Author Topic: Feeneyism (Read 4371 times)

Matto · « **Reply #45 on:** April 24, 2013, 12:24:12 PM »

Quote from: bowler

I don't know Roscoe, but we agree on EENS as it is written

I just today read that roscoe wrote in an old thread that he thought BOB and BOD did exist but that they were rare. Sorry I don't have a link.

bowler · « **Reply #46 on:** April 24, 2013, 02:05:29 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: bowler
I don't know Roscoe, but we agree on EENS as it is written

I just today read that roscoe wrote in an old thread that he thought BOB and BOD did exist but that they were rare. Sorry I don't have a link.

I guess we don't agree then.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #47 on:** April 24, 2013, 11:34:29 PM »

Quote from: Mortalium

What you said is heretical and the quotes from Lefebvre or Fellay or Fahey don't say what you say. They make no mention of any "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". They blatantly teach salvation ourtside the Church and in all religions.

So was Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic?

Mortalium · « **Reply #48 on:** April 25, 2013, 12:03:49 AM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

So was Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic?

Is someone who says that "Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.)" , that “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”a Catholic?

Notice the "etc." The word “etc.” means “and the rest, and so on”.

This would include any and every religion.

This would include Satanism, for example.

Mortalium · « **Reply #49 on:** April 25, 2013, 12:45:08 AM »

Sounds a lot like the "anonymous christianty" of Rahner and a lot like JPII's statement how "all men secretly desire the New Covenant".

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #50 on:** April 25, 2013, 11:01:11 AM »

So in other words, you are saying Archbishop Lefebvre was not a Catholic?

Jehanne · « **Reply #51 on:** April 25, 2013, 12:25:14 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

So in other words, you are saying Archbishop Lefebvre was not a Catholic?

He was being ambiguous. He kind of wanted to have his "EENS cake and eat it, too!" Let's consider all of this in terms of Pascal's Wager:

1) An invincibly-ignorant non-Catholic who has genuine implicit faith and submission to the Roman Pontiff is in a state of grace, that is, no original sin and no mortal, either.

2) A non-Catholic is in a state of original and/or mortal sin.

With respect to non-Catholics, categories #1 and #2 are mutually exclusively. Do you agree? If so, how are we harming the non-Catholic in #1 by preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to that person? How about #2? And, if we cannot tell the difference between #1 and #2, then does it matter? We should preach the Gospel. Period. To every human creator, without exception. Agreed?

roscoe · « **Reply #52 on:** April 25, 2013, 12:37:42 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: bowler
I don't know Roscoe, but we agree on EENS as it is written

I just today read that roscoe wrote in an old thread that he thought BOB and BOD did exist but that they were rare. Sorry I don't have a link.

I am not a theologian but if memory is serving me correctly, my comments were that the whole BOD/BOB debate is a waste of time( similar to the Pius XII is guilty of dereliction of duty re: Fatima mantra) because there probably isn't more than a few hundred people in the world today that it even applies to.

Mortalium · « **Reply #53 on:** April 25, 2013, 01:54:05 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

So in other words, you are saying Archbishop Lefebvre was not a Catholic?

If you can't answer that question yourself you're in big trouble.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #54 on:** April 25, 2013, 02:04:09 PM »

Quote from: Mortalium

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
So in other words, you are saying Archbishop Lefebvre was not a Catholic?

If you can't answer that question yourself you're in big trouble.

I see that you're conveniently refusing to give a direct answer.

If I'm able to "answer the question myself" you should be able to as well.

bowler · « **Reply #55 on:** April 25, 2013, 06:26:29 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: Mortalium
Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
So in other words, you are saying Archbishop Lefebvre was not a Catholic?

If you can't answer that question yourself you're in big trouble.

I see that you're conveniently refusing to give a direct answer.

If I'm able to "answer the question myself" you should be able to as well.

What Abp. Lefebvre said was wrong, it is rejected by the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Unfortunately, since the 20th century that liberal teaching has spread to even traditionalist priest. Until it is condemned by the pope himself, the opinion is allowed. We can't call Karl Rahner nor Abp. Lefebvre heretics for both teaching the same thing. When a sane pope is finally sent by God he will decide the issue. Till then:

What Abp. Lefebvre said is rejected by ALL of tradition: the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Those that have eyes to see, let them see.

Mortalium · « **Reply #56 on:** April 25, 2013, 08:44:19 PM »

Quote from: bowler

What Abp. Lefebvre said was wrong, it is rejected by the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Unfortunately, since the 20th century that liberal teaching has spread to even traditionalist priest. Until it is condemned by the pope himself, the opinion is allowed. We can't call Karl Rahner nor Abp. Lefebvre heretics for both teaching the same thing. When a sane pope is finally sent by God he will decide the issue. Till then:

What Abp. Lefebvre said is rejected by ALL of tradition: the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Those that have eyes to see, let them see.

Besides the Baltimore or Pius X catechisms, where else is this implicit faith thing found?

Mortalium · « **Reply #57 on:** April 25, 2013, 09:07:36 PM »

Quote from: bowler

What Abp. Lefebvre said was wrong, it is rejected by the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Unfortunately, since the 20th century that liberal teaching has spread to even traditionalist priest. Until it is condemned by the pope himself, the opinion is allowed. We can't call Karl Rahner nor Abp. Lefebvre heretics for both teaching the same thing. When a sane pope is finally sent by God he will decide the issue. Till then:

What Abp. Lefebvre said is rejected by ALL of tradition: the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Those that have eyes to see, let them see.

If saying that people can be saved outside the Church, practicing false religions, and that people can be saved in any religion (this would include Satanism), oh, but "by the Church", and that a Christ-rejecting Jєω can have supernatural grace and be saved, is simply "erroneous", then what in the world would heretical be?

All the people who profess to believe in God or profess to be Catholics who deny the salvation dogma and say there is salvation outside the Church say they are all saved outside the Church and dying as non-Catholics by God of course, so how is this any different?

If that is not direct and formal heresy, and watering down the dogma, then i don't know what is.

bowler · « **Reply #58 on:** April 25, 2013, 09:28:17 PM »

Quote from: Mortalium

Quote from: bowler

What Abp. Lefebvre said was wrong, it is rejected by the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Unfortunately, since the 20th century that liberal teaching has spread to even traditionalist priest. Until it is condemned by the pope himself, the opinion is allowed. We can't call Karl Rahner nor Abp. Lefebvre heretics for both teaching the same thing. When a sane pope is finally sent by God he will decide the issue. Till then:

What Abp. Lefebvre said is rejected by ALL of tradition: the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Those that have eyes to see, let them see.

Besides the Baltimore or Pius X catechisms, where else is this implicit faith thing found?

You won't find it in the 1891 original Baltimore catechism, and I don't know when and if it was ever later put in in the 20th century. The Pius X quote is not in the original in Italian, which is the only official catechism, since it was a local catechism in Rome printed in Italian.

AND regarding Pius X directly (not a catechism just named after Pius X!):

The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:

“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

"Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before, especially that those who had not worshipped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obligated to answer: there is absolutely none."
Saint Francis Xavier

bowler · « **Reply #59 on:** April 25, 2013, 09:30:56 PM »

Quote from: Mortalium

Quote from: bowler

What Abp. Lefebvre said was wrong, it is rejected by the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Unfortunately, since the 20th century that liberal teaching has spread to even traditionalist priest. Until it is condemned by the pope himself, the opinion is allowed. We can't call Karl Rahner nor Abp. Lefebvre heretics for both teaching the same thing. When a sane pope is finally sent by God he will decide the issue. Till then:

What Abp. Lefebvre said is rejected by ALL of tradition: the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Those that have eyes to see, let them see.

If saying that people can be saved outside the Church, practicing false religions, and that people can be saved in any religion (this would include Satanism), oh, but "by the Church", and that a Christ-rejecting Jєω can have supernatural grace and be saved, is simply "erroneous", then what in the world would heretical be?

All the people who profess to believe in God or profess to be Catholics who deny the salvation dogma and say there is salvation outside the Church say they are all saved outside the Church and dying as non-Catholics by God of course, so how is this any different?

If that is not direct and formal heresy, and watering down the dogma, then i don't know what is.

I agree, and we can say the same about the docuмents of Vatican II, and all of the heresies of the Vatican II popes, but as long as there is no pope to declare sanity, NOTHING is a heresy.