Author Topic: Feeneyism (Read 8386 times)

bowler · « **Reply #30 on:** April 23, 2013, 11:52:09 AM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

You are mistaken in thinking they taught against invincible ignorance; they didn't teach it, but they didn't condemn it. Invincible ignorance neither saves nor damns. I don't think any implcit BODer ever claimed it saves. What saves is having supernatural charity; the implicit BODer believes that it can be had in a person invincibly ignorant of the Church (yes, even for Buddhists, Muslims, etc.),.

You are always stating your own personal opinions and thus clogging up threads. Do us a favor and quote an authority for what you write.

How could St. Augustine or St. Thomas condemn the theory of invincible ignorance if it did not exist in their time?

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

but nonetheless, also there must be some explicit belief in some articles of the Faith (Jesus is God, etc.) and they must reject the errors when they are offered the Divine grace.

There you go again! You just made that up. The theory of Implicit Faith does not require an explicit belief in Christ (the Incarnation) or the Trinity. Do you see any of the Implicit faith quotes that I posted saying what you say?

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #31 on:** April 23, 2013, 11:59:31 AM »

I was saying I believe in explicit faith myself, but don't condemn implicit faith.

bowler · « **Reply #32 on:** April 23, 2013, 11:59:57 AM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Oops. I was writing my reply to Jehanne when you replied to Mortalium.

BTW, bowler, it seems time and again, you ignore St. Alphonsus' theological treatises to his priests, when he says implicit desire is not wrong, and though he doesn't agree with implicit faith, doesn't condemn it!

Speak clearly, you are mixing two things up, and creating a strawman.

The Thomist school teaches explicit and implicit baptism of desire, both require a desire to be a Catholic and a belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. That is one thing, and that is what St. Alphonsus meant when he said that implicit desire for baptism is not wrong. AND he does condemn (teach against) implicit faith in the writings that I posted read them. He leaves no room for doubt that all who die ignorant of the mysteries of the faith are damned.

Implicit desire for baptism and Implicit faith are two different theories not having anything to do with each other. Read my long posting with quotes

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #33 on:** April 23, 2013, 12:07:40 PM »

Implicit faith is a new development into the nature of BOD. Unlike you, I don't see how it contradicts the necessity of baptism. It may be wrong, but I fail to see how it leads to false ecuмenism as you stated.

My apologies for mixing up implicit desire and implicit faith, but I will still hold fast and state the 1949 letter and Msgr. Fenton both uphold explicit faith and at the same time won't condemn implicit faith.

Jehanne · « **Reply #34 on:** April 23, 2013, 12:12:56 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

"Baptizing catechumens conditionally?" Give me a source for this, pardon my expression, nonsense!! And show me in all Tradition where God is bound to give Sacramental baptism to each and every person. It's ridiculous in the face of things, since God is not bound to perform a miracle, such as you and others denying BOD demand of Him. It's apparent you deny this "votum" of the Council of Trent, such as Stubborn, too, in his attempt to twist the words to say desire (that is, an efficacious longing to enter the Church) is not sufficent.

Are you saying that it is de fide that we, as Catholics, must believe that there are catechumens who have gone to Purgatory (or, are there at this very moment) because they had the misfortune to end their lives without sacramental Baptism, which they desired ("votum") and which the Triune God also desired for them?