Author Topic: Fr. Feeney and Feeneyism (Read 5320 times)

Deliveringit1 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 02, 2011, 07:21:12 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

That is not what it means, where did you get that from? Babies do not have the ability to desire. Do you know what you just said?

Babies don't have the ability to desire? Then explain to us all how it is that John the Baptist leaped for joy in his mother's womb when Jesus was near. Did not John the Baptist have desire for the Lord even while being carried in his own mother's womb?

You must believe all babies are born as atheists. Richard Dawkins would love you.
I believe all babies are born as believers in the Lord and holy scripture backs up my belief.

Stubborn · « **Reply #31 on:** October 02, 2011, 07:41:00 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote

I cannot agree that it has always been taught. I can see where the Sacrament has always been taught - if not with the actual Baptism with Water of Our Lord Himself, then by His command before he Ascended into heaven. But BOD, unlike the Sacrament, has no Scriptural basis - quite the opposite actually.

It is not for you to decide if it was always taught, you are a laymen, the teaching is actually in the canons of trent aswell.

Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire for them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema (On the Sacraments in General, Dz. 847, emphasis added).

That is from the Extraordinary Magisterium, as for the Ordinary Magisterium I can personally can trace it back from the Catechism of Trent which was taught to all Priests from Trent to V2, before Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and more. The Earliest I can trace it back to is the year 392 where Saint Ambrose, he writes:

"But I hear that you mourn, because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism ... Does he not have the grace that he desired; does he not have what he asked for? Certainly what he asked for, he received. And hence it says ‘But the just man, if he be prevented with death, shall be in rest’’ [Wis. 4:7] (PL 16, 1374).

This is in relation to the Emperor Valentinian II who had asked St. Ambrose to Baptise him and was murdered before St. Ambrose got there.

Or lets read St. Robert Bellermine:

"Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism" (De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI).

Quote
Some notables who taught it either contradicted it in their other teachings as was the case with St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas - or retracted the teaching all together as was the case with St. Augustine.
I note you cited no sources, either way, It was taught by Popes, Theologians and has always been taught by the Church, it is a Dogma. To deny it is to be a heretic.

Quote
At any rate, one cannot rely exclusively on the catechisms for the simple reason that they are constantly being revised, updated and changed. Even the Catechism of St. Pius V (I think that's the one) discloses in it's opening pages that catechisms are certainly not infallible and are subject to error.

The Cathechism of Trent is not Constantly being revised it was and is THE Catechism since Trent. BTW the Catechism of Trent IS the Catechism of St. Pius V.

Quote
IMO, saying BOD is dogma because many have taught it is pretty much the same as saying the NO is fine because the magisterium promulgated it. IOW, that is not sound reasoning when BOD contradicts defined Dogma which states the Sacrament is necessary.

This statement is false on so many levels, it is outright lie. the Novus Ordo is a novelty, BOD is a dogma of the Church taught for all time, error cannot be taught for all time. I quoted the Canon and it states Desire can substitute if neccesary.

Do not listen to Feeney, do not listen to the Dimonds, they will lead you to a deep pit of fire.

For more Reading,

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm

Ok, for whatever reason I cannot format my post like I want so I have to reply this way..........
In regards to Canon 4, we we must read this canon in light of that with which it is defining for all time - namely, the Sacraments: If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire for them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema

When canon 4 *is* read in light of that with which it is defining, namely, *the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation*, we see that "or the desire of" the sacraments do not grant salvation, only the grace of justification.

I'll elaborate further for the sake of clarity, *AGAIN*, read canon 4 in light of that with which it is defining - canon 4 clearly states belief in a BOD is a belief that the Sacrament is superfluous, IOW, BOD is a clear contradiction to the canon.......Trent says those who hold such a belief are anathema. Had this canon been defining the desire - or perhaps anything other than the necessity of the Sacraments, we could perhaps then use it as a support for "the desire". Agreed?

"But I hear that you mourn, because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism ... Does he not have the grace that he desired; does he not have what he asked for? Certainly what he asked for, he received. And hence it says ‘But the just man, if he be prevented with death, shall be in rest’’ [Wis. 4:7] (PL 16, 1374).

I bolded the obvious in your quote above..........IF "certainly he received what he asked for" and it is certain that he asked for Baptism, then it is certain he was baptized. There simply is no other conclusion. Agreed?

You said: I note you cited no sources, either way, It was taught by Popes, Theologians and has always been taught by the Church, it is a Dogma. To deny it is to be a heretic.
I posted it all in another thread a few months back and it'll take time to find it - let me know if you really want me to post it again.

Again, I posted to Gregory in my last post how BOD meets the requirement of proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine." It is not a dogma so please refrain from thinking that it is a dogma.

Stubborn · « **Reply #32 on:** October 02, 2011, 08:30:05 AM »

Here is St. Augustine - one of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium..........

From St. Augustine's book: "Retractions" - 400: Or how can they fail to be saved by water… the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.‘ If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. …nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water.

St. Augustine, 416: How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God‘s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! …For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.

FWIW, infants are not able to vow or desire to be baptized, that is one reason that the Church made sponsors (God parents) a requirement when there is no emergency.

These sponsors state their vow or "desire" explicitly in place of the infant, as would an adult being baptized state their vow or desire explicitly during Baptism Rituals - The Solemn Exorcism, Their Renunciation of Satan, Their Profession of Faith, Their Anointing etc.

THIS is the "desire" (in voto) Trent was speaking of.

Gregory I · « **Reply #33 on:** October 02, 2011, 11:01:04 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

I do read the Catechism of Trent, if you'd paid attention I quoted it, since it proves BOD.

I never once stated that Adults do not require a Desire to be Baptised, I stated the opposite.

But that has nothing to do with the Canon. Maybe it is an americanism, but why are you reading OR as if it was AND. Canon's are exact and in Latin. I don't have the Latin text on me, but if it was translated as OR and not AND then it means OR and is not slang.

Let's do a basic 101 on English. OR is Different from AND. AND means both parts of the sentence are required, OR means one of the two are required.

This is a Canon remember, not the Catechism.

You cannot just willynilly go about interpreting things as if we were Protestants.

The Church Rejects those who do not want it, because of previous Canon's that forbid forcing people to convert in any way shape or form on pain of Excommunication.

It works like this. If one is a child they do not need the desire, they have invincible ignorence and have not obtained to the state of Reason. They cannot sin either. They are innocents but they need to get rid of the stain of Original Sin.

Adults not only need to rid themselves of Original Sin but also of Mortal and Venial Sins. Once one has obtained Reason he is culpable for all of his actions. He must desire to repent, he must desire to obtain Grace and he must desire to join Christ's Church. If he does these things and a minion of Satan kills him before he can be Baptised by Water then he still obtains the Grace of God and may go to heaven(almost undoubtably Purgatory first since one cannot gain indulgences without proper Baptism). If he is not killed he must be Baptised by Water and the Holy Ghost to join the Church.

It is no different then the Sacrament of Penance, if one is about to die, he can make an act of Contrition and the Desire to obtain the Confession for the removal of his mortal sins is enough to remove them. If he makes a miraculous recovery he must go to Confession immediately.

COME ON THIS IS 101 STUFF :P

Sorry, the Catechism interprets the Council. it is plain.

"You cannot have a valid marriage without either a bride or groom."

Same thing.

Gregory I · « **Reply #34 on:** October 02, 2011, 11:14:10 AM »

Quote from: Deliveringit1

Quote from: LordPhan
That is not what it means, where did you get that from? Babies do not have the ability to desire. Do you know what you just said?

Babies don't have the ability to desire? Then explain to us all how it is that John the Baptist leaped for joy in his mother's womb when Jesus was near. Did not John the Baptist have desire for the Lord even while being carried in his own mother's womb?

You must believe all babies are born as atheists. Richard Dawkins would love you.
I believe all babies are born as believers in the Lord and holy scripture backs up my belief.

No, sorry LP, that is not the constant teaching of the church. That is Benny's new teaching that he based off a 30 member commision to review the history of limbo...

All babies are born impure and condemned by the guilt of original sin. They are under the wrath of God, are slaves to the devil, and have no means of obtaining the remission of their sins except through baptism. If they die without baptism, they descend to the edge of hell, where they are punished, but with a punishment different from those who die in mortal sin."

Council of Trent, Session 5:

Par. 4. . If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema.
For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Notice, the last phrase is in the context of INFANTS in a canon for INFANTS and a canon about INFANTS. Therefore, unbaptized infants cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

And, just to be sure, let me SHOW you how the council of Trent interprets John 3:5

Session 7, 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.

Therefore, the words of Christ here are ABOUT true sacramental water baptism. The Ecuмenical Council has applied these words in the context of an unbaptized infant. therefore, we know with certainty that an infant MUST be baptized in order to enter heaven.

BUT that is not all:

in 1448 I believe we had the Ecuмenical Council of Florence which taught:

"All those who die in mortal sin, or original sin alone, descend to hell, where they are punished, but with different punishments."

Now, for an infallible and dogmatic canon to be purely hypothetical is repugnant to religious thought. Therefore, this canon MUST apply to SOMEONE.

Well, how many kinds of people in this whole wide world die in original sin alone?

Just 2:

1. Unbaptized infants.
2. Those who are mentally retarted from birth.

Therefore, this canon applies to them. Now, I KNOW people will go on about the joys of Limbo, but remember, the DETAILS of what is experienced by an unbapptized infant is speculation.

THe DOGMATIC and UNIVERSAL FACT However is that They do not see God, and wherever they go, is at LEAST to the edge of hell, whic is itself a part of hell; and what they experience is INDEED a Form of punishment.

Therefore, I hold to the Opinion of Peter Abelard and Pope Innocent III: Unbaptized infants who die are truly punished in the edge of hell, but not with the punishment of sense and with hellfire, but with the punishment of loss. THey cannot see God, and this alone is their torment.

Gregory I · « **Reply #35 on:** October 02, 2011, 12:43:35 PM »

Sorry LP, I was adressing that post to deliveringit1. My mistake.

Stubborn · « **Reply #36 on:** October 02, 2011, 06:43:48 PM »

I found the teaching from St. Alphonsus - Here is a quote from his book: http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks15liguuoft/alphonsusworks15liguuoft_djvu.txt

CHAPTER II.

SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM.
1. With regard to its necessity, it should be known that Baptism is not only the first but also the most necessary of all the sacraments. Without Baptism no one can enter heaven. Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. It is also the most necessary, inasmuch as no one is capable of receiving any other sacrament if he has not previously received Baptism. Hence, Baptism is called the gate of all the sacraments.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #37 on:** October 03, 2011, 04:57:08 PM »

I lean towards BoD and BoB being true but honestly don't know for certain so I'd better stay out of it. It's one of those things like NFP that some say is dogma, others say is heresy. It's all very confusing to me.

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #38 on:** October 06, 2011, 12:09:53 PM »

I find it rather disconcerting that instead of actually attempting to evangelize those who are outside the Church, there are hundreds of thousands of people who claim fealty to the NO and spend their time trying to find the needle in the proverbial haystack, which is the truly invincibly ignorant heathen who is possessed of totally untainted good will and would certainly embrace God's truth if he were exposed to it.

Frankly, I think these discussions come dangerously close to ignoring the facts of original sin and actual sin. The first impairs and mars and cripples the life of the soul, rendering it dead to truly good works unless operated upon by God the Holy Spirit, and the second continues to create a further and further gulf between the heathen and sanctifying grace. In short, a person who is 'without hope and without God in the world', according to St. Paul, is NOT disposed towards any sort of good will which would direct them to obey God's Law revealed in nature, let alone to obey God's revealed Law in the Church.

Baptism of Desire and of Blood, are, again, a VERY slim and VERY doubtful bridge upon which to attempt to cross from damnation to sanctifying grace. In fact, we have NO record of any non-Catholic people talking about wanting what BOD or BOB signify; these terms and their definitions are purely hypothetical and ultimately only serve as caveats to miraculous operations which God alone could perform.

I see plenty of threads in this forum about doctrinal disputes and all sorts of other discussions, but have not seen any yet about evangelization, the effect of personal sanctity on one's personal testimony to the Truth, or any other discussions about how to bring the heathen and the heretics to the TRUE FAITH rather than working so hard to excuse them and allow them to persist in their ignorance.

St. Francis of Assisi, preacher to infidels, pray for us.

St. Anthony of Padua, hammer of heretics, terror of Hell, pray for us.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.