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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 31

Author Topic: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD  (Read 22190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #115 on: July 14, 2022, 09:40:27 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn on July 14, 2022, 12:49:38 PM
Yes, a BOD took it's natural course and many believe this scan below, I saved it from years ago when arguing with Myrna.....



This text attempts to reduce the reception of Baptism to a necessity of precept alone.  This author HAD to know this was an error, because other than this text, I have never seen any theologian characterize the necessity as anything but a necessity of means.

On top of that, removing the necessity (of means) for Baptism, they replace it with various ex opere operanto activity, whereby people essentially save themselves.  This is thinly veiled if not completely open Pelagianism.
Logged

Offline DigitalLogos

Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #116 on: July 14, 2022, 10:21:21 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on July 14, 2022, 09:34:10 PM
Indeed, there's no dogma that no one is saved except BY the Church; it reads that no one is saved OUTSIDE the Church, and the Archbishop doesn't even try to explain how these various infidels are IN the Church.  This demonstrates (along side the Fr. Fahey example) how DEEP the rot had gotten with regard to Catholic soteriology and ecclesiology.  Archbishop Lefebvre probably adopted this opinion because it was taught to him PRE-Vatican II by a professor he respected as otherwise orthodox and Traditional.  Archbishop Lefebvre's view of EENS here is identical to Karl Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" theory.

And I am astonished to see how few Trad bishops and priests understand THE theological roots of the V2 crisis, that it all leads back to EENS-denial (and the resultant ecclesiology).  So while condemning the errors of V2 (which are merely symptoms of the disease) they at the same time condemn those who are fighting against the ROOT error behind it all.  V2 is but a symptom (and expression) of this core theological battle, and they're decidedly on the WRONG side of the issue and are in fact fighting FOR the enemy in the final analysis.
Literally: "And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit." [Matthew 15:14] This false soteriology continuing amongst these groups has everything to do with what their predecessors erroneously believed. The Archbishop believed this heresy, so all of his sacerdotal progeny believe it, even those who broke away from the Society.

It's difficult to even attempt to excuse these men because they should have known the true teaching to begin with...what a mess. God help them and God help us. :facepalm:
Logged

Offline augustineeens

Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #117 on: July 15, 2022, 02:17:34 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on July 14, 2022, 09:34:10 PM
Indeed, there's no dogma that no one is saved except BY the Church; it reads that no one is saved OUTSIDE the Church
Indeed, it isn't "Sine Ecclesiam Nulla Salus", on the contrary, it is "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus". :incense:
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #118 on: July 15, 2022, 04:45:03 AM »
Quote from: DigitalLogos on July 14, 2022, 10:21:21 PM
Literally: "And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit." [Matthew 15:14] This false soteriology continuing amongst these groups has everything to do with what their predecessors erroneously believed. The Archbishop believed this heresy, so all of his sacerdotal progeny believe it, even those who broke away from the Society.

It's difficult to even attempt to excuse these men because they should have known the true teaching to begin with...what a mess. God help them and God help us. :facepalm:
I think the problem with not only +ABL, but pretty much all of the clergy and hierarchy since at least the 1940s has everything to do with what they did to Fr. Feeney. To this day he is still slandered as an evil villain and an excommunicated heretic - even by trads whenever a BOD or EENS comes up. 

Aside from slandering Fr. Feeney as an excommunicated heretic for preaching the dogma, his own Church superiors in conjunction with the Jєω media, managed to convince most of the faithful in the whole world that a) it is the sin of heresy to take the dogma literally, b) that there certainly is a BOD, and that c) salvation outside of the Church is not only possible, it's so probable that it's all but a given - and Fr. Feeney is evil because he is the one who tried to take this all away.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #119 on: July 15, 2022, 06:41:46 AM »
Brownson got it exactly right (full quote in my post here at #103):


Quote
Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for anything more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul, for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.

Note what he says: "receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione." I think Lad would agree that's that's the main issue. I think this requires an "explicit desire," but that's besides the point and perhaps my problem. I talked about the "core concept" in this or another thread, and that's it: the possibility (a positive formulation of the Brownson's negation of the negative, "not impossible") of justification/salvation by votum.

Msgr. Fention expressed it thus:


Quote
The statement that the Church (not merely the “soul” or the “body” of the Church) is necessary for salvation with the necessity of means in such a way that no man can be saved unless he is within the Church either in re or by either an explicit or an implicit votum must be considered as an accurate statement of the revealed teaching on the Church’s necessity for eternal salvation and as the standard terminology of most modern theologians on this subject.



http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecuмenism/members.htm



Fenton says this is "the revealed teaching," and includes "an implicit votum." I'm not sure of that, but I'll accept that; anyway, as I said elsewhere, it doesn't matter: explicit or implicit, the core remains: the real possibility of salvation in Christ by votum. 

St. Robert Bellarmine expressed it thus:


Quote
I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved . . . 

But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities... Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto).

Quotes from Sources of Baptism of Blood & Baptism of Desire - Conlon, Christopher P_.pdf, pp. 52-54

https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Conlon,%20Christopher%20P_/Sources%20of%20Baptism%20of%20Blood%20&%20Baptism%20of%20Desire%20(7021)/Sources%20of%20Baptism%20of%20Blood%20&%20Baptism%20of%20D%20-%20Conlon,%20Christopher%20P_.pdf







Logged
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 31
« previous next »