Author Topic: Feeneyism (Read 4372 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?

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.

bowler · « **Reply #40 on:** April 23, 2013, 01:17:25 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Implicit faith is a new development into the nature of BOD. Unlike you, I don't see how it contradicts the necessity of baptism.

Again be precise, we are dealing in a subject where the abbreviating out of one word can change everything. Are you saying that you don't see how the theory of Implicit Faith contradicts the necessity of water baptism?

roscoe · « **Reply #41 on:** April 23, 2013, 01:32:08 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.

MO is that it is a waste of time to look for good will in QVP

Incredulous · « **Reply #42 on:** April 23, 2013, 02:06:00 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

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!

Well, that St. Francis catechized, I don't doubt.

That he was more impatient for Baptized souls than +ABL, I don't doubt either.

Catechism for the Aztecs, probably, but it seems Our Lady of Guadalupe was impatient too and interceded to provide them with an understanding of the Faith.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #43 on:** April 23, 2013, 03:49:00 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

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.

MO is that it is a waste of time to look for good will in QVP

...This coming from someone who accuses people of wanting Russia to be Consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary of being "Marian idolaters".

Hypocrite.

bowler · « **Reply #44 on:** April 24, 2013, 12:19:49 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: roscoe
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.

MO is that it is a waste of time to look for good will in QVP

...This coming from someone who accuses people of wanting Russia to be Consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary of being "Marian idolaters".

Hypocrite.

I have no way of knowing who is of good will or not of good will. We should not get personal here. Lets stick to the subject, and leave out the persons.

For Example : I personally like Bishop Fellay, but I disagree with his theology, what he believes and says.

I don't know Roscoe, but we agree on EENS as it is written, and we don't agree on Fatima and Pius XII. Same with QVP, we agree on many things , and yet we disagree on BOD. Nothing personal!