Author Topic: Feeneyism (Read 8381 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #35 on:** April 23, 2013, 12:24:18 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.

As I said, any catechumen who desires baptism only has to ask someone, anyone at all to baptize him. There is no great theological mystery whatsoever involved.

In your zeal to reward salvation to those outside of the Church, you take the whole "desire thereof" aka "Votum" *completely* out of context.

If you study the canon or at least read the whole thing as it was written, you should come to agree that you have been mislead or mistaken - if you are of good will.

Jehanne · « **Reply #36 on:** April 23, 2013, 12:35:23 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

As I said, any catechumen who desires baptism only has to ask someone, anyone at all to baptize him. There is no great theological mystery whatsoever involved.

In your zeal to reward salvation to those outside of the Church, you take the whole "desire thereof" aka "Votum" *completely* out of context.

If you study the canon or at least read the whole thing as it was written, you should come to agree that you have been mislead or mistaken - if you are of good will.

A catechumen who died could, within a short time frame (15 minutes?), be baptized conditionally -- "If thou art man, I baptize you..."

Stubborn · « **Reply #37 on:** April 23, 2013, 12:42:33 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Stubborn
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.

As I said, any catechumen who desires baptism only has to ask someone, anyone at all to baptize him. There is no great theological mystery whatsoever involved.

In your zeal to reward salvation to those outside of the Church, you take the whole "desire thereof" aka "Votum" *completely* out of context.

If you study the canon or at least read the whole thing as it was written, you should come to agree that you have been mislead or mistaken - if you are of good will.

A catechumen who died could, within a short time frame (15 minutes?), be baptized conditionally -- "If thou art man, I baptize you..."

Absolutely, since we don't know when the soul leaves the body.

Mortalium · « **Reply #38 on:** April 23, 2013, 01:01:14 PM »

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.

You think that just because something isn't explicitly condemned or corrected it must therefore be acceptable or true. You are quite mistaken.

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

I don't think any implcit BODer ever claimed it saves. What saves is having supernatural charity;

Of course they do. They give a better chance of salvation and practically give Heaven away to these people.

So the just man "shall scarcely be saved" (1 Peter 4:18), and yet these people, knowing nothing about the Church and having no sacraments or any helps at all will get into Heaven.

And what about original sin?

"Ignorance is the mother of all errors," as Pope Benedict XIV said.

Go see how any savage lives.

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

the implicit BODer believes that it can be had in a person invincibly ignorant of the Church (yes, even for Buddhists, Muslims, etc.), 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.

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.

Mortalium · « **Reply #39 on:** April 23, 2013, 01:13:23 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

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.

The Protocol is overtly heretical and plainly teaches salvation outside the Church.

So, you are "holding fast" to heresy and to the reducement of the necessity of belonging to the Church to a menaingless formula.