Author Topic: Feeneyites and Sedes Give Trads a Bad Name (Read 6710 times)

roscoe · « **Reply #30 on:** September 30, 2009, 08:13:57 PM »

This has been discussed many times in the past. The docuмents allegedly ex-communicating Fr Feeney or calling him to Rome are as fraudulent as the docuмent claiming the Card Rampolla was a 'secret occult mason on the OTO' with Alastair Crowley.

If anything, Pius XII supported Fr Feeney when Humani Generis is issued.

Jehanne · « **Reply #31 on:** September 30, 2009, 08:33:47 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

So the Holy Office excommunicated itself in excommunicating Fr. Feeney?

Probably.

SJB · « **Reply #32 on:** September 30, 2009, 11:15:31 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB
These are simply not in conflict. You think they conflict...but they do not.

For starters, here is St. Thomas:

Quote
"Next, he [Pope Innocent III] comes to the article about the effect of grace. First, he speaks of the effect of grace with regard to the unity of the Church, saying: "There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved." Now, the unity of the Church is nothing other than the congregation of the faithful. Since it is impossible to please God without faith, there can be no place of salvation other than in the Church. Furthermore, the salvation of the faithful is consummated through the sacraments of the Church, in which the power of Christ's Passion is operative."

Nowhere does St. Thomas or anyone else say the following:

"However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."

This is heresy, plain and simple.

I wasn't finished. And that's not heretical...it's true. Supernatural Faith is required at all times and by all people. That's what you underlined, isn't it?

You are really arrogant...and that usually comes from ignorance.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #33 on:** October 01, 2009, 12:36:40 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: stevusmagnus
So the Holy Office excommunicated itself in excommunicating Fr. Feeney?

Probably.

Oh man...

CM · « **Reply #34 on:** October 01, 2009, 01:57:25 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

The Fathers at Lateran, Constance, Florence, and Trent, when they specified vowtum with respect to Baptism had nothing in common with the modernist heretics that began swarming the Vatican in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Note that Lateran IV, Vienne and Florence made no mention at all of votum.

The Trent mentions votum, saying explicitly that justification cannot take place without it. In the same decree as it states it cannot take place without the laver of regeneration. It does not even approach to saying that justification CAN take place with only one or the other and to assert otherwise is just plain distortion.

Jehanne · « **Reply #35 on:** October 01, 2009, 09:29:50 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Quote from: Jehanne
The Fathers at Lateran, Constance, Florence, and Trent, when they specified votum with respect to Baptism had nothing in common with the modernist heretics that began swarming the Vatican in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Note that Lateran IV, Vienne and Florence made no mention at all of votum.

The Trent mentions votum, saying explicitly that justification cannot take place without it. In the same decree as it states it cannot take place without the laver of regeneration. It does not even approach to saying that justification CAN take place with only one or the other and to assert otherwise is just plain distortion.

Excellent point. Point is, Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. One cannot receive Baptism without the vow for it. It cannot be accepted "implicitly" or "unconsciousnessly," and it is heresy to say otherwise. The Church was absolutely clear about this.

SJB · « **Reply #36 on:** October 01, 2009, 10:47:00 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Quote from: Jehanne
The Fathers at Lateran, Constance, Florence, and Trent, when they specified votum with respect to Baptism had nothing in common with the modernist heretics that began swarming the Vatican in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Note that Lateran IV, Vienne and Florence made no mention at all of votum.

The Trent mentions votum, saying explicitly that justification cannot take place without it. In the same decree as it states it cannot take place without the laver of regeneration. It does not even approach to saying that justification CAN take place with only one or the other and to assert otherwise is just plain distortion.

Excellent point. Point is, Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. One cannot receive Baptism without the vow for it. It cannot be accepted "implicitly" or "unconsciousnessly," and it is heresy to say otherwise. The Church was absolutely clear about this.

This is wrong. The SACRAMENT is not ABSOLUTELY necessary in all cases.

Supernatural Faith AND charity are required and have been at ALL times, for salvation. The sacraments were not (before they even existed) and are not today in ALL cases.

Jehanne · « **Reply #37 on:** October 01, 2009, 11:38:59 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Quote from: Jehanne
The Fathers at Lateran, Constance, Florence, and Trent, when they specified votum with respect to Baptism had nothing in common with the modernist heretics that began swarming the Vatican in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Note that Lateran IV, Vienne and Florence made no mention at all of votum.

The Trent mentions votum, saying explicitly that justification cannot take place without it. In the same decree as it states it cannot take place without the laver of regeneration. It does not even approach to saying that justification CAN take place with only one or the other and to assert otherwise is just plain distortion.

Excellent point. Point is, Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. One cannot receive Baptism without the vow for it. It cannot be accepted "implicitly" or "unconsciousnessly," and it is heresy to say otherwise. The Church was absolutely clear about this.

This is wrong. The SACRAMENT is not ABSOLUTELY necessary in all cases.

Supernatural Faith AND charity are required and have been at ALL times, for salvation. The sacraments were not (before they even existed) and are not today in ALL cases.

I will let CM have this one! Just curious, SJB, are you male or female? I need to know this so that I may tailor the "tone" of my response.

CMMM · « **Reply #38 on:** October 01, 2009, 11:44:09 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Quote from: Jehanne
The Fathers at Lateran, Constance, Florence, and Trent, when they specified votum with respect to Baptism had nothing in common with the modernist heretics that began swarming the Vatican in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Note that Lateran IV, Vienne and Florence made no mention at all of votum.

The Trent mentions votum, saying explicitly that justification cannot take place without it. In the same decree as it states it cannot take place without the laver of regeneration. It does not even approach to saying that justification CAN take place with only one or the other and to assert otherwise is just plain distortion.

Excellent point. Point is, Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. One cannot receive Baptism without the vow for it. It cannot be accepted "implicitly" or "unconsciousnessly," and it is heresy to say otherwise. The Church was absolutely clear about this.

This is wrong. The SACRAMENT is not ABSOLUTELY necessary in all cases.

Supernatural Faith AND charity are required and have been at ALL times, for salvation. The sacraments were not (before they even existed) and are not today in ALL cases.

I will let CM have this one! Just curious, SJB, are you male or female? I need to know this so that I may tailor the "tone" of my response.

The sacramental effect of baptism is necessary, the actual sacrament itself is not. The effect 'can' (and I say can because it is unlikely but possible and has happened) be supplied through desire or martyrdom.

Jehanne · « **Reply #39 on:** October 01, 2009, 12:16:35 PM »

Quote from: C.M.M.M

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Quote from: Jehanne
The Fathers at Lateran, Constance, Florence, and Trent, when they specified votum with respect to Baptism had nothing in common with the modernist heretics that began swarming the Vatican in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Note that Lateran IV, Vienne and Florence made no mention at all of votum.

The Trent mentions votum, saying explicitly that justification cannot take place without it. In the same decree as it states it cannot take place without the laver of regeneration. It does not even approach to saying that justification CAN take place with only one or the other and to assert otherwise is just plain distortion.

Excellent point. Point is, Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. One cannot receive Baptism without the vow for it. It cannot be accepted "implicitly" or "unconsciousnessly," and it is heresy to say otherwise. The Church was absolutely clear about this.

This is wrong. The SACRAMENT is not ABSOLUTELY necessary in all cases.

Supernatural Faith AND charity are required and have been at ALL times, for salvation. The sacraments were not (before they even existed) and are not today in ALL cases.

I will let CM have this one! Just curious, SJB, are you male or female? I need to know this so that I may tailor the "tone" of my response.

The sacramental effect of baptism is necessary, the actual sacrament itself is not. The effect 'can' (and I say can because it is unlikely but possible and has happened) be supplied through desire or martyrdom.

The vow for it, yes! Desire? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CMMM · « **Reply #40 on:** October 01, 2009, 12:24:22 PM »

Vow = a solemn promise, pledge, or personal commitment (I will do all I can to receive Baptism)

Desire = to wish or long for; crave; want (I want to receive Baptism. I crave Baptism. I wish to receive Baptism. I long for Baptism.)

If you see a significant difference, let me know.

SJB · « **Reply #41 on:** October 01, 2009, 12:38:45 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Quote from: Jehanne
The Fathers at Lateran, Constance, Florence, and Trent, when they specified votum with respect to Baptism had nothing in common with the modernist heretics that began swarming the Vatican in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Note that Lateran IV, Vienne and Florence made no mention at all of votum.

The Trent mentions votum, saying explicitly that justification cannot take place without it. In the same decree as it states it cannot take place without the laver of regeneration. It does not even approach to saying that justification CAN take place with only one or the other and to assert otherwise is just plain distortion.

Excellent point. Point is, Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. One cannot receive Baptism without the vow for it. It cannot be accepted "implicitly" or "unconsciousnessly," and it is heresy to say otherwise. The Church was absolutely clear about this.

This is wrong. The SACRAMENT is not ABSOLUTELY necessary in all cases.

Supernatural Faith AND charity are required and have been at ALL times, for salvation. The sacraments were not (before they even existed) and are not today in ALL cases.

I will let CM have this one! Just curious, SJB, are you male or female? I need to know this so that I may tailor the "tone" of my response.

Why don't you just make your argument? A novel approach, for sure...

Btw, I thought you were a female...why do you think that is? :)

Jehanne · « **Reply #42 on:** October 01, 2009, 12:45:50 PM »

Quote from: C.M.M.M

Vow = a solemn promise, pledge, or personal commitment (I will do all I can to receive Baptism)

Desire = to wish or long for; crave; want (I want to receive Baptism. I crave Baptism. I wish to receive Baptism. I long for Baptism.)

If you see a significant difference, let me know.

There is a difference. A vow is an intent to do something. A desire can be a mere wish to do something. Consider the following:

1) I vow to go to Disney World.

2) I desire that I could go to Disney World.

Nowhere, in any of the Nicene and pre-Nicene Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, the Popes, and the Councils of the Church will you find anything that says that faith in Jesus Christ can be implicit and/or unconscious or that anything other than Baptism or at least the vow for it is sufficient for eternal life.

Show me otherwise, and I will believe. Until then, I have no choice but to conclude that the 1949 letter from the Holy Office is heretical, based upon the theological novelties of Catholic liberalism that arose, not from Divine Revelation, but from the deistic philosophy of the Enlightenment.

Only Catholics will be saved. Period. All others will be damned, unless, they, "before the end of life", are joined to the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

Jehanne · « **Reply #43 on:** October 01, 2009, 12:51:58 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Why don't you just make your argument? A novel approach, for sure...

Btw, I thought you were a female...why do you think that is? :)

I do not need to make any arguments. Holy Mother Church has spoken, definitively, on this issue. You need to play "word games" with the texts to make your heretical ideas "fit." By the way, here is my first post:

BEGINNING POST

Hi Everyone!

My first post. Seems that the modern Church does not believe that infant baptism is necessary for salvation, but for those of us who still believe in that, here is my question, "Does it not make sense to baptize an infant right after birth?" My wife and I have four children. My first two were baptized in a conservative Norvus Ordo church, my third by an SSPX priest; however, my fourth child was baptized by me within an hour or so after birth. I was very, very careful to use the correct matter and form.

So, what do you think? If an infant's salvation is wholly and entirely dependent on Baptism, then why not baptize immediately after birth? Was not this the practice for centuries?

Blessings,

Don

END POST

Do you think "Don" is a girl's name? Look it up, something novel for you to do!

SJB · « **Reply #44 on:** October 01, 2009, 01:13:25 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB
Why don't you just make your argument? A novel approach, for sure...

Btw, I thought you were a female...why do you think that is? :)

I do not need to make any arguments. Holy Mother Church has spoken, definitively, on this issue. You need to play "word games" with the texts to make your heretical ideas "fit." By the way, here is my first post:

BEGINNING POST

Hi Everyone!

My first post. Seems that the modern Church does not believe that infant baptism is necessary for salvation, but for those of us who still believe in that, here is my question, "Does it not make sense to baptize an infant right after birth?" My wife and I have four children. My first two were baptized in a conservative Norvus Ordo church, my third by an SSPX priest; however, my fourth child was baptized by me within an hour or so after birth. I was very, very careful to use the correct matter and form.

So, what do you think? If an infant's salvation is wholly and entirely dependent on Baptism, then why not baptize immediately after birth? Was not this the practice for centuries?

Blessings,

Don

END POST

Do you think "Don" is a girl's name? Look it up, something novel for you to do!

Maybe I didn't read your first post...did you ever think of that? I formed my opinion by the content of your posts that I actually read.

Quote

my fourth child was baptized by me within an hour or so after birth. I was very, very careful to use the correct matter and form.

In danger of death, this is appropriate. Otherwise, it is definitely not. I don't know the situation, but did you then take the child to a priest?