are denied baptism.
One who persecutes the church comes and asks you:"Do you believe in Jesus being The Son of God?"
If you say "yes" you are killed.
If you say "no" it is a grave sin.
If you say "yes", you die unbaptized.
If you say "no", the persecutor will rejoice and God will be offended.
The dillema has no other solution expect believing in BOB or BOD.
Being that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, do you really believe God could not foresee such a thing happening and not prevent that from even happening to begin with? If someone really had faith, why would God allow that to happen, begin omniscient as He is?
So you see that your "other solution" is really not very plausible when we consider how unreasonable it is.
-
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de ####o non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
(Translated by John Daly)
St. Alphonsus is a Saint and Doctor of the Church. One should not make caricatures of the salutary doctrine of the Church, pulling definitions out of their proper context.
Being a Saint and a Doctor of the Church does not mean that one cannot be wrong. In fact, proofs of Saints and DoCs being wrong is all over history, the most classic being St. Thomas Aquinas's errors on conception.
Anyways.. The Church has always taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. Would you not agree that Catechumens are outside the Church? The Church has denied them burial among those inside the Church traditionally. The Church has also taught that water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism of desire does not involve water then how can these people be saved?
I don't really feel that the arguments for baptism of desire are very good ones.
-
You are a catechmen or have faith but are denied baptism.
One who persecutes the church comes and asks you:"Do you believe in Jesus being The Son of God?"
If you say "yes" you are killed.
If you say "no" it is a grave sin.
If you say "yes", you die unbaptized.
If you say "no", the persecutor will rejoice and God will be offended.
The dillema has no other solution expect believing in BOB or BOD.
Being that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, do you really believe God could not foresee such a thing happening and not prevent that from even happening to begin with? If someone really had faith, why would God allow that to happen, being omniscient as He is?
So you see that your "other solution" is really not very plausible when we consider how unreasonable it is.
Fixed.
-
There are Saints who where catechumens and who were martyred before having been able to receive water Baptism. The Holy Innocents, too, are in Heaven.
If one has access to water Baptism, but refuses to receive it, then one is condemned. If one has, moved by supernatural faith and charity, the sincere intention to receive it, but dies an unforeseen* death before the actual reception, that person receives the fruits of Baptism.
Also, when a Saint and Doctor of the Church says that a certain doctrine is de fide and that the contrary position is at least temerarious, then you can not simply dismiss it.
*Unforeseen by the said person, not by God.
-
There are Saints who where catechumens and who were martyred before having been able to receive water Baptism. The Holy Innocents, too, are in Heaven.
With regards to saints who were Catechumens, I haven't seen any proof that any of those people did not receive water baptism at any point in time. Just because no known text explicitly says that they did doesn't mean that they didn't.
With regards to the Holy Innocents, they were martyred before the law of baptism was ever even established and made efficacious by Christ's Passion.
If one has access to water Baptism, but refuses to receive it, then one is condemned. If one has, moved by supernatural faith and charity, the sincere intention to receive it, but dies an unforeseen* death before the actual reception, that person receives the fruits of Baptism.
*Unforeseen by the said person, not by God.
Why does it matter of whether or not the person foresees this death or not? It's obvious that God does and I don't see why God would allow them to die without water baptism if He knew that they truly wanted to be saved. I just don't see why God would allow that to happen in cases where the person truly wants to enter the Church. Further, the fact that baptism of desire is far from being dogma (and the fact that it is quite a pressing issue) is what disinclines me from believing in it. I really don't want to err on the faith in such a way. Especially not with baptism which is quite a solemn issue.
Edit: I seriously don't know why you people feel the need to thumb down my posts. I am trying to understand how BoD can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. I'm not trying to start fights. Instead of trying to help you anonymous detractors thumb me down and offer nothing of substance? Wow.
Also, when a Saint and Doctor of the Church says that a certain doctrine is de fide and that the contrary position is at least temerarious, then you can not simply dismiss it.
I'm not sure you understand what it is that I'm arguing. Please repeat to me what you think it is I've said thus far and I'll tell you if that's what I'm trying to say.
-
I do not deny that a Saint/Doctor can be mistaken, but when he says that a certain doctrine is de fide, and the contrary proposition temerarious, then it cannot simply be dismissed. Pope Pius XII has settled the case anyway, so there is no grounds for further debate. Also, Pope St. Pius V taught in Ex Omibus Afflictionibus that justification and supernatural faith and charity cannot be separated from the remission of sins.
It is the positive will of Christ that all receive water Baptism to be saved. So, water Baptism is a necessity. But it is not an absolute necessity, in that those who die without water Baptism through no fault of their own can be saved through supernatural desire for it.
qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit salvus erit qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur (St. Mark 16,16)
When speaking of those who will be condemned, Christ obviously speaks of those who refuse water Baptism because they do not believe it necessary, not of those who do want to receive it but happen to die before they could even receive an emergency Baptism.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a dogma of the Church, but it must be interpreted the way the Church interprets it.
With regards to the Holy Innocents, they were martyred before the law of baptism was ever even established and made efficacious by Christ's Passion.
According to the false logic of those who rigorously divorce the EENS dogma of it's true meaning, this would also be a violation of the dogma.
-
Exilenomore said:
There are Saints who where catechumens and who were martyred before having been able to receive water Baptism. The Holy Innocents, too, are in Heaven.
Daegus said: With regards to saints who were Catechumens, I haven't seen any proof that any of those people did not receive water baptism at any point in time. Just because no known text explicitly says that they did doesn't mean that they didn't.
With regards to the Holy Innocents, they were martyred before the law of baptism was ever even established and made efficacious by Christ's Passion.
The books lives of the Saints said so, with approval of the Church, so when you stand before God, better to have that backing you, instead of some Feeynite, who is outside the Church because they deny a de fide teaching.
-
:facepalm:
-
What I would like to know is whether or not natural water is absolutely necessary for a person to be baptized, and whether or not baptism (with water) is absolutely necessary for salvation.
-
Exilenomore said:
There are Saints who where catechumens and who were martyred before having been able to receive water Baptism. The Holy Innocents, too, are in Heaven.
Daegus said: With regards to saints who were Catechumens, I haven't seen any proof that any of those people did not receive water baptism at any point in time. Just because no known text explicitly says that they did doesn't mean that they didn't.
With regards to the Holy Innocents, they were martyred before the law of baptism was ever even established and made efficacious by Christ's Passion.
The books lives of the Saints said so, with approval of the Church, so when you stand before God, better to have that backing you, instead of some Feeynite, who is outside the Church because they deny a de fide teaching.
Are you saying that baptism of desire is a dogma of the faith? I have not seen any clear teaching on whether or not baptism of desire is a dogma of the faith. A saint saying that something is "de fide" does not constitute a dogma.
-
Also, St. Robert Bellarmine has said that geocentrism is de fide but this idea was later contradicted by Pope Benedict XV who said that the Earth may not be the center of the Universe. What is your opinion on this?
-
I hate to quadruple post but I can't edit my posts anymore.
I'd like to know if those who have not received the Sacrament of baptism can be considered inside of the Church? Can we say that those who are "baptised by desire" are apart of the faithful?
-
What is your opinion on this?
You misunderstand the context of the words of the Pope. Read the whole of what he was saying and you will see that he was speaking of a hypothetical situation. He did not say that the situation could actually happen.
-
What is your opinion on this?
You misunderstand the context of the words of the Pope.
That doesn't really answer my question though.
St. Robert Bellarmine taught that geocentrism is de fide, and Benedict XV said that the Earth may not be the center of the Universe, which brings forward the possibility that it is wrong to believe geocentrism is de fide. If geocentrism is not de fide, then it's obvious that just because a saint says something is de fide that does not make it so. Do you agree that this is correct?
-
You posted before I finished editing my post, so the rest of my answer is in it.
Sometimes, when speaking of an impossible situation, we say: "Even if that could happen, then..." etc. This is the context in which he was speaking. It becomes quite clear when reading the whole passage.
-
I don't think the main issue is whether or not this or that is the center of the universe, but whether or not the earth revolves around the sun, and rather that it is stationary. I was never taught in school that the sun is the center of the universe, or that anything could be considered as the center.
-
You posted before I finished editing my post, so the rest of my answer is in it.
Sometimes, when speaking of an impossible situation, we say: "Even if that could happen, then..." etc. This is the context in which he was speaking. It becomes quite clear when reading the whole passage.
Let me quote the entire passage. I have read the whole thing you know.
4. And first of all, inasmuch as the divine poet throughout his whole life professed in exemplary manner the Catholic religion, he would surely desire that this solemn commemoration should take place, as indeed will be the case, under the auspices of religion, and if it is carried out in San Francesco in Ravenna it should begin in San Giovanni in Florence to which his thoughts turned during the last years of his life with the desire of being crowned poet at the very font where he had received Baptism. Dante lived in an age which inherited the most glorious fruits of philosophical and theological teaching and thought, and handed them on to the succeeding ages with the imprint of the strict scholastic method. Amid the various currents of thought diffused then too among learned men Dante ranged himself as disciple of that Prince of the school so distinguished for angelic temper of intellect, Saint Thomas Aquinas. From him he gained nearly all his philosophical and theological knowledge, and while he did not neglect any branch of human learning, at the same time he drank deeply at the founts of Sacred Scripture and the Fathers. Thus he learned almost all that could be known in his time, and nourished specially by Christian knowledge, it was on that field of religion he drew when he set himself to treat in verse of things so vast and deep. So that while we admire the greatness and keenness of his genius, we have to recognize, too, the measure in which he drew inspiration from the Divine Faith by means of which he could beautify his immortal poems with all the lights of revealed truths as well as with the splendours of art. Indeed, his Commedia, which deservedly earned the title of Divina, while it uses various symbolic images and records the lives of mortals on earth, has for its true aim the glorification of the justice and providence of God who rules the world through time and all eternity and punishes and rewards the actions of individuals and human society. It is thus that, according to the Divine Revelation, in this poem shines out the majesty of God One and Three, the Redemption of the human race operated by the Word of God made Man, the supreme loving-kindness and charity of Mary, Virgin and Mother, Queen of Heaven, and lastly the glory on high of Angels, Saints and men; then the terrible contrast to this, the pains of the impious in Hell; then the middle world, so to speak, between Heaven and Hell, Purgatory, the Ladder of souls destined after expiation to supreme beatitude. It is indeed marvellous how he was able to weave into all three poems these three dogmas with truly wrought design. If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. Therefore the divine poet depicted the triple life of souls as he imagined it in a such way as to illuminate with the light of the true doctrine of the faith the condemnation of the impious, the purgation of the good spirits and the eternal happiness of the blessed before the final judgment.
Benedict XV did not say "Even if". He merely said "If" which leaves me quite worried.
-
Anyways, this isn't about geocentrism so I would really like to return to the topic of BoD. I was just using BXV as an example of a Saint and DoC potentially being wrong by being contradicted by a Pope, despite St. Robert saying that geocentrism is de fide.
-
Where in Scripture might we read that the earth is the center of the universe or that there is a center?
-
What I would like to know is whether or not natural water is absolutely necessary for a person to be baptized, and whether or not baptism (with water) is absolutely necessary for salvation.
I'd like an answer to this.
-
I hate to quadruple post but I can't edit my posts anymore.
I'd like to know if those who have not received the Sacrament of baptism can be considered inside of the Church? Can we say that those who are "baptised by desire" are apart of the faithful?
.. and this.
-
http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html
-
One of my old posts:
Articles of Interest:
Baptism of Desire and of Blood
MATER DEI SEMINARY newsletter "Adsum" (January, 2004)
http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html
Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
Baptism of Desire: An Exchange
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
I don't define Church membership as belonging only to those who have been baptized with water.
This contradicts Pope Pius' teaching in Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
What the deal is, is that it is not absolutely necessary to be a member of the Church to belong to the Church.
Two more links of interest:
Membership in the Church, Mons. Fenton Articles
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Membership-in-the-Church-2
Letter of the Holy Office
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm
It's necessary for salvation for a person to belong to the soul of the Church in actuality, and the body of the Church at least in desire, and this desire can be implicit.
-
Exilenomore said:
There are Saints who where catechumens and who were martyred before having been able to receive water Baptism. The Holy Innocents, too, are in Heaven.
Daegus said: With regards to saints who were Catechumens, I haven't seen any proof that any of those people did not receive water baptism at any point in time. Just because no known text explicitly says that they did doesn't mean that they didn't.
With regards to the Holy Innocents, they were martyred before the law of baptism was ever even established and made efficacious by Christ's Passion.
The books lives of the Saints said so, with approval of the Church, so when you stand before God, better to have that backing you, instead of some Feeynite, who is outside the Church because they deny a de fide teaching.
Are you saying that baptism of desire is a dogma of the faith? I have not seen any clear teaching on whether or not baptism of desire is a dogma of the faith. A saint saying that something is "de fide" does not constitute a dogma.
I have in my personal library here at home, about 20 catechism books, all approved by the Church and all published prior to Vatican II. I think it is wise to believe what they say; that BOD and BOB are valid avenues of saving your soul. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and if the people in the Old Testament can save their soul by loving God, then if necessary so can people today.
Of course if someone is not Baptized they should not delay another minute, because Bapism is a sacrament of the Church, while BOD and BOB are not sacraments.
-
I have in my personal library here at home, about 20 catechism books, all approved by the Church and all published prior to Vatican II. I think it is wise to believe what they say; that BOD and BOB are valid avenues of saving your soul. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and if the people in the Old Testament can save their soul by loving God, then if necessary so can people today.
That really does not answer my question of whether or not you were saying baptism of desire is a dogma of the faith.
Of course if someone is not Baptized they should not delay another minute, because Bapism is a sacrament of the Church, while BOD and BOB are not sacraments.
You know, despite your arguments (which unfortunately don't convince me in the slightest bit), I suppose I can see why - in a way - baptism of desire could work. After all (and this just hit me), a Catholic can have their sins forgiven just by their desire to be in the friendship of God again (perfect contrition), but they still must have the intention of confessing their sins.. even if they do die an "unforeseen" death. At the same time confession is not quite the same because those able to confess are baptized.
What I'm really having trouble with is understanding just how baptism of desire could work. If natural water is a necessity of baptism, how can they be saved without it? Would God somehow slow down time (or something of the sort), have an angel minister water to the person and baptise them before death, or do you people have a different idea in mind?
-
Exilenomore said:
There are Saints who where catechumens and who were martyred before having been able to receive water Baptism. The Holy Innocents, too, are in Heaven.
Daegus said: With regards to saints who were Catechumens, I haven't seen any proof that any of those people did not receive water baptism at any point in time. Just because no known text explicitly says that they did doesn't mean that they didn't.
With regards to the Holy Innocents, they were martyred before the law of baptism was ever even established and made efficacious by Christ's Passion.
The books lives of the Saints said so, with approval of the Church, so when you stand before God, better to have that backing you, instead of some Feeynite, who is outside the Church because they deny a de fide teaching.
There is no such thing as a 'Feeneyite' Myrna-- any docuмent claiming Fr Feeney was called to Rome or ex-commed because he failed to comply are Fraudulent.
-
What is your opinion on this?
You misunderstand the context of the words of the Pope.
That doesn't really answer my question though.
St. Robert Bellarmine taught that geocentrism is de fide, and Benedict XV said that the Earth may not be the center of the Universe, which brings forward the possibility that it is wrong to believe geocentrism is de fide. If geocentrism is not de fide, then it's obvious that just because a saint says something is de fide that does not make it so. Do you agree that this is correct?
What are the exact words of St Robert concerning geocentrism?
-
What is your opinion on this?
You misunderstand the context of the words of the Pope.
That doesn't really answer my question though.
St. Robert Bellarmine taught that geocentrism is de fide, and Benedict XV said that the Earth may not be the center of the Universe, which brings forward the possibility that it is wrong to believe geocentrism is de fide. If geocentrism is not de fide, then it's obvious that just because a saint says something is de fide that does not make it so. Do you agree that this is correct?
What are the exact words of St Robert concerning geocentrism?
St. Robert Bellarmine, Letter to Paolo Antonio Foscarini:
“But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself [turns upon its axis] without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false
“Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding
the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if
Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries
of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Josue, you would
find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the
heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from
the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now
consider whether the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense
contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.”
“Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a
matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part
of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that
Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth
of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the
prophets and apostles.”
-
What St Robert rightly objected to is Copernicus Hypothetical conception that since E rev around S then S must be fixed( & in cener of U) and not E. Science has now shown that the Sun is indeed in motion. This Does Not automatically mean that it is revolving around E-- it is going Somewhere Else. Since there was no scientific proof at the time, no one could conceive of this.
Wade Rowland( author of Galileo's Mistake) quotes St Robert as follows
" If Copernicanism were verified, then it would be necessary to use careful consideration in explaining Scriptures that seemed contrary and we should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say something is wrong that has been proven".
-
That really does not answer my question of whether or not you were saying baptism of desire is a dogma of the faith.
Baptism of desire is not a dogma of faith - if anything, it explicitly contradicts explicitly defined excathedra therefore binding dogma as well as Scripture.
You know, despite your arguments (which unfortunately don't convince me in the slightest bit), I suppose I can see why - in a way - baptism of desire could work. After all (and this just hit me), a Catholic can have their sins forgiven just by their desire to be in the friendship of God again (perfect contrition), but they still must have the intention of confessing their sins.. even if they do die an "unforeseen" death. At the same time confession is not quite the same because those able to confess are baptized.
What I'm really having trouble with is understanding just how baptism of desire could work. If natural water is a necessity of baptism, how can they be saved without it? Would God somehow slow down time (or something of the sort), have an angel minister water to the person and baptise them before death, or do you people have a different idea in mind?
While perfect contrition *can* forgive sins, nobody on this earth will ever know for sure. BOD requires it's advocates to assume it not only forgives mortal sin, but also original sin - then rewards instant salvation as well..............depending on which version of BOD one advocates.
IMO, the main foundation of BOD was built upon the "unforseen" or "accidental death" scenario which prohibited the deceased infidel from receiving Sacramental Baptism with "true and natural water" - (as though every body else already Sacramentally baptized has the ability to know before hand the date and time when they will be taken from this world) - thereby rewarding salvation to those outside the Church.
The question remains - - -if one can baptize themself with desire - why is it that one cannot baptize themself with water?
Dunno why I can't get the quote feature to work on this post.
-
if one can baptize themself with desire - why is it that one cannot baptize themself with water?
One doesn't baptise themself with desire, God knows His own.
With all due respect here, I think if is PRIDEful for anyone to believe that they must know the mind of God, and why He allows things to happen in such a way to make the doubtful believer doubt Him.
The catechism teaches BOD and BOB, the catechism never states that this is a theory, it states it as fact. Read it!
-
I heard a good reply to the "invalidity of the docuмent/public notary argument" given by some Feeneyites.
It's by Fr. Cekada, from SGG. No friend to the Novus Ordo. He makes an EXCELLENT point:
"Q. In a letter to the editor of Latin Mass magazine (November–December 1994), Gary Potter stated that the Holy Office’s 13 February 1953 decree excommunicating the Rev. Leonard Feeney was dubious because it was “signed by no one except a mere Vatican notary.” I have also heard this argument from other supporters of Fr. Feeney. Is there anything to it?"
A. The Holy Office decree in question (Acta Apostolicae Sedis xxxxv, 100) reads as follows:
DECREE
THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEYIS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED
Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.
Marius Crovini, Notary
Another supporter of Father Feeney, Thomas Mary Sennott, in his book They Fought the Good Fight, likewise hints that the effect of the decree was open to question:
It is to be noted that this docuмent does not contain the seal of the Holy Office, nor is it signed by Cardinal Pizzardo or the Holy Father. The only signature is that of a notary public. (256)
For an American, the phrase “notary public” summons up the image of the frizzy-haired, gum-chewing 18-year-old girl down at the bank who puts her notary stamp on your fishing license.
The reality here is quite a bit different. In legal systems based on Roman law, a “notary” is a type of lawyer. He does not merely witness signatures; he is trained and authorized to draw up complex legal docuмents. In the Curia, certain Notaries had the right to function in ceremonial positions of honor at the Solemn Papal Mass. (when none of them, presumably, chewed gum…)
The form of the decree against Fr. Feeney, in fact, was an oraculum vivae vocis — a legal act the pope or a Roman congregation first gives orally in an audience or a Plenary Congregation. Such an act is taken down in writing by one of the curial officials present, who afterwards puts it into an appropriate legal form.
The act is then promulgated (as a decree, decision, declaration, etc.) under the signature of a Notary, who is giving official written testimony of what he has heard in the audience or congregation. His testimony is given full faith and credit, and the act is law.
One can find a treatment of this form of legislation in various commentaries on the Code of Canon Law.
The oraculum vivae vocis is a standard form for many Roman decrees, including excommunications. For examples, see Acta Apostolicae Sedis, xii (1920), 37; xiv (1922), 379–380; xxii (1930), 517–520.
The decree excommunicating Fr. Feeney thus followed the proper legal form. The technical defects his followers allege against it on these grounds are non-existent.
(Sacerdotium 14, Spring 1995).
-
I heard a good reply to the "invalidity of the docuмent/public notary argument" given by some Feeneyites.
It's by Fr. Cekada, from SGG. No friend to the Novus Ordo. He makes an EXCELLENT point:
"Q. In a letter to the editor of Latin Mass magazine (November–December 1994), Gary Potter stated that the Holy Office’s 13 February 1953 decree excommunicating the Rev. Leonard Feeney was dubious because it was “signed by no one except a mere Vatican notary.” I have also heard this argument from other supporters of Fr. Feeney. Is there anything to it?"
A. The Holy Office decree in question (Acta Apostolicae Sedis xxxxv, 100) reads as follows:
DECREE
THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEYIS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED
Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.
Marius Crovini, Notary
Another supporter of Father Feeney, Thomas Mary Sennott, in his book They Fought the Good Fight, likewise hints that the effect of the decree was open to question:
It is to be noted that this docuмent does not contain the seal of the Holy Office, nor is it signed by Cardinal Pizzardo or the Holy Father. The only signature is that of a notary public. (256)
For an American, the phrase “notary public” summons up the image of the frizzy-haired, gum-chewing 18-year-old girl down at the bank who puts her notary stamp on your fishing license.
The reality here is quite a bit different. In legal systems based on Roman law, a “notary” is a type of lawyer. He does not merely witness signatures; he is trained and authorized to draw up complex legal docuмents. In the Curia, certain Notaries had the right to function in ceremonial positions of honor at the Solemn Papal Mass. (when none of them, presumably, chewed gum…)
The form of the decree against Fr. Feeney, in fact, was an oraculum vivae vocis — a legal act the pope or a Roman congregation first gives orally in an audience or a Plenary Congregation. Such an act is taken down in writing by one of the curial officials present, who afterwards puts it into an appropriate legal form.
The act is then promulgated (as a decree, decision, declaration, etc.) under the signature of a Notary, who is giving official written testimony of what he has heard in the audience or congregation. His testimony is given full faith and credit, and the act is law.
One can find a treatment of this form of legislation in various commentaries on the Code of Canon Law.
The oraculum vivae vocis is a standard form for many Roman decrees, including excommunications. For examples, see Acta Apostolicae Sedis, xii (1920), 37; xiv (1922), 379–380; xxii (1930), 517–520.
The decree excommunicating Fr. Feeney thus followed the proper legal form. The technical defects his followers allege against it on these grounds are non-existent.
(Sacerdotium 14, Spring 1995).
That's nice and all.. But who's talking about Fr. Feeney? I hardly even know who the man is at all and I know that people here have a habit of saying that anyone who doesn't agree with BoD is a "Feeneyite" (which is as ridiculous as me claiming that anyone who says women should be allowed to drive is a feminist). I have seen other threads with regards to BoD. I know how this usually works. My doubt of BoD (and just BoD alone, at no point in time have I ever denied BoB) has nothing to do with a priest who I know nothing about. Only a few seconds before making this post did I even do a google search of him to see what he looked like.
Edit: Just realized roscoe talked about Fr. Feeney. I have a habit of skipping over his posts if the first few words don't interest me.
-
Neither is one schismatic for echoing infallibly defined teaching.
And fwiw, about the only thing those catechisms have in common with the latest one is that they both teach pretty much the same thing on BOD.
-
Those who Identify themselves as Feeneyites, usually fail to apply the the following Catholic Principles:
Section I
What Principles Does the Church
Require You to Follow?
I. You must believe the teachings of both the solemn and the
universal ordinary magisterium of the Church (Vatican I).
A. General Principle:
• “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be
believed which are contained in the written word of God and in
tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a
solemn pronouncement or IN HER ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL TEACHING POWER [magisterium], to be believed as divinely revealed.” Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith (1870), DZ 1792.— 2 —
B. The Code of Canon Law imposes the same obligation.
(Canon 1323.1)
C. Therefore, you must believe by divine and Catholic faith
those things:
1. Contained in Scripture or Tradition, AND
2. Proposed for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s
authority, either through:
a. Solemn pronouncements (by ecuмenical councils, or
popes ex cathedra) OR
b. Universal ordinary magisterium (teaching of the
bishops together with the pope, either in council, or
spread throughout the world.)
D. This is not “optional,” or “a matter of opinion.”
• It defines the object of faith — what you are obliged to believe.
• Further, it is de fide definita — an infallible, unchangeable,
solemn pronouncement.
II. You must believe those teachings of the universal ordinary
magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith
(Pius IX).
• “For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which
is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would
not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by
express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those
matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the
world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held
by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” Tuas Libenter (1863),
DZ 1683.
III. You must also subject yourself to the Holy See’s doctrinal
decisions and to other forms of doctrine commonly held as
theological truths and conclusions. (Pius IX).
A. General Principle.
• “But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative
sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church
by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics
to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that
it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining
to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and
also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and
constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of
doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless
deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.
B. You must therefore adhere to the following:
1. Doctrinal decisions of Vatican Congregations (e.g., the Holy
Office).
2. Forms of doctrine held as:
a. Theological truths and conclusions.
b. So certain that opposition merits some theological
censure short of “heresy.”— 3 —
IV. You must reject these condemned positions on this issue:
A. Theologians have “obscured” the more important truths of
our faith. (Condemned by Pius VI.)
• “The proposition which asserts ‘that in these later times there
has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths
pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral
teachings of Jesus Christ,’ HERETICAL.” Auctorem Fidei (1794) DZ
1501.
B. Catholics are obliged to believe only those matters infallibly
proposed as dogmas. (Condemned by Pius IX.)
• “And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually
mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe, and condemn: and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed and condemned by all the
sons of the Catholic Church…”
“22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are
absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by
all as dogmas of the faith.” CONDEMNED PROPOSITION. Encyclical
Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864), DZ 1699, 1722.
C. Encyclicals do not demand assent, because popes are not exercising their supreme power. (Condemned by Pius XII.)
• “It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do
not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium. For these
matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which
the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and
usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine.” Humani Generis (1950), DZ
2313.
-
C. Therefore, you must believe by divine and Catholic faith
those things:
1. Contained in Scripture or Tradition, AND
2. Proposed for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s
authority, either through:
a. Solemn pronouncements (by ecuмenical councils, or
popes ex cathedra) OR
b. Universal ordinary magisterium (teaching of the
bishops together with the pope, either in council, or
spread throughout the world.)
D. This is not “optional,” or “a matter of opinion.”
• It defines the object of faith — what you are obliged to believe.
• Further, it is de fide definita — an infallible, unchangeable,
solemn pronouncement.
Herein lies the problem. Something is not right with what is written above.
One *must* believe solemn pronouncements OR the Universal Ordinary Magisterium........................well I think it is obvious that in this case there is a contradiction.
Water being an absolute necessity is solemnly defined. Metaphorical baptism is solemnly condemned. The UOM teach that BOD will save ones soul. How is BOD *not* a metaphorical baptism - and exactly who is to be believed?
-
You are a catechmen or have faith but are denied baptism.
One who persecutes the church comes and asks you:"Do you believe in Jesus being The Son of God?"
If you say "yes" you are killed.
If you say "no" it is a grave sin.
If you say "yes", you die unbaptized.
If you say "no", the persecutor will rejoice and God will be offended.
The dillema has no other solution expect believing in BOB or BOD.
Being that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, do you really believe God could not foresee such a thing happening and not prevent that from even happening to begin with? If someone really had faith, why would God allow that to happen, begin omniscient as He is?
So you see that your "other solution" is really not very plausible when we consider how unreasonable it is.
One of the Ugandan martyrs, St. Kizito, I believe, died in exactly this situation and was canonized for it.
-
You are a catechmen or have faith but are denied baptism.
One who persecutes the church comes and asks you:"Do you believe in Jesus being The Son of God?"
If you say "yes" you are killed.
If you say "no" it is a grave sin.
If you say "yes", you die unbaptized.
If you say "no", the persecutor will rejoice and God will be offended.
The dillema has no other solution expect believing in BOB or BOD.
Being that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, do you really believe God could not foresee such a thing happening and not prevent that from even happening to begin with? If someone really had faith, why would God allow that to happen, begin omniscient as He is?
So you see that your "other solution" is really not very plausible when we consider how unreasonable it is.
One of the Ugandan martyrs, St. Kizito, I believe, died in exactly this situation and was canonized for it.
Kizito may or may not be a saint, as I strongly disbelieve that Paul VI (the one who canonized him) was a true Pope and thus not capable of canonizing anyone, but there is certainly no proof that the Ugandan martyrs (among whom were Anglicans...) who were Catholic did not receive baptism prior to their death.
In fact.. here's what The St. Kizito Foundation (http://www.stkizito.org/who_is_st_kizito) has to say regarding the baptism of these people:
In May of 1886, King Mwanga discovered that some of his pages were Catholic. He killed one page and prohibited anyone from leaving his headquarters. Charles Lwanga, religious instructor to the pages, secretly baptized four young men, including Kizito, a cheerful 13-year-old he often protected from the king’s i9mmoral conduct.
When the baptisms were discovered, Mwanga assembled all the pages and ordered the Christians to separate from the others. They were asked if they wished to remain Christian and each replied, “Until death.” Mwanga then ordered the execution of every Catholic and Protestant living in the royal household. The martyrs were taken to Namugongo where they were imprisoned for seven days and then burned alive on June 3, 1886.
St. Kizito is the youngest of the Martyrs of Uganda who died in the Mwangan persecutions. Kizito’s martyrdom came just weeks after his baptism. Twenty-two of the Martyrs of Uganda were canonized October 18, 1964.
Unfortunately your hypothesis falls apart.
-
C. Therefore, you must believe by divine and Catholic faith
those things:
1. Contained in Scripture or Tradition, AND
2. Proposed for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s
authority, either through:
a. Solemn pronouncements (by ecuмenical councils, or
popes ex cathedra) OR
b. Universal ordinary magisterium (teaching of the
bishops together with the pope, either in council, or
spread throughout the world.)
D. This is not “optional,” or “a matter of opinion.”
• It defines the object of faith — what you are obliged to believe.
• Further, it is de fide definita — an infallible, unchangeable,
solemn pronouncement.
Herein lies the problem. Something is not right with what is written above.
One *must* believe solemn pronouncements OR the Universal Ordinary Magisterium........................well I think it is obvious that in this case there is a contradiction.
Water being an absolute necessity is solemnly defined. Metaphorical baptism is solemnly condemned. The UOM teach that BOD will save ones soul. How is BOD *not* a metaphorical baptism - and exactly who is to be believed?
MO is that something is not right with Gregory. No Catholic can be so dumb as to think( and apparently will not retract) that there is 'no evidence' that any of the claimants-- be they 3 or 11; he is not sure-- to the Papacy during GWS were actually Pope.
-
Roscoe: Demonstrate, beyond any rasonable doubt, that ANY Of the three papal claimants at the time of the GWS were VALIDLY elected Pope. THey all had deficient form. ALl the elections were problematic. Why should we believe that ANY were Pope? Why can we not say that the immediate successor to the last valid POpe was Pope Martin, elected at the council of Constance?
SHow me, and teach me.
THIS IS FATHER FEENEY'S ERROR:
You must reject these condemned positions on this issue:
A. Theologians have “obscured” the more important truths of
our faith. (Condemned by Pius VI.)
• “The proposition which asserts ‘that in these later times there
has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths
pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral
teachings of Jesus Christ,’ HERETICAL.” Auctorem Fidei (1794) DZ
1501.
AS we all know, Fr. Feeney believed that due to the increse in liberalism in America, that the theologians of the time, and since Trent actually, had been watering down EENS.
TO believe such a thing is HERETICAL. But, Fr. Feeney believed it. He contended that the theologians were leading the Church astray.
I was, up until recently, a fairly strong Feeneyite. Then I learned that as Catholics we are OBLIGED to submit to the COMMON TEACHING of the Churches approved theologians.
After seeing a list of 27 of them from BEFORE vatican II who taught that BOD was at LEAST a common teaching of the church (and the greater number held it to be de fide), and after learning that I cannot hold a theological conspiracy theory, what could I do?
I submit my heart to the CHURCH. Not to Fr. Feeney. Then I learned about the TYPE of excommunication he received. It is perfectly valid, because it is a specific type, of a specific form.
WHat can I say? I entrust my Faith to the Church.
-
Oh, the word OR is a mistake. It should be and. I missed it. :smoke-pot:
-
Oh, the word OR is a mistake. It should be and. I missed it. :smoke-pot:
Water being an absolute necessity is solemnly defined. Metaphorical baptism is solemnly condemned. The UOM teach that BOD will save ones soul. How is BOD *not* a metaphorical baptism - and exactly who is to be believed?
-
To ROSCOE:
WHOA, ok, I did more research, and I was wrong. It seems very clear that Gregory XII was the legitimate Pope. AND the least supported and rejected by all his Cardinals.
I am sorry, I suppose I made a mistake. Foot in mouth deal.
I do have ONE question though Roscoe: Was it LICIT for the Cardinals in Rome to elect a Pope WITHOUT the 6 Cardinals who had remained in Avignon?
TO Stubborn:
What I want to know is not so much about the Dogma, I understand that. I want to know WHO, besides Fr. Feeney, has EVER taught that a Person can die JUSTIFIED and NOT go to heaven?
Let's not cloud the issue: Fr. Feeney contended that a person could be Justified by a sincere desire and vow (voto) to receive baptism. But, he maintained it was not enough to be justified, it was also necessary to posses the sacramental Character of Baptism. THerefore, one could NOT go to heaven, even if one were Justified, if one did not posses the sacramental Character of Baptism.
NOW: If the Sacramental Character is needed to FULFILL the unfulfilled state of Justification proposed by Fr. Feeny, that leads to some questions:
1. Where does the church teach that there is anything LESS than a full and complete Justification, whereby one merits heaven on account of the grace of Christ?
2. Where does the Church teach that the Sacramental Character of Baptism is an intrinsic and absolute necessity for Justification?
3. Why would Christ Justify a person whom he has FORESEEN will not receive the sacramental Character of Baptism?
4. GOd does not establish irreconcilable differences in sacramental and DOgmatic theology. Therefore, either BOD justifies, and this justification is salvific in itself, or it does not. But Fr. Feeney held it DOES Justify. But he said it is not enough.
Where does the Church teach it is not enough? Where does ANY theologian teach it is not enough to attain glorification, provided we persevere in his grace before our death?
I have read Fr. Feeneys works, and in them there is a contradiction in his thought.
-
It seems to me, that those people who hang on to what Fr. Feeneys taught believe as the novus ordo believes. The Novus Ordo believe the church began with Vatican II, and those who deny BOD and BOB believe the church began with Fr. Feeney, since both seem to disregard what the catechism teaches.
-
It seems to me, that those people who hang on to what Fr. Feeneys taught believe as the novus ordo believes. The Novus Ordo believe the church began with Vatican II, and those who deny BOD and BOB believe the church began with Fr. Feeney, since both seem to disregard what the catechism teaches.
The Novus Ordo embraces BOD - it is the core belief of the NO. Without BOD, there Could be no Novus Ordo.
BOD = EENS is dead. Admit it.
-
MO is that the BoD/BoB debate is a waste of time. My historical judgement of the Fr Feeney docuмents is that they are fraudulent. I would probably not have asked to join Fr Feeneys group but had I been in Boston at the time I would have gone to a few meetings and I do enjoy reading some of his work.
There is no Church Authority telling us to beware of Fr Feeney and in fact a phrase in Humanum Generis may be there specifically because of Fr Feeney.
-
First please answer my questions........... Water being an absolute necessity is solemnly defined. Metaphorical baptism is solemnly condemned. The UOM teach that BOD will save ones soul.
1) How is BOD *not* a metaphorical baptism - and 2) exactly who is to be believed?
TO Stubborn:
What I want to know is not so much about the Dogma, I understand that. I want to know WHO, besides Fr. Feeney, has EVER taught that a Person can die JUSTIFIED and NOT go to heaven?
Let's not cloud the issue: Fr. Feeney contended that a person could be Justified by a sincere desire and vow (voto) to receive baptism. But, he maintained it was not enough to be justified, it was also necessary to posses the sacramental Character of Baptism. THerefore, one could NOT go to heaven, even if one were Justified, if one did not posses the sacramental Character of Baptism.
NOW: If the Sacramental Character is needed to FULFILL the unfulfilled state of Justification proposed by Fr. Feeny, that leads to some questions:
It was not something proposed by Fr. Feeney, it was a dogma defined by Trent. It is taught in Scripture. St. John was martyred yet forever he will be remembered as St. John the Baptist, not St. John the Martyr etc.
1. Where does the church teach that there is anything LESS than a full and complete Justification, whereby one merits heaven on account of the grace of Christ?
"Unless a man be born again of water.....he cannot enter the Kingdom of God"
2. Where does the Church teach that the Sacramental Character of Baptism is an intrinsic and absolute necessity for Justification?
"Unless a man be born again of water.....he cannot enter the Kingdom of God"
3. Why would Christ Justify a person whom he has FORESEEN will not receive the sacramental Character of Baptism?
Who says one who is sincere will not receive the sacramental Character of Baptism? That is an invention of man . . . . . . . Whatever happened to the promise of Our Lord?.........For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.
Why is His promise rendered meaningless?
4. GOd does not establish irreconcilable differences in sacramental and DOgmatic theology. Therefore, either BOD justifies, and this justification is salvific in itself, or it does not. But Fr. Feeney held it DOES Justify. But he said it is not enough.
Where does the Church teach it is not enough? Where does ANY theologian teach it is not enough to attain glorification, provided we persevere in his grace before our death?
I have read Fr. Feeneys works, and in them there is a contradiction in his thought.
My reply in the above paragraph aside, IIRC, Fr. Feeney held that it might justify, not that it does justify. No one on earth can claim with any certainty whatsoever that it actually does justify. Theologians can speculate all they want, but BOD is not in the Deposit of Faith - at least if it is, it has not been discovered yet.
The real truth is that those who advocate BOD take God out of the equation, expect Him to break laws He made specifically for our salvation - and they judge that the unbaptized person is granted salvation.
-
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de ####o non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
(Translated by John Daly)
St. Alphonsus is a Saint and Doctor of the Church. One should not make caricatures of the salutary doctrine of the Church, pulling definitions out of their proper context.
Other canonized Doctors actually rejected what St. Alphonsus teaches here.
How do we reconcile this?
By submitting to the Holy Office which condemned the errors of Leonard Feeney during the reign of Pope Pius XII.
-
By submitting to the Holy Office which condemned the errors of Leonard Feeney during the reign of Pope Pius XII.
Please list the specific errors for us.
-
By submitting to the Holy Office which condemned the errors of Leonard Feeney during the reign of Pope Pius XII.
Please list the specific errors for us.
Why not just read the condemnation?
-
By submitting to the Holy Office which condemned the errors of Leonard Feeney during the reign of Pope Pius XII.
Please list the specific errors for us.
Why not just read the condemnation?
Since you brought it up, I thought you would know enough about it to be able to put it itemized in short form for us.
-
Why is no one answering the question of how baptism of desire can save you if water is a necessity of baptism? I'm getting tired of people running around this issue and not even trying to answer the question. I really don't care for Fr. Feeney or geocentrism or what have you right now. What I want is answers.
-
It seems to me, that those people who hang on to what Fr. Feeneys taught believe as the novus ordo believes. The Novus Ordo believe the church began with Vatican II, and those who deny BOD and BOB believe the church began with Fr. Feeney, since both seem to disregard what the catechism teaches.
The Novus Ordo embraces BOD - it is the core belief of the NO. Without BOD, there Could be no Novus Ordo.
BOD = EENS is dead. Admit it.
I know what the novus ordo does teach and what it does not teach, my point is both, as my quote says, disregard the catechism, in different teachings. Sorry for not making myself a little more clear.
Why is no one answering the question of how baptism of desire can save you if water is a necessity of baptism? I'm getting tired of people running around this issue and not even trying to answer the question. I really don't care for Fr. Feeney or geocentrism or what have you right now. What I want is answers.
Because Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, therefore there is no need for an outward sign, such as water. What saves you through BOD is grace.
-
Why is no one answering the question of how baptism of desire can save you if water is a necessity of baptism? I'm getting tired of people running around this issue and not even trying to answer the question. I really don't care for Fr. Feeney or geocentrism or what have you right now. What I want is answers.
It is necessary in the sense that someone who refuses water Baptism cannot be saved, but not in the sense that God is chained to His Sacraments so that He needs water to save someone who, for example, is about to die, wants to be baptized, but has no access to water and dies without receiving the Sacrament. We do not know who is saved in this way. We can only know that someone is in Heaven if the Church canonizes him/her.
One who has heard that he needs to be baptized, but does not attempt to receive it due to laxism or presumption, is guilty.
-
Because Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, therefore there is no need for an outward sign, such as water. What saves you through BOD is grace.
But baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it? That's the real issue here. That is the problem. Whether or not it's a sacrament isn't really even my main concern. My main concern is: if it is a baptism like the name implies, then should water not be necessary for it? The council of Trent says that water is necessary for baptism. If BoD is not baptism, then, quite frankly, I just don't know what the hell it is.
It is necessary in the sense that someone who refuses water Baptism cannot be saved, but not in the sense that God is chained to His Sacraments so that He needs water to save someone who, for example, is about to die, wants to be baptized, but has no access to water and dies without receiving the Sacrament. We do not know who is saved in this way. We can only know that someone is in Heaven if the Church canonizes him/her.
No one is saying that God is bound by His own sacraments. I am not saying God is bound by His sacraments. Asserting otherwise is a vicious lie against me. What I am really having trouble with is the idea that God would contradict Himself in saying that whoever is not born of water and the Holy Ghost cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I'm having trouble believing God would contradict the teachings of His Church or allow His Church to contradict Him and say that someone can be baptised by desire even after saying that water is necessary for baptism and having the Church define that water is a necessity of baptism.
-
Ordinary Law vs Extraordinary Law
-
But baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it? That's the real issue here. That is the problem. Whether or not it's a sacrament isn't really even my main concern. My main concern is: if it is a baptism like the name implies, then should water not be necessary for it? The council of Trent says that water is necessary for baptism. If BoD is not baptism, then, quite frankly, I just don't know what the hell it is.
There are many different theological opinions what BOD is. People who believe in a BOD actually do not know what it is either - but they all agree that it rewards salvation to those unbaptized.
Quite profound hey?
No one is saying that God is bound by His own sacraments. I am not saying God is bound by His sacraments. Asserting otherwise is a vicious lie against me. What I am really having trouble with is the idea that God would contradict Himself in saying that whoever is not born of water and the Holy Ghost cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I'm having trouble believing God would contradict the teachings of His Church or allow His Church to contradict Him and say that someone can be baptised by desire even after saying that water is necessary for baptism and having the Church define that water is a necessity of baptism.
You are not asking for anything unreasonable whatsoever and you are 100% correct that God is not bound by His Sacraments. It is we who are bound, not Him. We are all singularly of more value to God than we can ever know in this life. We know that each soul is worth more to God than the entire world with everything in it. He would not bind us to a law we could not observe no matter the theoretical circuмstance.
The old axiom: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" conflicts entirely with a BOD.
-
ut baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it?
Who here said it wasn't a baptism? Or is that just your way to sound like you know what you are talking about?
-
But baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it?
It's been explained, you just don't want to accept it. BOD is not a Sacrament.
-
ut baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it?
Who here said it wasn't a baptism? Or is that just your way to sound like you know what you are talking about?
I find it funny how you appear to be getting agitated over this discussion. If you can't handle this discussion you're free to not post. Do you always get upset when people don't agree with you?
Anyways...
Now, to answer your question, no one said it wasn't a baptism. I was making the point that it is (or at least, you are, necessarily, saying that it is) a baptism by asking that question. If BoD is really a baptism, and natural water is necessary for baptism, how is baptism of desire supposed to work? Trent does say that natural water is necessary for baptism. You can get as irritated as you want, but I'm not leaving this alone until I get answers that actually make sense.
-
But baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it?
It's been explained, you just don't want to accept it. BOD is not a Sacrament.
Absolute rubbish. You're not in any way contributing to the discussion by posting this nonsense. You say that BoD is a baptism. I say: well if it's a baptism that does not involve water, what do we make of Trent that says that water is necessary for baptism? It being a sacrament or not is not relevant.
Maybe if you people would stop equivocating the discussion would be a lot smoother.
-
But baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it?
It's been explained, you just don't want to accept it. BOD is not a Sacrament.
Absolute rubbish. You're not in any way contributing to the discussion by posting this nonsense. You say that BoD is a baptism. I say: well if it's a baptism that does not involve water, what do we make of Trent that says that water is necessary for baptism? It being a sacrament or not is not relevant.
Maybe if you people would stop equivocating the discussion would be a lot smoother.
Your first post on this thread is a lie. You're not here to understand, you're here to teach your own doctrine.
Without getting to[sic] into this, I want to know what you think.
-
If you want answers then buy this book. It's cheap.
http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/6722/baptism-of-desire
-
But baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it?
It's been explained, you just don't want to accept it. BOD is not a Sacrament.
Absolute rubbish. You're not in any way contributing to the discussion by posting this nonsense. You say that BoD is a baptism. I say: well if it's a baptism that does not involve water, what do we make of Trent that says that water is necessary for baptism? It being a sacrament or not is not relevant.
Maybe if you people would stop equivocating the discussion would be a lot smoother.
Your first post on this thread is a lie. You're not here to understand, you're here to teach your own doctrine.
Without getting to[sic] into this, I want to know what you think.
How does your rubbish somehow prove that I lied? I wanted to know what you think, and it's obvious YOU don't think much of anything because you haven't contributed in any way. Then you say that I'm here to "teach [my] own doctrine", which is an absolute lie and is calumny against me. I want to understand how BoD can be reconciled with dogmatic Church teaching, and for some reason it seems as though you can never cease to equivocate and give me a clear answer. Instead of using clear arguments and definitions you people whine endlessly about fallible opinions of Church Doctors and other saints and you try to get me to believe your point by leading the discussion astray with irrelevancies.
Quite frankly, I find you to be a pernicious liar whose perfidy knows no constraint. You're actually willing to sit here, accuse me and tell lies about me, all the while lying yourself.
Did you know that I'm still waiting for an answer to my 2 questions which NONE OF YOU bothered to answer in a way that made any sense? I have to keep telling you people to answer my posts or else you'll keep dwelling on irrelevancies like geocentrism and Fr. Feeney and so on. Here are my 2 questions which have not been properly answered by anyone. Instead of trying to help me, your bad will has led you to attack me and calumniate me. I know that you're getting frustrated that you can't provide valid answers to my questions, but that's no excuse for you to lie about me.
I'm still waiting:
What I would like to know is whether or not natural water is absolutely necessary for a person to be baptized, and whether or not baptism (with water) is absolutely necessary for salvation.
I'd like to know if those who have not received the Sacrament of baptism can be considered inside of the Church? Can we say that those who are "baptised by desire" are apart of the faithful?
Why are you people not answering my questions?
-
[
Why are you people not answering my questions?
Maybe because you are asking a high theological question and the responders are not theologians.
It also has no relevance to any of the lives of the people you are speaking to. BoD is when you want to be baptised and you attempt to do so and die on the way, then God MAY grant you salvation.
That is a basic answer because I too am not a theologian.
Buy the book I just linked you to. It will give you the type of answers you seek.
-
maybe this will tide you over
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm
-
[
Why are you people not answering my questions?
Maybe because you are asking a high theological question and the responders are not theologians.
It also has no relevance to any of the lives of the people you are speaking to. BoD is when you want to be baptised and you attempt to do so and die on the way, then God MAY grant you salvation.
That is a basic answer because I too am not a theologian.
Buy the book I just linked you to. It will give you the type of answers you seek.
Thank you, LordPhan, for at least having the decency to try and answer my question without getting agitated because I don't automatically agree. Thank you for also not accusing me of absurd things. It's good to know that there is at least 1 person on this thread who isn't inexplicably bad willed.
I'll consider the book.
One thing I'd like to point out is how you at least tried to define BoD, which no one else does, and if they do, the definition keeps changing to suit their points.
-
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de ####o non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
(Translated by John Daly)
St. Alphonsus is a Saint and Doctor of the Church. One should not make caricatures of the salutary doctrine of the Church, pulling definitions out of their proper context.
Other canonized Doctors actually rejected what St. Alphonsus teaches here.
How do we reconcile this?
By submitting to the Holy Office which condemned the errors of Leonard Feeney during the reign of Pope Pius XII.
Any docuмents calling Fr Feeney to Rome or ex-comming him because he failed to comply are Fraudulent.
-
roscoe,
Any docuмents calling Fr Feeney to Rome or ex-comming him because he failed to comply are Fraudulent.
The process was indeed canonically defective as was the "letter"
Also the book by Fr Laisney is written from a more liberal and sentimentilist viewpoint. It is simply a pro BOD point of view.
-
I have read Gary Potter but not Laisney.
-
What saves you through BOD is grace.
That's the truth.
-
We have to be careful not to let our interpretation of grace evolve into that of Luther for that would be an act of Black( or would it be white) Magic.
-
ut baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it?
Who here said it wasn't a baptism? Or is that just your way to sound like you know what you are talking about?
I find it funny how you appear to be getting agitated over this discussion. If you can't handle this discussion you're free to not post. Do you always get upset when people don't agree with you?
Anyways...
Now, to answer your question, no one said it wasn't a baptism. I was making the point that it is (or at least, you are, necessarily, saying that it is) a baptism by asking that question. If BoD is really a baptism, and natural water is necessary for baptism, how is baptism of desire supposed to work? Trent does say that natural water is necessary for baptism. You can get as irritated as you want, but I'm not leaving this alone until I get answers that actually make sense.
First off, I was not nor am I agitated, but wanted to make the point that BOD is a baptism because the Church teaches it as such.
People here have answered your question but you don't like the answer.
My imagination for what it's worth is, instead of pouring water over the head (which is the outward sign of a sacrament). God pours out His grace upon the soul of the person who died without the sacrament, but died in Gods favor. The person died because, although he/she had every intention of being baptized by water, yet his/her time on earth came up. Remember there is no time where God is, He is not concerned with time. God is NOT restricted by time.
If these answers don't satisfy you, you might have to wait till you see God face to face and ask Him. You said you were not going to leave it alone till you get an answer, be careful what you wish for; since you won't believe His Church.
-
But baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it?
It's been explained, you just don't want to accept it. BOD is not a Sacrament.
Absolute rubbish. You're not in any way contributing to the discussion by posting this nonsense. You say that BoD is a baptism. I say: well if it's a baptism that does not involve water, what do we make of Trent that says that water is necessary for baptism? It being a sacrament or not is not relevant.
Maybe if you people would stop equivocating the discussion would be a lot smoother.
Your first post on this thread is a lie. You're not here to understand, you're here to teach your own doctrine.
Without getting to[sic] into this, I want to know what you think.
How does your rubbish somehow prove that I lied? I wanted to know what you think, and it's obvious YOU don't think much of anything because you haven't contributed in any way. Then you say that I'm here to "teach [my] own doctrine", which is an absolute lie and is calumny against me. I want to understand how BoD can be reconciled with dogmatic Church teaching, and for some reason it seems as though you can never cease to equivocate and give me a clear answer. Instead of using clear arguments and definitions you people whine endlessly about fallible opinions of Church Doctors and other saints and you try to get me to believe your point by leading the discussion astray with irrelevancies.
Quite frankly, I find you to be a pernicious liar whose perfidy knows no constraint. You're actually willing to sit here, accuse me and tell lies about me, all the while lying yourself.
Did you know that I'm still waiting for an answer to my 2 questions which NONE OF YOU bothered to answer in a way that made any sense? I have to keep telling you people to answer my posts or else you'll keep dwelling on irrelevancies like geocentrism and Fr. Feeney and so on. Here are my 2 questions which have not been properly answered by anyone. Instead of trying to help me, your bad will has led you to attack me and calumniate me. I know that you're getting frustrated that you can't provide valid answers to my questions, but that's no excuse for you to lie about me.
I'm still waiting:
What I would like to know is whether or not natural water is absolutely necessary for a person to be baptized, and whether or not baptism (with water) is absolutely necessary for salvation.
I'd like to know if those who have not received the Sacrament of baptism can be considered inside of the Church? Can we say that those who are "baptised by desire" are apart of the faithful?
Why are you people not answering my questions?
You're as nutty as a fruitcake, Dogus. I didn't bring up Fr. Feeney nor geocentrism. You started this thread to argue your position on BOD, which is opposed to both Trent and multiple approved theologians and Doctors of the Church.
I have little patience with your kind. You're a temerarious fool and should be ignored.
-
I give up on discussing baptism of desire.
You guys are right. That's it.
-
All of 'us' are right?