Author Topic: Feeneyism (Read 8364 times)

Mortalium · « **Reply #20 on:** April 23, 2013, 02:51:39 AM »

I have no idea how it got double posted. Sorry for that.

Mortalium · « **Reply #21 on:** April 23, 2013, 02:54:35 AM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

You ignore the "votum" part of the Council of Trent as all BOD deniers do, or if they pay attention to it, they twist the words to suit their arguments.

"the state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it".

Quote
Fr. Marin-Sola states in his theological treaties on the sacraments: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water. Baius (in a proposition condemned by Pope V) also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.” He continues on to state “Against the second part (baptism of blood) there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which martyrdom achieves its effect.”

I already knew votum is the correct translation, but the majority still use desire.

And it's not even desire, it's spirit, originally.

So "the vow to receive baptism" would be the real deal.

Mortalium · « **Reply #22 on:** April 23, 2013, 03:42:50 AM »

Quo Vadis Petre,

You're right. I have been mistaken all along.

I had held for some time now that BOD/BOB were erroneous and that you could hold either position: water only or BOD/BOB, and that either position was alright as long as either side did not accuse one another of heresy/sin and the like.

But since you mentioned the votum part in Trent, it got me thinking. I had seen that correct translation very recently but didn't really think about it. But now i have.

I didn't really have any problems with bod/bob if they would in fact be true, and in the beginning i did believe in them, but i just thought there were some inconsistencies and contradictions, and i still think there are some, but i will no longer reject them or question them at all from now on.

I take back all that i said against them and i repent.

What i do not agree with though, is the whole "implicit faith and implicit bod" business and invincibly ignorant people being saved.

That, no Saint or Doctor ever taught. St. Thomas, St. Augustine, At. Alphonsus etc. they all taught explicit Faith and that you absolutely need to believe in and know of the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation and in fact they all taught against invincible ignorance.

Stubborn · « **Reply #23 on:** April 23, 2013, 07:21:15 AM »

Again a small snip from Who Shall Ascend?:
[Emphasis in original]

All those who do not believe in the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation present two main obstacles-we should say, two main subterfuges: the one is two alternate forms of Baptism, "baptism of desire," and "baptism of blood," the other, invincible ignorance. We shall discuss these in turn. Before doing so, however, we repeat that no postulate may in any way be allowed to compromise the absoluteness of the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation; on the contrary, this doctrine must be our touchstone and point of reference.

We must study the following canons of the Decrees of the Council of Trent:

1. "If anyone say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and thus distort those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost' [Jn. 3:5]., let him be anathema." (Canon 2, Session VII. Denz. 1615).
2. "If anyone say that Baptism is optional [liberum], and is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." (Canon 5. Ibid, 1618).

3. "In these words the description of the justification of the sinner is given as being a translation from that state, in which man is born the son of the first Adam, into the state of grace and 'adoption of sons' [Rom. 8:151 of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior; which translation indeed cannot take place without the bath of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.] or his wish (as it is written: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God' [Jn. 3:5])." (Sess. VI, Cap. 4. ¡bid, 1524).

The reader must take careful note of the three statements above. The difference between the first two and the third is quite great, and for very substantial reasons. The crux of the matter lies in the fact that the third statement is mainly concerned with justification, while the first two insist that sacramental Baptism is necessary for salvation. . . . . . .

Jehanne · « **Reply #24 on:** April 23, 2013, 07:46:00 AM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

You ignore the "votum" part of the Council of Trent as all BOD deniers do, or if they pay attention to it, they twist the words to suit their arguments.

"the state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it".

Quote
Fr. Marin-Sola states in his theological treaties on the sacraments: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water. Baius (in a proposition condemned by Pope V) also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.” He continues on to state “Against the second part (baptism of blood) there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which martyrdom achieves its effect.”

We "Feeneyites" believe that the omnipotent Triune God would provide sacramental Baptism for that person in question. Consider "conditional Baptism". If the Church throughout the centuries believed that "desire alone" was truly sufficient, why baptize catechumens conditionally after they have died?