Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: ServusSpiritusSancti on September 12, 2011, 04:13:54 PM
-
So, I've heard and read alot about Fr. Feeney an Feeneyism, but am not overly familar with either. All I know about Fr. Feeney is that he was a Jesuit priest who was against Vatican II, believed in only water Baptism, and started a group called "Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" (I think that's the name) which has been accused of being a "hate group" because of its attitude towards the Jews.
What I cannot figure out is why there is so much controversy surrounding him among Trads. I've read where he supposedly committed heresy. Could someone please explain to me more about him and his beliefs? Thanks.
-
I've been reading threads for quite a while now and I can't make up my mind. The arguments pro and con regarding Fr Feeney's view are both convincing.
Fr Feeney supposedly was reconciled without recanting, but as a member here pointed out (Telesphorus iirc), considering who was acting as pope at the time, that may mean nothing at all.
-
All anyone needs to know is that any docuмent(s) claiming Fr Feeney was called to Rome or ex-commed because he failed to comply is Fraudulent.
-
Father Feeney was never ex-communicated because the Pope's signature was not on that ex-communication letter. Father Feeney also never committed heresy because "baptism of desire" has been only theological speculation, but never de fide Church teaching. What is fact is the dogma of Water Baptism, which Father Feeney believed in and promoted. Father Feeney also rejected the idea that non-Catholics could receive salvation, which also is in line with the Catholic dogma of "Outside the Church there is no salvation". Therefore Father Feeney was a true traditional Catholic upholding the Catholic faith.
It was the modernists "baptism of desire" and "invincible ignorance" promoters who tried to discredit Father Feeney. Those modernists wanted their pet theological concepts to be considered as fact. Its kinda like whats happening with the Global Warming and Evolution crowd. Instead of their scientific proposals remaining theory, they instead try to push it off as being fact.
-
IOW-- there is no controversy re: Fr Feeney.
-
Father Feeney was never ex-communicated because the Pope's signature was not on that ex-communication letter. Father Feeney also never committed heresy because "baptism of desire" has been only theological speculation, but never de fide Church teaching. What is fact is the dogma of Water Baptism, which Father Feeney believed in and promoted. Father Feeney also rejected the idea that non-Catholics could receive salvation, which also is in line with the Catholic dogma of "Outside the Church there is no salvation". Therefore Father Feeney was a true traditional Catholic upholding the Catholic faith.
Thank you.
It was the modernists "baptism of desire" and "invincible ignorance" promoters who tried to discredit Father Feeney. Those modernists wanted their pet theological concepts to be considered as fact. Its kinda like whats happening with the Global Warming and Evolution crowd. Instead of their scientific proposals remaining theory, they instead try to push it off as being fact.
I personally have become sick of even talking about BoD and BoB, and just accept it as a possibility that I highly doubt happens or has happened for anyone. If a few of the saints taught it, *maybe* it might be possible, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily happens for anyone. I'm still waiting for someone to prove, without a doubt, that someone who was not baptised by water went to heaven. No one can prove someone was never baptised by water. Just because the Church has canonized someone who is believed to have died without water baptism, that does not necessarily mean that they did. This is just something we cannot really know.
Invincible ignorance DEFINITELY cannot save anyone. Definitely not. No saint pre-V2 has ever taught that.
-
Thanks Charles, Deliveringit, and Daegus for your replies.
-
When the time comes, people will realize that you can't cling too tightly to Holy Mother Church.
Were there any who were saved OUTSIDE the Ark of Noah? No... although I'd be willing to guarantee there was a WHOLE LOT of 'desiring' going on.
-
Here is my most concise answer on Fr. Feeney: Fr. Feeney taught that, although one could theoretically be justified by BOD, nevertheless, that person STILL does not have what is required to go to heaven: The sacramental character of baptism.
-
Here is my most concise answer on Fr. Feeney: Fr. Feeney taught that, although one could theoretically be justified by BOD, nevertheless, that person STILL does not have what is required to go to heaven: The sacramental character of baptism.
I agree with this answer.
If a person is sincere and is about to die, will God provide that person what they need, or will God wave the requirement and grant salvation? There needs to be an explicit ex-cathedra declaration regarding BOD specifically............hopefully "the desire" has sufficed all along!
Either way, the thing I find fascinating about the whole "Boston Heresy Case" is that there never was any heresy on the part of Fr. Feeney. Anyone who investigates beyond news media headlines will easily discover this fact. I also find it fascinating when I think about how Fr., being one of the first to deal with the newly emerging modernists of his day must have been completely flabbergasted at what was happening to the faith way back then.
Here's a snip from The Loyolas and the Cabots (http://catholicism.org/book-loyolas-and-the-cabots.html) - a really awesome account of what the H happened back then -a great read if you've not read it yet.
....The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being intolerant and bigoted. If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded....
On another note, I am puzzled about the fruits of the SBC, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart and Fr. Feeney. What or where are their / his fruits? I have no clue but it seems to me that his efforts have not born any fruits at all - any thoughts from anyone?
-
Here is my most concise answer on Fr. Feeney: Fr. Feeney taught that, although one could theoretically be justified by BOD, nevertheless, that person STILL does not have what is required to go to heaven: The sacramental character of baptism.
This is an act of heresy, BOD was always taught throughout the history of the church, there are Saints that were from BOB and BOD is also in the Catechism of Trent.
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
-
Why is it an act of heresy? Does not Our Lord Himself command that without water there is no salvation? Further, no one is bound to believe in BOD as it is not a dogma, as regards baptism, only Sacramental Baptism is binding.
At any rate, there is no "unforeseen accident" to God.
-
Why is it an act of heresy? Does not Our Lord Himself command that without water there is no salvation? Further, no one is bound to believe in BOD as it is not a dogma, as regards baptism, only Sacramental Baptism is binding.
At any rate, there is no "unforeseen accident" to God.
It is a Dogma, Extraordinary Magisterium which you are asking for, is defined Dogma. ordinary Magisterium, which BOD and BOB pertain are Dogma's undefined but still required assent.
-
Why is it an act of heresy? Does not Our Lord Himself command that without water there is no salvation? Further, no one is bound to believe in BOD as it is not a dogma, as regards baptism, only Sacramental Baptism is binding.
At any rate, there is no "unforeseen accident" to God.
It is a Dogma, Extraordinary Magisterium which you are asking for, is defined Dogma. ordinary Magisterium, which BOD and BOB pertain are Dogma's undefined but still required assent.
One of the marks of a Dogma is that it's meaning does not change and we are bound to believe it because it was always a part of the Deposit of Faith.
BOD has dozens if not hundreds of different meanings, theological opinions and applications - the one thing they all seem to revolve around is the "unforeseen accident" or the "death bed conversion" - and though it has been taught but because there are so many different meanings, it is not a dogma, certainly not defined, and no one is bound to believe it. As such, one who chooses not to believe in BOD is not guilty of any heresy - obviously the same cannot be said of Sacramental Baptism.
-
Why is it an act of heresy? Does not Our Lord Himself command that without water there is no salvation? Further, no one is bound to believe in BOD as it is not a dogma, as regards baptism, only Sacramental Baptism is binding.
At any rate, there is no "unforeseen accident" to God.
It is a Dogma, Extraordinary Magisterium which you are asking for, is defined Dogma. ordinary Magisterium, which BOD and BOB pertain are Dogma's undefined but still required assent.
One of the marks of a Dogma is that it's meaning does not change and we are bound to believe it because it was always a part of the Deposit of Faith.
BOD has dozens if not hundreds of different meanings, theological opinions and applications - the one thing they all seem to revolve around is the "unforeseen accident" or the "death bed conversion" - and though it has been taught but because there are so many different meanings, it is not a dogma, certainly not defined, and no one is bound to believe it. As such, one who chooses not to believe in BOD is not guilty of any heresy - obviously the same cannot be said of Sacramental Baptism.
This is false, BOD has been taught always by the Catholic Church, the fact someone or some people may have had heretically misinterpreted it is irrellevant. Your Definition of a Dogma is also false, Dogma is that which came from Christ or the Apostles and handed down to us through scripture or tradition.
Furthermore you are contradicting the official Catechism of the Catholic Church created by Trent and used for all Priests up until present Crisis in the Church.
I have not seen these dozens of different meanings, nor do I care about them, When someone is on their way to be baptized or is a catechuman and dies before recieving Baptism they are given sactifying grace through their desire to Join the Kingdom of Heaven.
-
I should also point out that when the Extraordinary Magisterium is invoked it is condemning people who have denied Dogma's of the Ordinary Magisterium, it is not a declaration that they now know the Dogma that wasn't known before, it is the correction of errors that have arisen due to heresy.
-
This is false, BOD has been taught always by the Catholic Church, the fact someone or some people may have had heretically misinterpreted it is irrellevant. Your Definition of a Dogma is also false, Dogma is that which came from Christ or the Apostles and handed down to us through scripture or tradition.
Furthermore you are contradicting the official Catechism of the Catholic Church created by Trent and used for all Priests up until present Crisis in the Church.
I have not seen these dozens of different meanings, nor do I care about them, When someone is on their way to be baptized or is a catechuman and dies before recieving Baptism they are given sactifying grace through their desire to Join the Kingdom of Heaven.
I cannot agree that it has always been taught. I can see where the Sacrament has always been taught - if not with the actual Baptism with Water of Our Lord Himself, then by His command before he Ascended into heaven. But BOD, unlike the Sacrament, has no Scriptural basis - quite the opposite actually.
Some notables who taught it either contradicted it in their other teachings as was the case with St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas - or retracted the teaching all together as was the case with St. Augustine.
At any rate, one cannot rely exclusively on the catechisms for the simple reason that they are constantly being revised, updated and changed. Even the Catechism of St. Pius V (I think that's the one) discloses in it's opening pages that catechisms are certainly not infallible and are subject to error.
IMO, saying BOD is dogma because many have taught it is pretty much the same as saying the NO is fine because the magisterium promulgated it. IOW, that is not sound reasoning when BOD contradicts defined Dogma which states the Sacrament is necessary.
-
Stubborn, are we required to hold to the unanimous consent of theologians, since it is theologians who FORM the prelates theology?
-
I cannot agree that it has always been taught. I can see where the Sacrament has always been taught - if not with the actual Baptism with Water of Our Lord Himself, then by His command before he Ascended into heaven. But BOD, unlike the Sacrament, has no Scriptural basis - quite the opposite actually.
It is not for you to decide if it was always taught, you are a laymen, the teaching is actually in the canons of trent aswell.
Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire for them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema (On the Sacraments in General, Dz. 847, emphasis added).
That is from the Extraordinary Magisterium, as for the Ordinary Magisterium I can personally can trace it back from the Catechism of Trent which was taught to all Priests from Trent to V2, before Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and more. The Earliest I can trace it back to is the year 392 where Saint Ambrose, he writes:
"But I hear that you mourn, because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism ... Does he not have the grace that he desired; does he not have what he asked for? Certainly what he asked for, he received. And hence it says ‘But the just man, if he be prevented with death, shall be in rest’’ [Wis. 4:7] (PL 16, 1374).
This is in relation to the Emperor Valentinian II who had asked St. Ambrose to Baptise him and was murdered before St. Ambrose got there.
Or lets read St. Robert Bellermine:
"Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism" (De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI).
Some notables who taught it either contradicted it in their other teachings as was the case with St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas - or retracted the teaching all together as was the case with St. Augustine.
I note you cited no sources, either way, It was taught by Popes, Theologians and has always been taught by the Church, it is a Dogma. To deny it is to be a heretic.
At any rate, one cannot rely exclusively on the catechisms for the simple reason that they are constantly being revised, updated and changed. Even the Catechism of St. Pius V (I think that's the one) discloses in it's opening pages that catechisms are certainly not infallible and are subject to error.
The Cathechism of Trent is not Constantly being revised it was and is THE Catechism since Trent. BTW the Catechism of Trent IS the Catechism of St. Pius V.
IMO, saying BOD is dogma because many have taught it is pretty much the same as saying the NO is fine because the magisterium promulgated it. IOW, that is not sound reasoning when BOD contradicts defined Dogma which states the Sacrament is necessary.
This statement is false on so many levels, it is outright lie. the Novus Ordo is a novelty, BOD is a dogma of the Church taught for all time, error cannot be taught for all time. I quoted the Canon and it states Desire can substitute if neccesary.
Do not listen to Feeney, do not listen to the Dimonds, they will lead you to a deep pit of fire.
For more Reading,
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
-
Actually Lordphan, without defending Fr. Feeney, that place where the Canons talk about desire is not about BAPTISM of desire, it is about the necessary disposition for reception of the sacrament of Baptism. It must be freely DESIRED to be received. This is what the Catechism of Trent teaches, that it is first of all NECESSARY to desire the sacrament, and then to receive it. That is what is meant by saying "WITHOUT BAPTISM OR ITS DESIRE" i.e. without baptism and its necessary predispositions...
THose who receive baptism WITHOUT desiring it commit the mortal sin of sacrilege. They receive the character, but not the grace. If they were to die after receiving this aptism sacrilegiously, they would go to hell; for they did not have the necessary predispositions of faith hope and charity.
-
That is not what it means, where did you get that from? Babies do not have the ability to desire. Do you know what you just said?
-
We baptise children immediately because they cannot desire, we do not baptise Catechumens immediately because they can desire and will recieve entrance to the church through desire if they have the right dispositions for it.
The Sede mentality is very much like the Novus Ordo, Cafeteria Catholicism on the other extreme.
-
LordPhan said:
The Sede mentality is very much like the Novus Ordo, Cafeteria Catholicism on the other extreme.
Don't be intellectually lazy and lead others astray. Feeneyism is not the sede mentality. It is totally unrelated; there are Feeneyites in VII, like Brother André Marie at the St. Benedict Center.
I see this kind of sloppy junk all the time from people in the SSPX. It is that lack of integrity that may, just perhaps, be keeping God from showing you the light. Every word you say should be strictly questioned and measured. The above is simply inexcusable and you know far better than that.
An honest person seeks the truth; he doesn't try to "win" by unfairly and inaccurately tarring the other side.
-
I had read something about the way they ran their compound with Fr. Feeney and the physical abuse (beating of the children). It was written by a nun who had left. I can't find that now. It was on line. :scratchchin:
...disturbing.
I don't know if that treatment is still advocated at their current center.
This is one thing that makes me shy away from the small Traditional communities.
I don't think it is dogma that children must be beat.
My understanding of the feeneyite position is no BoD, no BoB and no such thing as invincible ignorance. Very rigid, black and white.
-
I do not for one moment believe Fr Feeney to be guilty of child abuse. Pls source for us.
Most important thing about Fr Feeney-- any paperwork claiming to call him to Rome or allegedly ex-comming him for not showing up is Fraudulent.
-
SSPX pottage should hardly be compared to manna - especially with all the judaic and conciliar seasonings being added as of late. Of course it still has plenty of the gall and bile of insufferable pride to keep people coming back for more self-abasement.
edit: that's response to LordPhan's goofy line about "cafeteria catholicism" from sedes. You can have the feeneyite vinegar in conciliar, sspx, and sede dishes. Feeneyites aren't banned anywhere as far as I know.
-
I do not for one moment believe Fr Feeney to be guilty of child abuse. Pls source for us.
Most important thing about Fr Feeney-- any paperwork claiming to call him to Rome or allegedly ex-comming him for not showing up is Fraudulent.
This is the link I have in my files for the info written by the nun who left. I do not recall reading that Fr. Feeney was at all involved but it was occuring in the children's quarters and perpetrated by the nuns.
However when I try to go to that link now it diverts to another page at the site.
http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20071007032205/www.romancatholicism.org/
maybe its buried in the archive somewhere.
(warning: there is a drive-by download on the page... /augustine-notes.htm)
its probably been compromised by jidf.
-
That is not what it means, where did you get that from? Babies do not have the ability to desire. Do you know what you just said?
WOW...again?
When the PARENTS desire to bring their child into the Church, the Parents desire for the Child to have faith supplied by the Church suffices for the CHILD'S NECESSARY DISPOSITION...
Read the Catechism of Trent:
"Dispositions for Baptism
Intention
The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.
Insane, delirious persons who were once of sound mind and afterwards became deranged, having in their present state no wish to be baptised, are not to be admitted to Baptism, unless in danger of death. In such cases, if previous to insanity they give intimation of a wish to be baptised, the Sacrament is to be administered; without such indication previously given it is not to be administered. The same rule is to be followed with regard to persons who are unconscious.
But if they (the insane) never enjoyed the use of reason, the authority and practice of the Church decide that they are to be baptised in the faith of the Church, just as children are baptised before they come to the use of reason.
Faith
Besides a wish to be baptised, in order to obtain the grace of the Sacrament, faith is also necessary. Our Lord and Saviour has said: He that believes and is baptised shall be saved.
Repentance
Another necessary condition is repentance for past sins, and a fixed determination to avoid all sin in the future. Should anyone desire Baptism and be unwilling to correct the habit of sinning, he should be altogether rejected. For nothing is so opposed to the grace and power of Baptism as the intention and purpose of those who resolve never to abandon sin.
Come on LP this is 101 stuff...
When the Council says "None can be saved without baptism or its desire" what do you think that means? I do not deny BOD in Principle, but this is NOT about that. This is about the NECESSARY DISPOSITIONS for Baptism as REVEALED in the Catechism of Trent. The Catechism INTERPRETS and APPLIES the Teaching of the Council.
Just look at how it is phrased-"no one can be saved WITHOUT BAPTISM OR ITS DESIRE." The two are taken together, not divided. The necessity of desiring baptism is a PREREQUISITE that is NECESSARY for receiving the grace of the sacrament. Hence none are saved who do not desire baptism and vow to receive it.
Why else does the church reject those who do not want it? Because it can be received SACRILEGIOUSLY in which case the very waters which are meant to save you BRAND you for special condemnation in hell. The character is given, but not the grace.
What do you think the spanish inquisition was about?
-
I do read the Catechism of Trent, if you'd paid attention I quoted it, since it proves BOD.
I never once stated that Adults do not require a Desire to be Baptised, I stated the opposite.
But that has nothing to do with the Canon. Maybe it is an americanism, but why are you reading OR as if it was AND. Canon's are exact and in Latin. I don't have the Latin text on me, but if it was translated as OR and not AND then it means OR and is not slang.
Let's do a basic 101 on English. OR is Different from AND. AND means both parts of the sentence are required, OR means one of the two are required.
This is a Canon remember, not the Catechism.
You cannot just willynilly go about interpreting things as if we were Protestants.
The Church Rejects those who do not want it, because of previous Canon's that forbid forcing people to convert in any way shape or form on pain of Excommunication.
It works like this. If one is a child they do not need the desire, they have invincible ignorence and have not obtained to the state of Reason. They cannot sin either. They are innocents but they need to get rid of the stain of Original Sin.
Adults not only need to rid themselves of Original Sin but also of Mortal and Venial Sins. Once one has obtained Reason he is culpable for all of his actions. He must desire to repent, he must desire to obtain Grace and he must desire to join Christ's Church. If he does these things and a minion of Satan kills him before he can be Baptised by Water then he still obtains the Grace of God and may go to heaven(almost undoubtably Purgatory first since one cannot gain indulgences without proper Baptism). If he is not killed he must be Baptised by Water and the Holy Ghost to join the Church.
It is no different then the Sacrament of Penance, if one is about to die, he can make an act of Contrition and the Desire to obtain the Confession for the removal of his mortal sins is enough to remove them. If he makes a miraculous recovery he must go to Confession immediately.
COME ON THIS IS 101 STUFF :P
-
Stubborn, are we required to hold to the unanimous consent of theologians, since it is theologians who FORM the prelates theology?
Not as far as I know, at least not in regards to BOD - can you think of another example?
The following is from Fr. Wathen and it simply makes sense......
In support of this position[BOD], those who adhere to it refer to the many catechisms which contain it, and to numerous saints who held it, and, the most forceful argument of all: to the fact that the consensus of theologians, living and dead, was that this view should be accepted as proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine."
The problem with this position is that (a) several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it. (b) two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it;
He then goes onto numerate the contradictions here: http://fatherwathen.com/125.html
Now the CE has this snip about proxima fidei which agrees with Fr. Wathen:
.......It is styled next, proximate to heresy when its opposition to a revealed and defined dogma is not certain, or chiefly when the truth it contradicts, though commonly accepted as revealed, has yet never been the object of a definition (proxima fidei).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03532a.htm
From a Catholic Dictionary:
....A doctrine that theologians generally regard as a truth of revelation, but that has not been finally promulgated by the Church, is said to be proximate to faith (proxima fidei), and if such a truth is guaranteed as the logical conclusion from a revealed doctrine, it is called theologically certain (theologice certa)......
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36835
-
That is not what it means, where did you get that from? Babies do not have the ability to desire. Do you know what you just said?
Babies don't have the ability to desire? Then explain to us all how it is that John the Baptist leaped for joy in his mother's womb when Jesus was near. Did not John the Baptist have desire for the Lord even while being carried in his own mother's womb?
You must believe all babies are born as atheists. Richard Dawkins would love you.
I believe all babies are born as believers in the Lord and holy scripture backs up my belief.
-
I cannot agree that it has always been taught. I can see where the Sacrament has always been taught - if not with the actual Baptism with Water of Our Lord Himself, then by His command before he Ascended into heaven. But BOD, unlike the Sacrament, has no Scriptural basis - quite the opposite actually.
It is not for you to decide if it was always taught, you are a laymen, the teaching is actually in the canons of trent aswell.
Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire for them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema (On the Sacraments in General, Dz. 847, emphasis added).
That is from the Extraordinary Magisterium, as for the Ordinary Magisterium I can personally can trace it back from the Catechism of Trent which was taught to all Priests from Trent to V2, before Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and more. The Earliest I can trace it back to is the year 392 where Saint Ambrose, he writes:
"But I hear that you mourn, because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism ... Does he not have the grace that he desired; does he not have what he asked for? Certainly what he asked for, he received. And hence it says ‘But the just man, if he be prevented with death, shall be in rest’’ [Wis. 4:7] (PL 16, 1374).
This is in relation to the Emperor Valentinian II who had asked St. Ambrose to Baptise him and was murdered before St. Ambrose got there.
Or lets read St. Robert Bellermine:
"Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism" (De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI).
Some notables who taught it either contradicted it in their other teachings as was the case with St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas - or retracted the teaching all together as was the case with St. Augustine.
I note you cited no sources, either way, It was taught by Popes, Theologians and has always been taught by the Church, it is a Dogma. To deny it is to be a heretic.
At any rate, one cannot rely exclusively on the catechisms for the simple reason that they are constantly being revised, updated and changed. Even the Catechism of St. Pius V (I think that's the one) discloses in it's opening pages that catechisms are certainly not infallible and are subject to error.
The Cathechism of Trent is not Constantly being revised it was and is THE Catechism since Trent. BTW the Catechism of Trent IS the Catechism of St. Pius V.
IMO, saying BOD is dogma because many have taught it is pretty much the same as saying the NO is fine because the magisterium promulgated it. IOW, that is not sound reasoning when BOD contradicts defined Dogma which states the Sacrament is necessary.
This statement is false on so many levels, it is outright lie. the Novus Ordo is a novelty, BOD is a dogma of the Church taught for all time, error cannot be taught for all time. I quoted the Canon and it states Desire can substitute if neccesary.
Do not listen to Feeney, do not listen to the Dimonds, they will lead you to a deep pit of fire.
For more Reading,
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
Ok, for whatever reason I cannot format my post like I want so I have to reply this way..........
In regards to Canon 4, we we must read this canon in light of that with which it is defining for all time - namely, the Sacraments: If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire for them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema
When canon 4 *is* read in light of that with which it is defining, namely, *the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation*, we see that "or the desire of" the sacraments do not grant salvation, only the grace of justification.
I'll elaborate further for the sake of clarity, *AGAIN*, read canon 4 in light of that with which it is defining - canon 4 clearly states belief in a BOD is a belief that the Sacrament is superfluous, IOW, BOD is a clear contradiction to the canon.......Trent says those who hold such a belief are anathema. Had this canon been defining the desire - or perhaps anything other than the necessity of the Sacraments, we could perhaps then use it as a support for "the desire". Agreed?
"But I hear that you mourn, because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism ... Does he not have the grace that he desired; does he not have what he asked for? Certainly what he asked for, he received. And hence it says ‘But the just man, if he be prevented with death, shall be in rest’’ [Wis. 4:7] (PL 16, 1374).
I bolded the obvious in your quote above..........IF "certainly he received what he asked for" and it is certain that he asked for Baptism, then it is certain he was baptized. There simply is no other conclusion. Agreed?
You said: I note you cited no sources, either way, It was taught by Popes, Theologians and has always been taught by the Church, it is a Dogma. To deny it is to be a heretic.
I posted it all in another thread a few months back and it'll take time to find it - let me know if you really want me to post it again.
Again, I posted to Gregory in my last post how BOD meets the requirement of proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine." It is not a dogma so please refrain from thinking that it is a dogma.
-
Here is St. Augustine - one of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium..........
From St. Augustine's book: "Retractions" - 400: Or how can they fail to be saved by water… the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.‘ If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. …nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water.
St. Augustine, 416: How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God‘s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! …For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.
FWIW, infants are not able to vow or desire to be baptized, that is one reason that the Church made sponsors (God parents) a requirement when there is no emergency.
These sponsors state their vow or "desire" explicitly in place of the infant, as would an adult being baptized state their vow or desire explicitly during Baptism Rituals - The Solemn Exorcism, Their Renunciation of Satan, Their Profession of Faith, Their Anointing etc.
THIS is the "desire" (in voto) Trent was speaking of.
-
I do read the Catechism of Trent, if you'd paid attention I quoted it, since it proves BOD.
I never once stated that Adults do not require a Desire to be Baptised, I stated the opposite.
But that has nothing to do with the Canon. Maybe it is an americanism, but why are you reading OR as if it was AND. Canon's are exact and in Latin. I don't have the Latin text on me, but if it was translated as OR and not AND then it means OR and is not slang.
Let's do a basic 101 on English. OR is Different from AND. AND means both parts of the sentence are required, OR means one of the two are required.
This is a Canon remember, not the Catechism.
You cannot just willynilly go about interpreting things as if we were Protestants.
The Church Rejects those who do not want it, because of previous Canon's that forbid forcing people to convert in any way shape or form on pain of Excommunication.
It works like this. If one is a child they do not need the desire, they have invincible ignorence and have not obtained to the state of Reason. They cannot sin either. They are innocents but they need to get rid of the stain of Original Sin.
Adults not only need to rid themselves of Original Sin but also of Mortal and Venial Sins. Once one has obtained Reason he is culpable for all of his actions. He must desire to repent, he must desire to obtain Grace and he must desire to join Christ's Church. If he does these things and a minion of Satan kills him before he can be Baptised by Water then he still obtains the Grace of God and may go to heaven(almost undoubtably Purgatory first since one cannot gain indulgences without proper Baptism). If he is not killed he must be Baptised by Water and the Holy Ghost to join the Church.
It is no different then the Sacrament of Penance, if one is about to die, he can make an act of Contrition and the Desire to obtain the Confession for the removal of his mortal sins is enough to remove them. If he makes a miraculous recovery he must go to Confession immediately.
COME ON THIS IS 101 STUFF :P
Sorry, the Catechism interprets the Council. it is plain.
"You cannot have a valid marriage without either a bride or groom."
Same thing.
-
That is not what it means, where did you get that from? Babies do not have the ability to desire. Do you know what you just said?
Babies don't have the ability to desire? Then explain to us all how it is that John the Baptist leaped for joy in his mother's womb when Jesus was near. Did not John the Baptist have desire for the Lord even while being carried in his own mother's womb?
You must believe all babies are born as atheists. Richard Dawkins would love you.
I believe all babies are born as believers in the Lord and holy scripture backs up my belief.
No, sorry LP, that is not the constant teaching of the church. That is Benny's new teaching that he based off a 30 member commision to review the history of limbo...
All babies are born impure and condemned by the guilt of original sin. They are under the wrath of God, are slaves to the devil, and have no means of obtaining the remission of their sins except through baptism. If they die without baptism, they descend to the edge of hell, where they are punished, but with a punishment different from those who die in mortal sin."
Council of Trent, Session 5:
Par. 4. . If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema.
For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Notice, the last phrase is in the context of INFANTS in a canon for INFANTS and a canon about INFANTS. Therefore, unbaptized infants cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
And, just to be sure, let me SHOW you how the council of Trent interprets John 3:5
Session 7, on Baptism,
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
Therefore, the words of Christ here are ABOUT true sacramental water baptism. The Ecuмenical Council has applied these words in the context of an unbaptized infant. therefore, we know with certainty that an infant MUST be baptized in order to enter heaven.
BUT that is not all:
in 1448 I believe we had the Ecuмenical Council of Florence which taught:
"All those who die in mortal sin, or original sin alone, descend to hell, where they are punished, but with different punishments."
Now, for an infallible and dogmatic canon to be purely hypothetical is repugnant to religious thought. Therefore, this canon MUST apply to SOMEONE.
Well, how many kinds of people in this whole wide world die in original sin alone?
Just 2:
1. Unbaptized infants.
2. Those who are mentally retarted from birth.
Therefore, this canon applies to them. Now, I KNOW people will go on about the joys of Limbo, but remember, the DETAILS of what is experienced by an unbapptized infant is speculation.
THe DOGMATIC and UNIVERSAL FACT However is that They do not see God, and wherever they go, is at LEAST to the edge of hell, whic is itself a part of hell; and what they experience is INDEED a Form of punishment.
Therefore, I hold to the Opinion of Peter Abelard and Pope Innocent III: Unbaptized infants who die are truly punished in the edge of hell, but not with the punishment of sense and with hellfire, but with the punishment of loss. THey cannot see God, and this alone is their torment.
-
Sorry LP, I was adressing that post to deliveringit1. My mistake.
-
I found the teaching from St. Alphonsus - Here is a quote from his book: http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks15liguuoft/alphonsusworks15liguuoft_djvu.txt
CHAPTER II.
SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM.
1. With regard to its necessity, it should be known that Baptism is not only the first but also the most necessary of all the sacraments. Without Baptism no one can enter heaven. Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. It is also the most necessary, inasmuch as no one is capable of receiving any other sacrament if he has not previously received Baptism. Hence, Baptism is called the gate of all the sacraments.
-
I lean towards BoD and BoB being true but honestly don't know for certain so I'd better stay out of it. It's one of those things like NFP that some say is dogma, others say is heresy. It's all very confusing to me.
-
I find it rather disconcerting that instead of actually attempting to evangelize those who are outside the Church, there are hundreds of thousands of people who claim fealty to the NO and spend their time trying to find the needle in the proverbial haystack, which is the truly invincibly ignorant heathen who is possessed of totally untainted good will and would certainly embrace God's truth if he were exposed to it.
Frankly, I think these discussions come dangerously close to ignoring the facts of original sin and actual sin. The first impairs and mars and cripples the life of the soul, rendering it dead to truly good works unless operated upon by God the Holy Spirit, and the second continues to create a further and further gulf between the heathen and sanctifying grace. In short, a person who is 'without hope and without God in the world', according to St. Paul, is NOT disposed towards any sort of good will which would direct them to obey God's Law revealed in nature, let alone to obey God's revealed Law in the Church.
Baptism of Desire and of Blood, are, again, a VERY slim and VERY doubtful bridge upon which to attempt to cross from damnation to sanctifying grace. In fact, we have NO record of any non-Catholic people talking about wanting what BOD or BOB signify; these terms and their definitions are purely hypothetical and ultimately only serve as caveats to miraculous operations which God alone could perform.
I see plenty of threads in this forum about doctrinal disputes and all sorts of other discussions, but have not seen any yet about evangelization, the effect of personal sanctity on one's personal testimony to the Truth, or any other discussions about how to bring the heathen and the heretics to the TRUE FAITH rather than working so hard to excuse them and allow them to persist in their ignorance.
St. Francis of Assisi, preacher to infidels, pray for us.
St. Anthony of Padua, hammer of heretics, terror of Hell, pray for us.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.