Author Topic: Feenyism (Read 12038 times)

nadieimportante · « **Reply #105 on:** December 23, 2011, 11:50:39 AM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
Hang on. Nadie, you're not going to assert liberal nonsense which wrecks the nature of the deposit of faith and the teaching activity of the Church, making it out to be a process of evolution by which dogma changes over time, then when you get called on it, disappear with more yelling in over-sized print.

You can't even retract a blatant liberal error of your own. Why should anybody give you the slightest consideration when you pretend to teach things equally incompatible with the plain words of the approved theologians?

The development of dogma cannot be explained by the metaphor of a seed becoming a tree. It's wrong, and opens the way to all manner of heresy.

Your teachings of invincible ignorance and implicit faith in a God that rewards "tag team", opened the door to all the errors of Vatican II.

What you posted is a strawman. What you teach is not "the deposit of faith" by any stretch of the imagination. You are just like the Vatican II clergy, you say something is a certain way and it must be believed because "the deposit of faith". You are a schizophrenic amateur theologian. In your teaching on invincible ignorance and implicit faith in a God that rewards "tag team", you oppose St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus and you are 100% in accord with Vatican II, yet you are a sedevacantes. Go figure. The progressivists would shew you up and spit you out in seconds with thie sophisms, they alreadt got you on the biggest one. You are one of them on this subject.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #106 on:** December 23, 2011, 10:03:25 PM »

Actually, Nadie, you have no idea. I hold that what St. Thomas says is absolutely necessary for salvation (i.e. in relation to the objects of faith) is right. I don't believe that faith in God as rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked suffices.

But since the Church has permitted the controversy, I can't say that anybody who differs with me (and St. Thomas) is unorthodox. The erroneous idea that a man can be saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ is a tolerated opinion within the Church. We may not like the fact, but that's how it is.

But none of that matters in relation to our argument, because you reject the principle of implicit faith as such. You make an arbitrary and wrong distinction between implicit faith of a member of the Church and the implicit faith of one who desires to become a member but has not yet been baptised. But there's no difference between the two as far as the concept of implicit faith goes. Implicit faith is merely the willingness to believe, on the authority of God, all that He has revealed and has presented for our belief through the Church teaching.

You keep defining implicit faith as the liberals do, and then you argue against that. I am happy for you to argue against liberal lies (although you have your own liberal lie on the evolution of dogma and you won't give that up - go figure). What I object to is that you keep accusing the approved theologians of holding those liberal lies. But you give no proof, such as a text from one of those theologians. Instead, you just insist that liberalism follows from the principles they express. So it's just your opinion, and it's not even logical.

Luther quoted St. Augustine on Predestination and developed his own interpretation which accused God of creating men for damnation. The Catholic theologians who argued against Luther didn't reject Predestination in its proper meaning, they just refuted Luther's false interpretation. Likewise, liberals have taken the Church's teaching on the requirements for salvation and twisted them so as to make the dogma EENS an empty formula. Fr. Feeney made the mistake of rejecting the true principles instead of understanding them properly and applying them accurately. If he had been arguing against Luther, he'd have denied Predestination itself.

All heresy starts with the exaggeration of some truth and leads to the denial of some related and complementary truth. Liberals and Feeneyites both do this, but in opposite directions. But what is interesting about both types is that they share a common principle - neither truly accepts the dogma that the preaching of the Church is the proximate rule of faith.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #107 on:** December 24, 2011, 10:51:21 AM »

Implicit has to have an object that it seeks. The terms are

Implicit desire for baptism (of St. Thomas & St. Alphonsus)

Implicit faith in a God that rewards (totally opposed by St. Thomas & St. Alphonsus)

One has to be very precise in these terms or else someone will say the implicit faith of St. Thomas for Implicit faith in a God that rewards. Look at how long it took to corral you to admit that Implicit faith in a God that rewards is only a tolerated theological opinion.

After Christmas we'll continue on this subject of Implicit faith in a God that rewards, for it is at the foundation of the ecuмnemism movement and Assisi and practically all of what comes out of Vatican II. It is so full of holes that there is no way anyone could defend it without having to violate the law of non-contradiction at every turn.

As far as explicit and implicit baptism of desire (of St. Thomas & St. Alphonsus), they would not have caused any ecuмenistic revolution, as they only affected people who wanted explicitly to be Catholics, but died "by accident" before they could be baptized, theories that I can't see any positive pupose in teaching to the laity in catechisms (and St. Alphonsus Ligouri said so), and it was not till 1917 of Code of Canon Law that a catechumen was allowed to have a Catholic burial.

Merry 12 days of Christmas and God Bless

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #108 on:** December 26, 2011, 09:22:40 PM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

Look at how long it took to corral you to admit that Implicit faith in a God that rewards is only a tolerated theological opinion.

Now you are being naughty, Nadie.

I made it clear what I thought in my first summary post where I laid out the Church's doctrine on the things which are necessary for salvation. Go back and re-read it, then you ought to apologise for your comment here.

Nishant · « **Reply #109 on:** December 27, 2011, 09:06:20 AM »

Quote

Dear Nishant2011,

I'm sorry I don't have the time to answer all your comments. Suffice it to say that every source that I've posted clearly teaches the contrary of most of what you wrote about the novel liberal theory of implicit faith in a God that rewards. That theory is by no means even close to being a doctrine of the Catholic Church, and is opposed to and bty the the teachings of St. Thomas and all the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints

That's cool, but please note - I did not talk of an "implicit faith in a God that rewards", but a desire for baptism that is implicit in the resolve to do all that God requires. Since St.Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith" there is in my opinion no dichotomy between implicit faith (which you deny) and implicit desire (which you say you accept, but classify as not important) since both pertain to obedience.

I freely grant there may be liberal misrepresentations of implicit faith, but I for my part accept it as defined by the Holy Office of Pope Pius XII. I am aware that some deny the authenticity or weight of the letter, but it seems very implausible to me that Pope Pius XII did not fully approve of it, which seems to me to show that it is at the very least a permissible theological opinion.

Anyway, hope you had a Blessed Christmas. Grace be with you.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #110 on:** December 29, 2011, 09:15:26 AM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Quote from: nadieimportante
Look at how long it took to corral you to admit that Implicit faith in a God that rewards is only a tolerated theological opinion.

Now you are being naughty, Nadie.

I made it clear what I thought in my first summary post where I laid out the Church's doctrine on the things which are necessary for salvation. Go back and re-read it, then you ought to apologise for your comment here.

Bump.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #111 on:** December 29, 2011, 12:00:08 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Quote from: nadieimportante
Look at how long it took to corral you to admit that Implicit faith in a God that rewards is only a tolerated theological opinion.

Now you are being naughty, Nadie.

I made it clear what I thought in my first summary post where I laid out the Church's doctrine on the things which are necessary for salvation. Go back and re-read it, then you ought to apologise for your comment here.

A tolerated opinion is not a doctrine, which is what you called it now and back then.

You have called me basically a no nothing, innumerable times, and I have never asked for an apology from you. Now you ask for an apology from me for saying that it "took this long to corral you to admit that Implicit faith in a God that rewards is only a tolerated theological opinion"?

I'm flattered that you value my "insults" so highly.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #112 on:** December 29, 2011, 05:09:27 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: nadieimportante
A tolerated opinion is not a doctrine,...

Do you know that Holy Mother Church would not even tolerate a theological opinion if it were against a previously, solemnly defined dogma?

Yes, it's called a heresy. The liberal theologians know this too. That's how they come up with this speculation. It was just never foisted upon the faithfull as "doctrine"ever before.

DOGMA: Outside of the Church there is no salvation, one must believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, one must be baptized to be saved.

SPECULATION: non-Catholics can belong to the soul of the Church, be invincible ignorant and believe in a God that rewards, and if the man is of good will, he be can baptized invisible by his implicitly faith in a God that rewards.

HERESY: Outside of the Church there is salvation, one does not have to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, baptism is not necesary for salvation

The devil is no idiot. Rat poison is 99% nutritious

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #113 on:** December 29, 2011, 05:40:18 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: nadieimportante
The devil is no idiot. Rat poison is 99% nutritious

Yes, the devil is no idiot. He urges you to continue to evade addressing my persistent & direct question to you about "accident" and "deprived" as taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

You claim to reject the New Catechism of the Catholic Church based on your own "reason".

Catechisms aren't infallible, after all.

And you don't know your history very well either. There were priests, religious and Bishops who've held questionable opinions in the past, and nothing was done to deal with them.

Notably, Nicolas of Cusa, for one.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #114 on:** December 29, 2011, 06:05:36 PM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

A tolerated opinion is not a doctrine, which is what you called it now and back then.

Yes, it is. A heresy is a doctrine too. A doctrine is just a teaching.

But that's beside the point. I made clear that I don't personally accept the minimalist position on the doctrines necessary for salvation. So you didn't need to "corral" me into admitting this.

I will take your odd comment about my request for a retraction as implicit admission that the allegation was unsustained. Thank you.

A tolerated opinion is precisely one which may well be erroneous, but which the Church herself has not yet judged, and therefore she permits her future priests to be taught it in her seminaries.

Yes, I understand that you know better than the Church, your powers of reason and yours standards of orthodoxy are higher than hers, but that's neither here nor there to anybody but you. The rest of us try to think with the Church.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #115 on:** December 30, 2011, 08:22:04 AM »

nadieimportante said:
A tolerated opinion is not a doctrine, which is what you called it now and back then.

Gertrude responds: Yes, it is. A heresy is a doctrine too. A doctrine is just a teaching.

Nadie responds: You paint with a broad brush. So much for your theological books! You just posted a moronic comment. We are Catholic, doctrine to a Catholic is only Catholic Doctrine, not heresy or the "doctrines" of false religions.

DOCTRINE. That which is taught. Christian doctrine ordinarily means that body of revealed and defined, truth which a Catholic is bound to hold, but is often extended to include those teachings which are not of faith but are generally held and acted upon. Occasionally the word indicates these last only, "the teachings of theologians," as distinct from "the faith taught by the Church." (A Catholic Dictionary, by Donald Attwater, TAN Books )

Quote

I will take your odd comment about my request for a retraction as implicit admission that the allegation was unsustained. Thank you.

That's your problem, when you have nothing explicit, you grab on to the only thing you could have, a fantasy. Read above about doctrine, the proper use of the term is very important.

Quote

A tolerated opinion is precisely one which may well be erroneous, but which the Church herself has not yet judged, and therefore she permits her future priests to be taught it in her seminaries.

That's right, and a tolerated opinion can be totally wrong. Even the unanimous opinion of theologians during a period of time can be totally wrong.

Quote

Yes, I understand that you know better than the Church, your powers of reason and yours standards of orthodoxy are higher than hers, but that's neither here nor there to anybody but you. The rest of us try to think with the Church.

My Church has clear dogmas revealed by the Holy Ghost, which I believe as they are written. Your Church has theological speculations, "tolerated" theories, that fit your own beliefs only through defying the law of non-contradiction at every turn.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #116 on:** December 30, 2011, 08:32:30 AM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: nadieimportante
The devil is no idiot. Rat poison is 99% nutritious

Yes, the devil is no idiot. He urges you to continue to evade addressing my persistent & direct question to you about "accident" and "deprived" as taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

You are like a heckler in the crowd at a basketball game. Your voice is as nothing. The more that I respond to you the worse you get. This is the last time I'll respond to you on the subject of salvation of non-Catholics. Maybe there's some other subject that you have some knowledge on, so, I'll leave that door open, for other subjects.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #117 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:43:38 AM »

Feeneyism can be rejected by common sense.

Do Feeneyites believe that every single non-Jew from the time of Abraham to Christ was necessarily damned to Hell?

Do they seriously believe that every soul since Christ who was not 1.) water baptized into the Catholic Church and 2.) died in a state of grace, was necessarily damned to eternal Hellfire?

Ignoring the fact that Popes have rejected this insane view (Pius IX and XII for starters), it should be rejected solely out of common sense.

A god that would create humanity simply to damn 99.9% of them for not doing something they had no idea they needed to do to be saved, is demonic and sadistic.

Feeneyites seem to completely disregard the necessary elements of knowledge and consent of the will in order to be guilty of mortal sin. Unless a soul has the Faith adequately explained to him, and then he rejects that Faith knowing it is necessary for salvation and with free consent of the will, he is guilty of no mortal sin.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #118 on:** December 30, 2011, 12:57:44 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Feeneyism can be rejected by common sense.

Do Feeneyites believe that every single non-Jew from the time of Abraham to Christ was necessarily damned to Hell?

Do they seriously believe that every soul since Christ who was not 1.) water baptized into the Catholic Church and 2.) died in a state of grace, was necessarily damned to eternal Hellfire?

Ignoring the fact that Popes have rejected this insane view (Pius IX and XII for starters), it should be rejected solely out of common sense.

A god that would create humanity simply to damn 99.9% of them for not doing something they had no idea they needed to do to be saved, is demonic and sadistic.

Feeneyites seem to completely disregard the necessary elements of knowledge and consent of the will in order to be guilty of mortal sin. Unless a soul has the Faith adequately explained to him, and then he rejects that Faith knowing it is necessary for salvation and with free consent of the will, he is guilty of no mortal sin.

If you're going to criticize a position, you should understand it first.

When was the sacrament of baptism instituted?

pax · « **Reply #119 on:** December 30, 2011, 07:53:58 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Quote from: Santo Subito
Feeneyism can be rejected by common sense.

Do Feeneyites believe that every single non-Jew from the time of Abraham to Christ was necessarily damned to Hell?

Do they seriously believe that every soul since Christ who was not 1.) water baptized into the Catholic Church and 2.) died in a state of grace, was necessarily damned to eternal Hellfire?

Ignoring the fact that Popes have rejected this insane view (Pius IX and XII for starters), it should be rejected solely out of common sense.

A god that would create humanity simply to damn 99.9% of them for not doing something they had no idea they needed to do to be saved, is demonic and sadistic.

Feeneyites seem to completely disregard the necessary elements of knowledge and consent of the will in order to be guilty of mortal sin. Unless a soul has the Faith adequately explained to him, and then he rejects that Faith knowing it is necessary for salvation and with free consent of the will, he is guilty of no mortal sin.

If you're going to criticize a position, you should understand it first.

When was the sacrament of baptism instituted?

As necessary for salvation: at Pentecost.