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

Author Topic: Feeneyism  (Read 4370 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 31892
  • Reputation: +27893/-515
  • Gender: Male
Feeneyism
« on: April 22, 2013, 05:24:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: bowler
    Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
    Quote from: bowler
    Quote from: Telesphorus
    Feeneyism is an error.  Period.

    Why these people can't accept Catholic teaching on this matter is incomprehensible.



    You paint with a broad brush my friend. You are then implying that you agree with the liberal teaching that someone can be saved by "their desire and longing for a God that rewards" (implicit faith),that someone can be saved who is not a catechumen, who does not desire to be a Catholic, and even hates Christ and His Church (a Jєω, Muslim, Hindu).]


    You don't understand the definition of BOD. No one has said that someone who hates Christ and His Church may be saved.

    And again, this thread isn't about BOD.



    Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jєωιѕн Nation (1953), p. 52: “The Jєωs, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jєω who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.”

    From the book  Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

    1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made.  Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.  There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.  It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”



    ServusSpiritusSancti:
    That sounds more like invincible ignorance.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7635
    • Reputation: +632/-414
    • Gender: Male
    Feeneyism
    « Reply #1 on: April 22, 2013, 06:26:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is no such thing as 'Feeneyism'.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Feeneyism
    « Reply #2 on: April 22, 2013, 06:26:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    ServusSpiritusSancti:
    That sounds more like invincible ignorance.


    Ah yes, invincible ignorance, yet another loophole.

    However, the quotes do not say say they are invincible ignorant, therefore, they are not. Let's stick to what is actually said in the quotes.

    It does however state a heresy, which no liberal would ever say directly like that, where it says "Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion".


    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +459/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Feeneyism
    « Reply #3 on: April 22, 2013, 06:43:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    Quote from: bowler
    Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
    Quote from: bowler
    Quote from: Telesphorus
    Feeneyism is an error.  Period.

    Why these people can't accept Catholic teaching on this matter is incomprehensible.



    You paint with a broad brush my friend. You are then implying that you agree with the liberal teaching that someone can be saved by "their desire and longing for a God that rewards" (implicit faith),that someone can be saved who is not a catechumen, who does not desire to be a Catholic, and even hates Christ and His Church (a Jєω, Muslim, Hindu).]


    You don't understand the definition of BOD. No one has said that someone who hates Christ and His Church may be saved.

    And again, this thread isn't about BOD.



    Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jєωιѕн Nation (1953), p. 52: “The Jєωs, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jєω who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.”

    From the book  Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

    1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made.  Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.  There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.  It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”



    ServusSpiritusSancti:
    That sounds more like invincible ignorance.


    How does a human being ever go to Hell?  Is it even possible?  And, if a non-Christian/non-Catholic makes "an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire," is it impossible that the Holy Spirit would reveal to such an individual the explicit truths of the Catholic faith?  And, then what?  Should that person reject those truths, would he/she fall from his/her "implicit state of baptism of desire?"  And, once a person has some "implicit desire for baptism" is apostasy even possible?  How does such an individual, as an act of his/her own free will, ever decide to get rid of his/her "implicit desire(s)"?  Is such even possible?

    It seems that "ignorance is bliss" here.

    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Feeneyism
    « Reply #4 on: April 22, 2013, 06:44:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • By the way, I challenge anyone to find a catechism prior to the 20th century that taught that:

    " It is possible that a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul "

    " Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.  There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.  It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

    and some more:

    From the book  Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
    2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”

    Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned.  It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church:  ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’  When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell.  Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.  This must be preached.”
    __________________________________________

    Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)


    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Feeneyism
    « Reply #5 on: April 22, 2013, 06:52:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Jehanne

    How does a human being ever go to Hell?  Is it even possible?  And, if a non-Christian/non-Catholic makes "an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire," is it impossible that the Holy Spirit would reveal to such an individual the explicit truths of the Catholic faith?  And, then what?  Should that person reject those truths, would he/she fall from his/her "implicit state of baptism of desire?"  And, once a person has some "implicit desire for baptism" is apostasy even possible?  How does such an individual, as an act of his/her own free will, ever decide to get rid of his/her "implicit desire(s)"?  Is such even possible?

    It seems that "ignorance is bliss" here.


    With that, let us bring Predestination into the conversation.

    Quote
    Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circuмstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]


    In other words before a man is conceived, God in his infinite knowledge has already put that person through the test with millions of possible combinations and possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in determining which future history and final destiny He assigns each soul.


    The idea of salvation outside the Church is opposed to the Doctrine of Predestination. This Doctrine means that from all eternity God has known who were His own. It is for the salvation of these, His Elect, that Providence has directed, does direct, and will always direct, the affairs of men and the events of history. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that happens, has not been taken into account by the infinite God, and woven into that tapestry in which is written the history of the salvation of His saints. Central in this providential overlordship is the Church itself, which is the sacred implement which God devised for the rescuing of His beloved ones from the damnation decreed for those who would not. (Mt. 23:37).

    The Doctrine of Divine Election means that only certain individuals will be saved. They will be saved primarily because, in the inscrutable omniscience of God, only certain individuals out of all the human family will respond to the grace of salvation. In essence, this doctrine refers to what in terms of human understanding and vision, is before and after, the past, the present, and the future, but what in God is certain knowledge and unpreventable fact, divine action and human response.

    Calvin and others have made the mistake of believing that these words mean that predestination excludes human choice and dispenses from true virtue. Catholic doctrine explains simply that the foreknowledge of God precedes the giving of grace. It means, further, that, since without grace there can be no merit, and without merit no salvation, those who will be saved must be foreknown as saved by God, if they are to receive the graces necessary for salvation.

    Those who say there is salvation outside the Church (no matter how they say it) do not comprehend that those who are in the Church have been brought into it by the Father, through Christ the Savior, in fulfillment of His eternal design to save them. The only reason that God does not succeed in getting others into the Church must be found in the reluctant will of those who do not enter it. If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children. Nothing prevents His using the skies for his billboard, and the clouds for lettering, or the rolling thunder for the proclamation of His word. (Indeed, for believers, He does just this: "The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands." I Ps. 18: 11. But for atheists the heavens have no message at all.) If poverty were the reason some do not believe, he could load them down with diamonds; if youth were the reason, He could make sure they grew to a hoary old age. If it were merely the want of information, put a library on their doorstep, or a dozen missionaries in their front room. Were it for a want of brains, he could give every man an I.Q. of three hundred: it would cost Him nothing.

    The idea that someone died before he was able to receive Baptism, suggests that God was unable to control events, so as to give the person time to enter the Church. If time made any difference, God could and would keep any person on earth a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years.

    Thus, what is the meaning of this election? That from all eternity God has ordered the events of history, so that His Elect might have the grace of salvation. And how do they know of this election? By the fact that they are in the Church, through no deservingness of their own? They know of no reason why God should bestow this grace, the knowledge of the truth, and the willingness and power to believe it, upon them, while others, who seem more worthy, go without it. As regards His Elect, not only has God determined to bestow necessary grace, but also, all His actions in the world must be seen as part of His salvific plan. In a word, nothing that He does is unrelated to the salvation of His Beloved Sheep. Human history, apart from the glory of Holy Church, and the salvation of the Elect, and the punishment of the wicked, has little importance for almighty God. Yet, all these purposes are only a part of the manifestation of His glory.

    Those who speak of it have the problem of reconciling the mystery of Predestination with the idea of "baptism of desire." From all eternity, almighty God has known the fate of every soul. In His Providence, He has arranged for the entrance into the Church of certain millions of persons, and has seen to it that they receive the grace of faith, the Sacrament of Baptism, the grace of repentance, the forgiveness of their sins, and all the other requisites of salvation. According to The Attenuators, in the case of "non Catholic saints," and of those who died before they might receive Baptism, God was simply unable to see to these necessaries. Untoward and unforeseen circuмstances arose which prevented His providing these other millions with the means of salvation. Theirs is a story of supreme irony, that although the God of omniscience and omnipotence mastered the history of all nations and the course of every life, angelic and human, in the case of certain ones, His timing was off by just a few days, or hours, or minutes. It was His earlier intention to make sure that they received Baptism of water; He had it all planned out; but alas! on the particular day of their demise, His schedule was so full, that He simply could not get to them; for which reason, in that it was His fault, He is bound to provide an alternative instrumentality: "baptism of desire" is his substitute for the real thing!

    The Diluters of the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation do not perceive the Pelagian tenor of their position, that some may be saved outside the Church through nothing but their good will. It is exactly because this is impossible  and, more important, offensive to God, that the notion must be
     rejected. We say impossible, because no man can save himself. The fact that every man must receive Baptism and thus enter the Church means that he is dependent upon God to make it possible for him to receive the Sacrament, and further, through this Sacrament, it is Christ Who acts to purge the sinner of his sins, and ingraft him into His Mystical Body. No individual can do this by himself. He is dependent upon another to pour the water and say the words, and he is dependent upon God to provide this minister, and to make the sacramental sign effective of grace. It is thus so that none may attribute his salvation to his own doing.
     
    Pride is the chief vice of man, as it was and is of the demons of Hell. It is pride more than any other fault that blinds men to the truth, that obstructs faith, and hardens their hearts to conversion from sin.

     The Doctrine of Predestination is that almighty God from all eternity both knew and determined who would be saved, that is, who would allow Him to save them. He would be the cause of their salvation, and, as there is no power that can even faintly obstruct or withstand Him, there is no power which can prevent His saving whom He wishes, except, of course, the man himself.


    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8982
    • Reputation: +8788/-852
    • Gender: Male
    Feeneyism
    « Reply #6 on: April 22, 2013, 07:38:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Baptism of Desire is an explosive topic for discussion.

    I had a debate on it with friends over beers last weekend and a few people got red faced and upset.

    It would seem we could make a list of all the verifiable Church quotes on the issue and put them on a spreadsheet for analysis. The quotes with the most Church authority behind it would win, right ?    Maybe it is not that simple?

    Concerning the SSPX and BOD, I heard in +ABL's bios that he wasn't so concerned about baptising the mission natives when he was a Holy Ghost father.
    I wonder if anyone can verify this ?

    As far as Bishop Fellay goes... I do not believe his interpretation of BOD below:

    _________________________________________________________________

    Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006:

    “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church?

    It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
    __________________________________________________________________

     I listened to a lecture by Bp. Williamson where he said BOD had not been defined, but that it represnted the "Church mind".

     Is this true?  Then does it mean that BOD is currently not de fidei?







    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7635
    • Reputation: +632/-414
    • Gender: Male
    Feeneyism
    « Reply #7 on: April 22, 2013, 09:09:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This topic is entitled Feenyism. I have read everything so far and no one( except moi) has even mentioned the term or the alleged author of the alleged heresy. The reason is that any paperwork summoning Fr Feeney to Rome or ex-communicating him for not complying is a fraud of some sort.

    Actually Pope Pius XII responds to Fr Feeney & supports him in Humani Generis.

    This is the historical record and verdict.  :reporter:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8212
    • Reputation: +7173/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Feeneyism
    « Reply #8 on: April 22, 2013, 09:09:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bowler,

    So are you saying Archbishop Lefebvre was a heretic?
    Please ignore ALL of my posts. I was naive during my time posting on this forum and didn’t know any better. I retract and deeply regret any and all uncharitable or erroneous statements I ever made here.

    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +459/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Feeneyism
    « Reply #9 on: April 22, 2013, 09:40:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
    Bowler,

    So are you saying Archbishop Lefebvre was a heretic?


    He gave Holy Communion to the late Brother Francis:

    http://catholicism.org/feeney-doctrine.html

    Offline Quo Vadis Petre

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1234
    • Reputation: +1208/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Feeneyism
    « Reply #10 on: April 22, 2013, 11:09:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Incredulous

    Concerning the SSPX and BOD, I heard in +ABL's bios that he wasn't so concerned about baptising the mission natives when he was a Holy Ghost father.
    I wonder if anyone can verify this ?


    Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't concerned about baptizing catechumens right away, since he said that they don't go to Hell, if they desired the Sacrament and died before he was able to baptized them. He was more concerned about teaching the principles of the Faith, so that they would keep the Faith, even without baptism of water.
    "In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of the evil-disposed is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigour of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics." -St. Pius X

    "If the Church were not divine, this


    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8982
    • Reputation: +8788/-852
    • Gender: Male
    Feeneyism
    « Reply #11 on: April 23, 2013, 01:02:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
    Quote from: Incredulous

    Concerning the SSPX and BOD, I heard in +ABL's bios that he wasn't so concerned about baptising the mission natives when he was a Holy Ghost father.
    I wonder if anyone can verify this ?


    Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't concerned about baptizing catechumens right away, since he said that they don't go to Hell, if they desired the Sacrament and died before he was able to baptized them. He was more concerned about teaching the principles of the Faith, so that they would keep the Faith, even without baptism of water.



    Thanks for the explanation.

    I don't see how +ABL's view would jive with St. Francis Xavier or other missionary saints of antiquity?

    As I understand it, St. Xavier personally Baptized over 3 million souls during his lifetime.  

    In Mexico, it was 9 million in just a few years.  They had the desire and wanted a water Baptism.  

    It was reported that assistants had to hold-up the arms of the priests, so tired were they from Baptisms en masse.


    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Mortalium

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 60
    • Reputation: +0/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Feeneyism
    « Reply #12 on: April 23, 2013, 01:52:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Incredulous


     Is this true?  Then does it mean that BOD is currently not de fidei?[/color]








    Of course it's not de fide. It's not even a real teaching at all, but an error that has grown out of proportion because of one self-contradictory statement of St. Augustine and another self-contradictory statement by St. Ambrose. That's where this whole thing comes from. NOT from Apostolic Tradition or the Deposit of Faith.

    St. Augustine said "considering this over and over again", meaning BOD. If BOD is "unanimous Church teaching", what's there to "consider over and over" again? He wasn't even sure about it. The only time he ever taught it he used the Good Thief as evidence to support it, but later on he refuted what he himself had said about the good thief; he later said the good thief may have been baptized after all.

    As for St. Ambrose, all there is is his funeral speech, and it's ambiguous at best and he even contradicts BOD in that very same speech!

    Then out of nowhere, St. Thomas comes and gives BOD/BOB formal definitions (using St. Augustine and Ambrose as support) and voila, from then on they took off and every other theologian just refined the definition to make it look more professional and sophisticated and gave it his own "theological note".

    That's another thing: theologians aren't even sure what this thing is. Some say de fide, others close to the faith, others certain, etc. Some "unanimous and universal teaching of the Church" indeed.

    This whole thing is a tower of sand and a doctrine of man.

    Offline Quo Vadis Petre

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1234
    • Reputation: +1208/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Feeneyism
    « Reply #13 on: April 23, 2013, 01:56:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is where self-proclaimed theologians fail utterly in their logic, since they ignore all the saintly theologians of the Middle Ages (pretending they were idiots to ignore Apostolic tradition) or Saint Alphonsus for that matter. I am inclined to think you believe anyone believing in BOB/BOD is a heretic. If that is so, I'm afraid you better get out of here, since people like that don't last long here!
    "In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of the evil-disposed is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigour of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics." -St. Pius X

    "If the Church were not divine, this

    Offline Quo Vadis Petre

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1234
    • Reputation: +1208/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Feeneyism
    « Reply #14 on: April 23, 2013, 01:57:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Incredulous
    Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
    Quote from: Incredulous

    Concerning the SSPX and BOD, I heard in +ABL's bios that he wasn't so concerned about baptising the mission natives when he was a Holy Ghost father.
    I wonder if anyone can verify this ?


    Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't concerned about baptizing catechumens right away, since he said that they don't go to Hell, if they desired the Sacrament and died before he was able to baptized them. He was more concerned about teaching the principles of the Faith, so that they would keep the Faith, even without baptism of water.



    Thanks for the explanation.

    I don't see how +ABL's view would jive with St. Francis Xavier or other missionary saints of antiquity?

    As I understand it, St. Xavier personally Baptized over 3 million souls during his lifetime.  

    In Mexico, it was 9 million in just a few years.  They had the desire and wanted a water Baptism.  

    It was reported that assistants had to hold-up the arms of the priests, so tired were they from Baptisms en masse.




    Even St. Francis Xavier had to catechize them before they were baptized. There is no evidence that he baptized them right away!
    "In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of the evil-disposed is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigour of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics." -St. Pius X

    "If the Church were not divine, this