Author Topic: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass (Read 2464 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #30 on:** August 11, 2018, 11:54:23 AM »

Quote from: Amakusa on August 11, 2018, 01:47:53 AM

Since Feeneyites and BOD deniers are excommunicated, they will have to found a new sect.

Excommunicated by who? The scholars of the SSPX, or their doctinal spinoff sedevacantists, or Sean X Johnson?

Quote

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:"

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #31 on:** August 11, 2018, 11:59:25 AM »

OK, I finally got it to paste, I had to remove all the hyperlinks, here it is:

After Feeney's death, his spiritual descendants soon split into several groups due to various power struggles. The two most prominent both use the name Saint Benedict Center.

Three of these groups exist on or near the land Feeney moved to in Still River, Massachusetts:

·         The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a group of men and women in private vows, staff the Saint Benedict Center. Their apostolates include education (operating Immaculate Heart of Mary School), publishing, as well as a summer camp for boys and girls. The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary exclusively use the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. They were raised to a Public Association of the Faithful in 2017 by Bishop Robert McManus.

·         The Sisters of the Saint Benedict Center operate Saint Anne's House, an order of diocesan right in the Diocese of Worcester. The sisters focus on education, and exclusively use the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

·         St. Benedict Abbey is a house of Benedictine monks, using the extraordinary form in Latin.

The other branch, located in Richmond, New Hampshire, has no official recognition from the Catholic Church. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) classifies the center in Richmond, as well as the group's publishing arm Immaculate Heart Media, as an anti-Semitic hate group. The SPLC wrote that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary "continue to endorse Feeney and to defend him from charges of anti-Semitism, despite his well-docuмented hatred of the Jєωs" and noted that in 2004, Bishop McCormack had rebuked the group as "blatantly anti-Semitic," and that in 2005, a brother of the Slaves had given a speech calling out the "Jєωιѕн nation" as "the perpetual enemy of Christ."^[8] The center denies being anti-Semitic.

roscoe · « **Reply #32 on:** August 11, 2018, 03:52:58 PM »

Quote from: Amakusa on August 11, 2018, 01:47:53 AM

Since Feeneyites and BOD deniers are excommunicated, they will have to found a new sect.

There is NO SUCH THING as a 'Feeneyite'...
& BTW-- any piece of paper claiming that Fr Feeney was called to Rome or ex-communicated for not complying is a Fraud....

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** August 11, 2018, 03:53:05 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on August 11, 2018, 01:23:17 AM

He must have a very fragile ego.

He most certainly does. He pouted and ran away from a thread, then eventually the entire forum, when I exposed a couple of his lies about Archbishop Lefebvre on a different topic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** August 11, 2018, 03:55:37 PM »

Quote from: obscurus on August 11, 2018, 05:22:31 AM

Read Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton's The Catholic Church and Salvation that's what I am doing now.

It seems odd that people would attack Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for his adherence to baptism of desire as if that meant he believed in universal salvation. The majority of his life as a missionary priest rejected such a notion.

The enemy is most certainly NOT Archbishop Lefebvre.

Except that +Lefebvre believed in the salvation of infidels ... and if that isn't universal salvation then nothing is. Case closed ... despite the incoherent rambling of one SeanJohnson.

I'm sorry, but +Lefebvre was part of the problem on this crucial question.

By the way, Fenton believed in the requirement for explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation for salvation, whereas +Lefebvre did not.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #35 on:** August 11, 2018, 03:59:05 PM »

Quote from: JPaul on August 11, 2018, 11:54:23 AM

or Sean X Johnson?

this guy is pathetic, isn't he?

cathman7 · « **Reply #36 on:** August 11, 2018, 04:58:40 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 11, 2018, 03:55:37 PM

Except that +Lefebvre believed in the salvation of infidels ... and if that isn't universal salvation then nothing is. Case closed ... despite the incoherent rambling of one SeanJohnson.

I'm sorry, but +Lefebvre was part of the problem on this crucial question.

By the way, Fenton believed in the requirement for explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation for salvation, whereas +Lefebvre did not.

I am reading Fenton's book now. He states in the beginning of the book that Suprema haec (1949) gives the most detailed and authoritative statement of the dogma that the Catholic Church is necessary for eternal salvation. That docuмent seems to be a major bone of contention with "followers" of Fr. Feeney. I would imagine Archbishop Lefebvre adhered to that docuмent.

JPaul · « **Reply #37 on:** August 11, 2018, 05:03:26 PM »

Quote

We know that salvation belongs to the Church alone, and that no one can partake of Christ nor be saved outside the Catholic Church and Catholic faith.
St. John Chrysostom

cathman7 · « **Reply #38 on:** August 11, 2018, 05:08:11 PM »

Quote

We know that salvation belongs to the Church alone, and that no one can partake of Christ nor be saved outside the Catholic Church and Catholic faith.
St. John Chrysostom

Okay, and the Church interprets this dogma neither you nor me does the interpreting. Are you implying +Lefebvre would reject that?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** August 11, 2018, 05:52:56 PM »

Quote from: obscurus on August 11, 2018, 04:58:40 PM

I am reading Fenton's book now. He states in the beginning of the book that Suprema haec (1949) gives the most detailed and authoritative statement of the dogma that the Catholic Church is necessary for eternal salvation. That docuмent seems to be a major bone of contention with "followers" of Fr. Feeney. I would imagine Archbishop Lefebvre adhered to that docuмent.

Yes, somehow Fenton believes that Suprema Haec does not rule out the requirement of explicit faith. Never quite understood how he got that from the docuмent. To me it clearly lays out implicit faith. So, at least according to Fenton, this part of +Lefebvre's position is neither here nor there in terms of SH.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #40 on:** August 11, 2018, 11:12:40 PM »

Quote

a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism;

This is an erroneous application of what ‘implicit’ means. Implicit does not mean some mysterious, subconscious, spiritual yearning of which the person is not aware. A person ignorant of baptism CANNOT have an implicit desire of it. It’s impossible.

The Modernists have twisted the idea of implicit to mean some ambiguous “yearning for God”.

An implicit desire for baptism necessitates that one a) knows about Christ/Church, b) believes in Christ/Church, and c) is interested in joining the Church, but hasn’t expressed this clearly. Anything less than this, is not an implicit desire.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #41 on:** August 11, 2018, 11:18:57 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 11, 2018, 03:59:05 PM

Quote from: JPaul on Today at 09:54:23 AM
Quote
or Sean X Johnson?

this guy is pathetic, isn't he?

.
Imagine going that far just to pretend not to be entering the ghetto! Fraudulent double accounts?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #42 on:** August 11, 2018, 11:21:54 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 11, 2018, 11:12:40 PM

This is an erroneous application of what ‘implicit’ means. Implicit does not mean some mysterious, subconscious, spiritual yearning of which the person is not aware. A person ignorant of baptism CANNOT have an implicit desire of it. It’s impossible.

The Modernists have twisted the idea of implicit to mean some ambiguous “yearning for God”.

An implicit desire for baptism necessitates that one a) knows about Christ/Church, b) believes in Christ/Church, and c) is interested in joining the Church, but hasn’t expressed this clearly. Anything less than this, is not an implicit desire.

.
It has become for some a vague longing for something good, is all. So that suffices, they say, to replace water Baptism.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #43 on:** August 11, 2018, 11:28:53 PM »

Quote

Implicit Baptism of desire as used today is really something else, it is implicit faith.

EXACTLY! And that’s how BOD’ers move from catechumens being saved to an Indian on a deserted island (who is, obviously, a saint-in-waiting and loves God perfectly) - they confuse (or, they’ve BEEN confused by Modernists) implicit desire of a sacrament with knowledge of the Faith. If one can silently/secretly desire baptism and receive it, why can’t one silently/secretly desire the Faith as well? Therefore, if one can secretly desire the Faith, therefore, there exist MANY people who have “good will” and who were catholic SECRELTY, as +ABL said, and saved “in spite of their false religions.”

Terrible logic and a terrible understanding of God’s religion.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #44 on:** August 11, 2018, 11:47:58 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 11, 2018, 11:28:53 PM

EXACTLY! And that’s how BOD’ers move from catechumens being saved to an Indian on a deserted island (who is, obviously, a saint-in-waiting and loves God perfectly) - they confuse (or, they’ve BEEN confused by Modernists) implicit desire of a sacrament with knowledge of the Faith. If one can silently/secretly desire baptism and receive it, why can’t one silently/secretly desire the Faith as well? Therefore, if one can secretly desire the Faith, therefore, there exist MANY people who have “good will” and who were catholic SECRELTY, as +ABL said, and saved “in spite of their false religions.”

Terrible logic and a terrible understanding of God’s religion.

.
If only Our Lord had explained it that way from the beginning, imagine all the trouble it would have saved the Church through the centuries.
.
All those missionaries like St. Isaac Jogues and companions risking their lives -- for what? Those noble savages (who chewed off the missionaries' fingers and drank their blood) could have been living virtuous lives without learning about the Church!

Author Topic: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass (Read 2464 times)

JPaul

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass

Last Tradhican

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass

roscoe

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass

Ladislaus

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass

Ladislaus

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass

Ladislaus

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass

cathman7

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass

JPaul

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass

cathman7

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass

Ladislaus

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass

Pax Vobis

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass

Neil Obstat

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass

Neil Obstat

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass

Pax Vobis

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass

Neil Obstat

Re: Continued in the Ghetto: Baptism of Desire and Bishop Williamson on the Newmass