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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31

Author Topic: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD  (Read 22198 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #140 on: July 17, 2022, 11:10:06 AM »
Quote from: In Principio on July 16, 2022, 01:40:18 PM
You wouldn't need to twist his words to see he teaches BOD, you would just need to read the next paragraph (#13).  Here, he states that Soave thought the fathers didn't even require an implicit desire of baptism to be justified.  St. Alphonsus rejects this, then goes on to teach implicit BOD as certain.
No, this is not true. You read meanings into words which the words do not say, while failing to advert to what the words do say.


Quote
13. ....But, Pallavicini says that this is a mere dream of Soave:  for the theologians of Trent could not have adduced the example of Cornelius or of the good thief in defense of such an opinion, when everyone knew that the obligation of Baptism did not commence till after the death of the Saviour, and after the promulgation of the Gospel.

So according to St. Alphonsus, he agrees with Pallavicini in that using St. Dismas, the Good Thief, and St. Cornellius as examples of salvation without the sacrament is wrong because the obligation to receive the sacrament was not yet instituted.


Quote
13. .... Besides, who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance and of the Eucharist.  He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means for its attainment.  In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament.  For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution.

This is also in agreement with the decrees of Trent and is no endorsement of salvation without the sacrament.
 
Since he is explaining Trent, it is obvious that he is speaking of a catechumen who is about to be received into the Church through the reception of the sacraments, lest he would not include "...Penance and of the Eucharist." after Baptism.


Quote
14.  In the fourth canon the words licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint, were afterwards inserted. By this canon it was intended to condemn Luther, who asserts that none of the sacraments is absolutely necessary for salvation, because as has been already said, he ascribed all salvation to faith, and nothing to the efficacy of the sacraments.

Here again, he echoes Trent in condemnation of Luther and everyone who claims that salvation is possible without the sacrament.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #141 on: July 18, 2022, 04:08:30 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on July 17, 2022, 10:46:48 AM
Why does it matter to you what St. Alphonsus believed? 

Why do I always have to explain things to you? “Refreshing common sense” from In Principio.

You hold that an Ecuмenical Council could teach grave error to the Church, that the Magisterium can become thoroughly corrupt, and that the Church could promulgate a Rite of Mass that's harmful to souls.

Because it (they) did.

Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #142 on: July 18, 2022, 06:34:44 AM »
But if an Ecuмenical Council can teach serious error, all the Popes and bishops and theologians can teach serious error for >60 years, etc. ... how is it that you cite the St. Alphonsus as an "authority"?  If these previous could be wrong, then why couldn't St. Alphonsus be wrong, and his is just another opinion?

This kind of selective filtering of authorities is common with the pro-BoDers.

1) they'll assert that the Church Fathers unanimously believed in BoD (as a number of Trad BoD apologists have claimed) ... whereas at least 5-6 Church Fathers explicitly rejected it, compared to the 2 that allegedly held it (St. Augustine as a tentative opinion later retracted, and St. Ambrose arguably  at best).  For some reason, the anti-BoD Fathers are ignored or "filtered out", whereas Augustine and Ambrose are cited as ultimate authorities.  What were these other Fathers, chopped liver?  At least Karl Rahner had the honesty to admit that the Fathers generally had no use for a BoD, and to the extent they did limited it to formal catechumens.  Patristic scholar Jurgens stated that not only is there no evidence that any notion of exceptions to Baptism existed among the Fathers, but, rather, the opposite, so much so that it might be considered revealed that there's no salvation without the actual Sacrament of Baptism.

2) BoDers will beat Feeneyites over the head with citations from St. Thomas, but often at the same time suddenly forget his "authority" when he taught that there can be no salvation without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.

These examples of dishonest authority filtering demonstrate confirmation bias, that something other than objectivity drives the belief in R&R.

So, similarly, you'll claim that we have to accept the pre-Vatican II theologians on BoD, but then it's OK to reject the post-Vatican II theologians who unanimously teach that Vatican II and the NOM are Catholic.  What happened to the OUM in the early 1960s?
Logged

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #143 on: July 18, 2022, 06:50:55 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on July 16, 2022, 02:08:49 PM
This citation above from St. Alphonsus is obviously in error:

Trent did not teach that "no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire of it.'".  Trent taught that no one can be JUSTIFIED. So that's already an error right out of the gate.

It's interesting also that he (wrongly) cites "de presbytero non baptizto" as if it were a dogmatic source.  Yet that source clearly indicates that someone who's saved by BoD would go to Heaven immediately and without delay.  But St. Alphonsus said that this was not true, but held that temporal punishment due to sin remained after BoD.  Well, if that's a dogmatic source, then St. Alphonsus' theory is heretical.

Finally, he speaks of people who have BoD as being regenerated.  Problem with that is that Trent defines "regeneration" at initial justification (a rebirth) as wiping out all sin and punishment due to sin, so that no stain or guilt of sin remains or any punishment due to sin.  So that too renders St. Alphonsus theory that temporal punishment remains after BoD heretical.

As per usual, BoD results in nothing but confusion and chaos and contradiction and error.

I supposed than in his "spiritual" works, St. Alphonsus was just blatantly lying when he wrote that for those born among the infidels "ALL are lost".  Or perhaps it was just pious hyperbole.

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.”


He also speaks of "justified" in paragraph 13, so he even seems to contradict himself:

In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament. For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution.
Logged

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #144 on: July 18, 2022, 07:15:20 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on July 17, 2022, 11:10:06 AM
Since he is explaining Trent, it is obvious that he is speaking of a catechumen who is about to be received into the Church through the reception of the sacraments, lest he would not include "...Penance and of the Eucharist." after Baptism.

This is an interesting point given he also says this right after that part:

He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means for its attainment.

Are we to deduce that an infidel who dies with the desire for baptism also had the desire for confession and eucharist?  That really seems far-fetched indeed.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31
« previous next »