Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Feeneyism  (Read 8391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Feeneyism
« 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?


Feeneyism
« 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


Feeneyism
« 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.

Feeneyism
« 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.

Feeneyism
« 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!