Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on September 29, 2009, 05:26:55 PM
-
http://voiceofcatholicradio.com/090927m17th_sun_aft_pent,fr_robinson,final,38_min.mp3 (http://voiceofcatholicradio.com/090927m17th_sun_aft_pent,fr_robinson,final,38_min.mp3)
-
I heard that one. He's a dear priest.
-
http://voiceofcatholicradio.com/090927m17th_sun_aft_pent,fr_robinson,final,38_min.mp3 (http://voiceofcatholicradio.com/090927m17th_sun_aft_pent,fr_robinson,final,38_min.mp3)
Feeneyites openly deny theologically certain doctrines.
Sedevacantists deny no such doctrines.
Many (not all) SSPX priests distort or implicitly deny theologically certain doctrines.
Both SSPX and Sedevacantists have their problems...because they are just resisting groups. Let's not pretend the problems are all in the SV camp. The feeneyites simply do not have the same rule of faith that Catholics do.
I think the sectarian attitude of some traditionalists (laymen) is a very sad situation.
-
SJB's quote: Feeneyites openly deny theologically certain doctrines.
So does nearly everyone else. If I had to, I would choose Feeneyism over the indifferent universalism of the modernists. Let's consider a new Wager, call it "Don's Wager," if you will:
A) Universalism is correct; everyone gets saved and goes to Heaven. (Hurray!!!!)
B) Universalism is not correct; some (perhaps, most) individuals end-up in Hell, forever. (What a horrible thought to lose one's soul!!!)
Okay, we all agree Option A is much, much (indeed, infinitely) better than Option B. Now, if we embrace Feeneyism, what are the consequences? Let's see:
If Option A is true: People think we are jerks, but as everyone goes to Heaven anyway; in the end, it really does not matter, does it?
If Option B is true: We evangelize like mad, do penance, pray for people, put the salvation of souls as being the most (if not, the only) important thing in our lives, and in the end, more people in the end are saved, which means more souls in Heaven, fewer in Hell (we hope -- well, at least we tried, didn't we?)
On the other hand, consider embracing liberal modernism, and I will leave it to you (or someone else) to explore the outcomes.
-
SJB's quote: Feeneyites openly deny theologically certain doctrines.
So does nearly everyone else. If I had to, I would choose Feeneyism over the indifferent universalism of the modernists. Let's consider a new Wager, call it "Don's Wager," if you will:
A) Universalism is correct; everyone gets saved and goes to Heaven. (Hurray!!!!)
B) Universalism is not correct; some (perhaps, most) individuals end-up in Hell, forever. (What a horrible thought to lose one's soul!!!)
Okay, we all agree Option A is much, much (indeed, infinitely) better than Option B. Now, if we embrace Feeneyism, what are the consequences? Let's see:
If Option A is true: People think we are jerks, but as everyone goes to Heaven anyway; in the end, it really does not matter, does it?
If Option B is true: We evangelize like mad, do penance, pray for people, put the salvation of souls as being the most (if not, the only) important thing in our lives, and in the end, more people in the end are saved, which means more souls in Heaven, fewer in Hell (we hope -- well, at least we tried, didn't we?)
On the other hand, consider embracing liberal modernism, and I will leave it to you (or someone else) to explore the outcomes.
Except your choices are wrong. Why not understand it as the Church teaches it.
-
SJB's quote: Feeneyites openly deny theologically certain doctrines.
So does nearly everyone else. If I had to, I would choose Feeneyism over the indifferent universalism of the modernists. Let's consider a new Wager, call it "Don's Wager," if you will:
A) Universalism is correct; everyone gets saved and goes to Heaven. (Hurray!!!!)
B) Universalism is not correct; some (perhaps, most) individuals end-up in Hell, forever. (What a horrible thought to lose one's soul!!!)
Okay, we all agree Option A is much, much (indeed, infinitely) better than Option B. Now, if we embrace Feeneyism, what are the consequences? Let's see:
If Option A is true: People think we are jerks, but as everyone goes to Heaven anyway; in the end, it really does not matter, does it?
If Option B is true: We evangelize like mad, do penance, pray for people, put the salvation of souls as being the most (if not, the only) important thing in our lives, and in the end, more people in the end are saved, which means more souls in Heaven, fewer in Hell (we hope -- well, at least we tried, didn't we?)
On the other hand, consider embracing liberal modernism, and I will leave it to you (or someone else) to explore the outcomes.
Except your choices are wrong. Why not understand it as the Church teaches it.
Okay, fine, what exactly does the Church teach?
-
SJB's quote: Feeneyites openly deny theologically certain doctrines.
So does nearly everyone else. If I had to, I would choose Feeneyism over the indifferent universalism of the modernists. Let's consider a new Wager, call it "Don's Wager," if you will:
A) Universalism is correct; everyone gets saved and goes to Heaven. (Hurray!!!!)
B) Universalism is not correct; some (perhaps, most) individuals end-up in Hell, forever. (What a horrible thought to lose one's soul!!!)
Okay, we all agree Option A is much, much (indeed, infinitely) better than Option B. Now, if we embrace Feeneyism, what are the consequences? Let's see:
If Option A is true: People think we are jerks, but as everyone goes to Heaven anyway; in the end, it really does not matter, does it?
If Option B is true: We evangelize like mad, do penance, pray for people, put the salvation of souls as being the most (if not, the only) important thing in our lives, and in the end, more people in the end are saved, which means more souls in Heaven, fewer in Hell (we hope -- well, at least we tried, didn't we?)
On the other hand, consider embracing liberal modernism, and I will leave it to you (or someone else) to explore the outcomes.
Except your choices are wrong. Why not understand it as the Church teaches it.
Okay, fine, what exactly does the Church teach?
Universal salvation is an error. That does not make the feeneyite position correct simply because it is not the error of universal salvation.
You and I do not have the same rule of Faith. You have chosen a different rule. Until this is addressed, any discussion is pointless.
-
Feenyism is a heresy, condemed by the Pope.
-
Feenyism is a heresy, condemed by the Pope.
Source for this?
-
Feenyism is a heresy, condemed by the Pope.
Source for this?
The father of lies.
-
You and I do not have the same rule of Faith. You have chosen a different rule. Until this is addressed, any discussion is pointless.
Not sure where you are getting that one, but fine. To the extent that Feeneyism denies BoD and BoB, yes, I agree that it is in error. However, to the extent that it repudiates the modernistic heresy (apparently, embraced by the SSPX, SSPV, and others) that faith can be "implicit", then, yes, I think that it is right on the mark. As I said before, I think that it is better to be too conservative as opposed to the alternative. In that respect, I do not see how anyone can condemn the ideas of Father Feeney as being heretical, except on the grounds of their being theological novelties, but then again, so is the idea of implicit faith.
-
Implicit faith is not only a novelty it is heresy.
After describing the Most Holy Trinity, Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence infallibly says this: "Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let him think thus of the Trinity."
He is specifically stating that a person must know and believe correctly concerning the Trinity, and that anyone who does not is incapable of attaining salvation (as is more clearly seen in the rest of his decree; ie "This is the Catholic Faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.").
Arguing that "Feeneyism" is heresy has been tried, and it fails every time; it's an empty pursuit. Believing that one can be saved without the sacrament of baptism, on the other hand, is definitely heretical.
The only way anybody will come to this truth is by adopting the correct rule of Faith (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-is-point-of-infallibility.html).
In fact, I am certain that it is a mass exodus from this rule that has precipitated the crisis facing the Church today.
-
Implicit faith is not only a novelty it is heresy.
After describing the Most Holy Trinity, Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence infallibly says this: "Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let him think thus of the Trinity."
He is specifically stating that a person must know and believe correctly concerning the Trinity, and that anyone who does not is incapable of attaining salvation (as is more clearly seen in the rest of his decree; ie "This is the Catholic Faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.").
Arguing that "Feeneyism" is heresy has been tried, and it fails every time; it's an empty pursuit. Believing that one can be saved without the sacrament of baptism, on the other hand, is definitely heretical.
The only way anybody will come to this truth is by adopting the correct rule of Faith (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-is-point-of-infallibility.html).
In fact, I am certain that it is a mass exodus from this rule that has precipitated the crisis facing the Church today.
If I had to choose between the modernistic heresy of implicit faith and Feeneyism, I would choose the latter. Fortunately, however, I do not have to choose. It has been defined, de fide, by the Church, how to attain everlasting salvation and eternal life:
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly...This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm
-
You and I do not have the same rule of Faith. You have chosen a different rule. Until this is addressed, any discussion is pointless.
Not sure where you are getting that one, but fine. To the extent that Feeneyism denies BoD and BoB, yes, I agree that it is in error.
That's a serious thing. It is a mortal sin to knowingly deny a theologically certain doctrine. That's what the Church teaches quite clearly.
However, to the extent that it repudiates the modernistic heresy (apparently, embraced by the SSPX, SSPV, and others) that faith can be "implicit", then, yes, I think that it is right on the mark.
So an erroneous doctrine is right when it seems to oppose another more serious error? Is that what you are saying?
As I said before, I think that it is better to be too conservative as opposed to the alternative.
That's a false choice.
In that respect, I do not see how anyone can condemn the ideas of Father Feeney as being heretical, except on the grounds of their being theological novelties, but then again, so is the idea of implicit faith.
Fr. Feeney was opposing the outright DENIAL of the dogma of EENS. This is what was occurring in Boston at the time. The Holy Office letter was not condemning Fr. Feeney...it was explaining the correct understanding of the dogma...which was at odds with both Fr. Feeney AND those who were denying the dogma or obscuring it's meaning.
-
Fr. Feeney was opposing the outright DENIAL of the dogma of EENS. This is what was occurring in Boston at the time. The Holy Office letter was not condemning Fr. Feeney...it was explaining the correct understanding of the dogma...which was at odds with both Fr. Feeney AND those who were denying the dogma or obscuring it's meaning.
Sure, it was advancing the heresy of implicit faith, which Pius XII (a progressive pope, according to most observers) also advanced, which paved the way for Vatican II. Father Feeney was never condemned. We all know this. As a matter of fact, even JPII did not condemn Feeneyism, but I do not have the docuмent where he (JP II) cites the three de fide pronouncements (Lateran, Unam Sanctam, Florence) but he does list the Denzinger references to them. I believe in both BoD and BoB, but I do not go beyond the limits that the Church has infallibly set, in spite of what the post-conciliar popes, SSPX, etc. are saying.
-
Fr. Feeney was opposing the outright DENIAL of the dogma of EENS. This is what was occurring in Boston at the time. The Holy Office letter was not condemning Fr. Feeney...it was explaining the correct understanding of the dogma...which was at odds with both Fr. Feeney AND those who were denying the dogma or obscuring it's meaning.
Sure, it was advancing the heresy of implicit faith, which Pius XII (a progressive pope, according to most observers) also advanced, which paved the way for Vatican II. Father Feeney was never condemned. We all know this. As a matter of fact, even JPII did not condemn Feeneyism, but I do not have the docuмent where he (JP II) cites the three de fide pronouncements (Lateran, Unam Sanctam, Florence) but he does list the Denzinger references to them. I believe in both BoD and BoB, but I do not go beyond the limits that the Church has infallibly set, in spite of what the post-conciliar popes, SSPX, etc. are saying.
No, I don't think so. The heresy being advanced was an invisible membership in the Church in a much broader sense. Vatican II broadened the Church to include all people and all religions in an "imperfect way". Imperfect communion has to do with the SECT...not any individual.
The visibility of the Church requires a visible membership.
-
The visibility of the Church requires a visible membership.
That is not what the 1949 letter said, though! Have you read it?
-
The visibility of the Church requires a visible membership.
That is not what the 1949 letter said, though! Have you read it?
Sure I have...and yes, it says just that.
-
-
-
These are simply not in conflict. You think they conflict...but they do not.
For starters, here is St. Thomas:
"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.
-
Catholic Answers response to Feeneyism...
you have to account for the fact that both of these Popes lived centuries before the Reformation. At the time there werent any non Catholic Christians. i think the Church's position is perfectly consistent. even now the Church claims that all salvation comes through the Catholic Church but modern Popes have also acknowledged the work of the Holy Spirit in some non Catholic churches.
this is no contradiction, its called the Development of Doctrine. makes perfect sense to me.
-
Don I'm impressed. Now look at the infallible decrees treating on baptism, and see that there is indeed a conflict with baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
you have to account for the fact that both of these Popes lived centuries before the Reformation. At the time there werent any non Catholic Christians. i think the Church's position is perfectly consistent. even now the Church claims that all salvation comes through the Catholic Church but modern Popes have also acknowledged the work of the Holy Spirit in some non Catholic churches.
this is no contradiction, its called the Development of Doctrine. makes perfect sense to me.
So you buy the implicit faith heresy too, huh?
First of all, their were sects claiming to be Christian though they were not, even before the Protestant revolt (schismatics).
Second, perhaps you would do better to listen to popes rather than some Novus Ordo 'catholic' at 'catholic'answers.
Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the PROFESSION of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care.
With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him," and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate."
Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me." A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"
-
Catholic Answers response to Feeneyism...
you have to account for the fact that both of these Popes lived centuries before the Reformation. At the time there werent any non Catholic Christians. i think the Church's position is perfectly consistent. even now the Church claims that all salvation comes through the Catholic Church but modern Popes have also acknowledged the work of the Holy Spirit in some non Catholic churches.
this is no contradiction, its called the Development of Doctrine. makes perfect sense to me.
This is simply false. Prior to the Reformation, non-Catholic Christians were called heretics.
-
Don I'm impressed. Now look at the infallible decrees treating on baptism, and see that there is indeed a conflict with baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
I sympathize with Father Feeney, really, I do. In my opinion, the Traditional Catholic Movement started with him, and I think that he was the greatest priest and defender of the Faith during the entire 20th-century. 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. Those churchmen are agnostics, who want Catholic spirituality to complement their agnosticism. They are descendants of the deists, who evolved (no pun intended) into the modern atheistic movement. Their faith is not based upon Revelation but upon Darwin, Kant, Hume, and the rest of the French philosophes who gave us the deistic, Masonic American and French revolutions.
I am with Feeneyism 100%. The BoD and BoB doctrines are, IMHO, a very minor difference between us.
-
Ugh, did it again! Votum. But, here's a wonderful definition:
http://www.online-dictionary.biz/latin/english/meaning/votum
votum: prayer, wish, desire, vow, promise to god
-
For the record, I posted the CA response for humor's sake.
I'm against Feeneyism but not for the reasons in that post.
-
The Holy Office of Pius XII settled the Feeney issue in the 50's. Open and shut. It is amazing to me that his adherents still slam the door to Heaven to souls the Church does not.
Bottom line is that they indulge in private interpretation of a dogma that contradicts the Church's own interpretation.
-
The Holy Office of Pius XII settled the Feeney issue in the 50's. Open and shut. It is amazing to me that his adherents still slam the door to Heaven to souls the Church does not.
Bottom line is that they indulge in private interpretation of a dogma that contradicts the Church's own interpretation.
They settled nothing; if anything, they excommunicated themselves. What you are asking us to believe is that the Holy Spirit speaks with a forked tongue. You are no different than the modernists at EWTN and CA.
-
So the Holy Office excommunicated itself in excommunicating Fr. Feeney?
-
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.
-
So the Holy Office excommunicated itself in excommunicating Fr. Feeney?
Probably.
-
These are simply not in conflict. You think they conflict...but they do not.
For starters, here is St. Thomas:
"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.
-
So the Holy Office excommunicated itself in excommunicating Fr. Feeney?
Probably.
Oh man...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
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.
-
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? :)
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
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?
-
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?
I was present at my fourth child's birth, as was my wife! Appropriate or not, I did it, and as it was done correctly, it cannot be done again.
-
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.
Ignorance does not save. What is faith? This is how the Fathers defined it:
"That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)
-
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?
I was present at my fourth child's birth, as was my wife! Appropriate or not, I did it, and as it was done correctly, it cannot be done again.
What you did was wrong. If there was no danger of death, YOU WERE WRONG. Go look it up.
Like I said before, YOU and I do not have the same rule of Faith.
-
I was present at my fourth child's birth, as was my wife! Appropriate or not, I did it, and as it was done correctly, it cannot be done again.
What you did was wrong. If there was no danger of death, YOU WERE WRONG. Go look it up.
SJB's correct. Laypeople may only baptise when there's danger of death.
True, it'll be valid, but a priest will need to be informed. Ceremonies should be supplied (like the exorcism), and what about the baptism certificate?
-
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?
I was present at my fourth child's birth, as was my wife! Appropriate or not, I did it, and as it was done correctly, it cannot be done again.
What you did was wrong. If there was no danger of death, YOU WERE WRONG. Go look it up.
Like I said before, YOU and I do not have the same rule of Faith.
That has nothing to do with this thread. Besides, no priest was available.
-
I was present at my fourth child's birth, as was my wife! Appropriate or not, I did it, and as it was done correctly, it cannot be done again.
What you did was wrong. If there was no danger of death, YOU WERE WRONG. Go look it up.
SJB's correct. Laypeople may only baptise when there's danger of death.
True, it'll be valid, but a priest will need to be informed. Ceremonies should be supplied (like the exorcism), and what about the baptism certificate?
We have no traditional priest available to us, and I do not want my children ("kids") raised in the NO. I have posted on this elsewhere.
-
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.
Ignorance does not save.
That is correct. Supernatural Faith is required. The remedy for ignorance is knowledge...in all areas...including the basic catechism on the sacraments.
What is faith? This is how the Fathers defined it:
"That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)
So that means if a mute or infant is baptised...and he can't say with his mouth..."'Jesus is Lord"...then he's damned, right?
Is that what you're saying?
-
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?
I was present at my fourth child's birth, as was my wife! Appropriate or not, I did it, and as it was done correctly, it cannot be done again.
What you did was wrong. If there was no danger of death, YOU WERE WRONG. Go look it up.
Like I said before, YOU and I do not have the same rule of Faith.
That has nothing to do with this thread. Besides, no priest was available.
You were wrong, Don...and you just don't care.
-
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.
You're judging internals. I know many people who make promises on a whim, and fail to follow through. I know many people who desired to succeed at something, and through hard work, managed to follow through successfully.
By your reasoning, any who has 'vowed', no matter how flippantly, will be saved. But those who have desired fervently, but did not survive some disaster, are lost.
-
Supernatural Faith in Jesus Christ is required. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, etc. do not have this, and they cannot be saved without it. Is not it written,
"Everyone who believes in the Son will not be judged. But everyone who does not believe in him is judged already, because he does not believe in the name of God's only Son." (John 3:18)
So that means if a mute or infant is baptised...and he can't say with his mouth..."'Jesus is Lord"...then he's damned, right?
Is that what you're saying?
An infant can only be saved from Baptism; a mute may not be to say with his mouth, be he/she could still write, sign, or at least, nod, so yes, mutes can be saved, if they believe.
-
SJB's correct. Laypeople may only baptise when there's danger of death.
True, it'll be valid, but a priest will need to be informed. Ceremonies should be supplied (like the exorcism), and what about the baptism certificate?
We have no traditional priest available to us, and I do not want my children ("kids") raised in the NO. I have posted on this elsewhere.
Well, that makes it more understandable I guess.
But if your children are to make their first Confession and Holy Communion, be confirmed, get married, etc, one day, you'll need to get a baptism certificate sorted at some stage.
-
You were wrong, Don...and you just don't care.
Neither is true.
-
Well, that makes it more understandable I guess.
But if your children are to make their first Confession and Holy Communion, be confirmed, get married, etc, one day, you'll need to get a baptism certificate sorted at some stage.
I understand that. As you know, though, traditional Catholic priests are few in number. None in my area.
-
By your reasoning, any who has 'vowed', no matter how flippantly, will be saved. But those who have desired fervently, but did not survive some disaster, are lost.
No, this is not what Trent said.
-
Well, that makes it more understandable I guess.
But if your children are to make their first Confession and Holy Communion, be confirmed, get married, etc, one day, you'll need to get a baptism certificate sorted at some stage.
I understand that. As you know, though, traditional Catholic priests are few in number. None in my area.
I hope your situation improves.
-
Supernatural Faith in Jesus Christ is required. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, etc. do not have this, and they cannot be saved without it. Is not it written,
"Everyone who believes in the Son will not be judged. But everyone who does not believe in him is judged already, because he does not believe in the name of God's only Son." (John 3:18)
So that means if a mute or infant is baptised...and he can't say with his mouth..."'Jesus is Lord"...then he's damned, right?
Is that what you're saying?
An infant can only be saved from Baptism; a mute may not be to say with his mouth, be he/she could still write, sign, or at least, nod, so yes, mutes can be saved, if they believe.
That's not what your quote says, Don. Or are you understanding it as the Church does?
-
Supernatural Faith AND charity are required and have been at ALL times, for salvation.
Correct. They are both bestowed upon a soul by baptism, even an infant's soul, so you can stop badgering Don.
So that means if a mute or infant is baptised...and he can't say with his mouth..."'Jesus is Lord"...then he's damned, right?
Is that what you're saying?
:clown:
The sacraments were not (before they even existed)
Correct.
and are not today in ALL cases.
Absolutely false. Show me ONE dogmatic definition that you believe supports this position, and I will show you half a dozen or more that reveal you to be distorting the meaning of the definition.
In fact, the very decree that so many baptism of desire heretics use to support their heresy specifically states "since the promulgation of the Gospel, this translation (to the state of justification) CANNOT be effect WITHOUT the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof."
First, Trent does NOT teach that the vow or desire to receive baptism may in itself bring about justification, which is the sacramental effect of baptism. It teaches that WITHOUT this vow, justification is NOT possible, hence a person who receives baptism, but does not believe, and therefore does not truly desire the sacrament, but does it for human respect, etc. IS NOT JUSTIFIED.
Likewise, the Council teaches that justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration.
It specifies these two things, without which there is no justification. It does NOT propose one as an alternative to the other. Anyone who believes that it does is inconsistent unless they believe a person can be justified by baptism without the desire to receive it.
Which baptism of desire heretic will stand up and say this? Which of you believes that a person who is baptized against his will is cleansed of original sin? I want an answer.
And if this is impossible, that is if the sacrament without the vow does not justify, then do you not now see that you are arbitrarily and hypocritically assigning this power to the vow without the sacrament?
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
And, according to the Fathers and the saints, this Law went into effect,
Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
So the argument of the Good Thief, while superficially compelling in favour of BoD, is actually meaningless, since;
1) There is no proof he wasn't baptized already
2) He did not go to heaven, but to paradise (the limbo of the Fathers, which no longer exists) and Christ likely baptized everyone while He was there.
3) The Law of baptism had not been promulgated yet at that time anyway.
All other arguments for BoD are either emotion driven, or they neglect or explain away the dogmatic and irreformable definitions of the Holy See, which are to be understood not as they were interpreted by the practice of the hierarchy, or the writings of clergy, theologians etc, but as they were once declared (so saith Pope Pius IX, in an infallible, irreformable decree).
The very words of the definition are infallible and irreformable, of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, as it is written.
-
Well, that makes it more understandable I guess.
But if your children are to make their first Confession and Holy Communion, be confirmed, get married, etc, one day, you'll need to get a baptism certificate sorted at some stage.
I understand that. As you know, though, traditional Catholic priests are few in number. None in my area.
I hope your situation improves.
Me, too. We cannot afford to move.