Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: tdrev123 on July 18, 2016, 01:19:09 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUAtPCA1rUs
Starts around 35 minute mark
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUAtPCA1rUs
Starts around 35 minute mark
Fr. Jenkins unfortunately speaks half truths, hopefully out of ignorance.
Fr. Feeney did not have 3 different teachings on the same subject, he was not summoned to Rome due to these three different teachings. Fr. Feeney did not say why he would not go to Rome so how come everyone presumes to know why he didn't go?
And since the Cardinal Pizzardo of the Holy Office never divulged the reason for the summons, how is it that everyone seems to already know why Cardinal Pizzardo summoned him?
All Fr. Feeney ever said was basically that he would be glad to go, but under the norms of Canon Law, Cardinal Pizzardo was required to give him the reason that he was being summoned - which he never never gave him, as such, per canon law, he was not legally obliged to go.
Instead of slandering Fr. Feeney for not going, why is it that no one ever asks why the Cardinal Pizzardo refused to tell him why he was summoned?
I only listened to about 30 seconds and it's the same old crap, nothing new.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUAtPCA1rUs
Starts around 35 minute mark
Who has listened to this? He makes it quite clear that Feeneyites have no idea what they are talking about. It is rather sad and tragic.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUAtPCA1rUs
Starts around 35 minute mark
Who has listened to this? He makes it quite clear that Feeneyites have no idea what they are talking about. It is rather sad and tragic.
He's like you, the truth is out there but he won't accept it any more than you will.
Not to worry tho LoE, pretty much no one preaches the dogma any longer - so that should help satisfy your obsession against it.
-
Obviously I'm not interested in what someone who absolutely has no idea what they are talking about has to say. Or at least that should have been obvious.
Carry on. :cheers:
-
What is obvious is that you have absolutely no interest in the truth. Can we at least agree that is an indisputable fact?
-
Some people slip error in ambiguously. Stubborn just bold-facedly states the opposite the truth over and over and hopes it sticks.
-
To you, dogma is error and yes, I certainly do bold-facedly state dogma word for word. You should do everything in your power to try to accept dogma as it is written from now on.
Can we agree that is something you will commit to trying?
-
Do you have anything to bring to the party apart from your babyish accusations? The question is rhetorical.
-
He makes it very clear that the very first edition of the Catechism of Trent approved by Pius V taught BOD.
-
He makes it very clear that the very first edition of the Catechism of Trent approved by Pius V taught BOD.
Yes, I have watched all of the videos in this Catechism series and I am waiting for the future episodes that will be made until the Catechism is over. I wish I didn't have to wait so long. When I discovered this series I quickly watched all of the videos in a few days but since then I have to wait like two weeks for each next video. I guess I am not patient enough.
I should say that very recently on another Cathinfo thread I pointed to this same video for the same reason, as evidence that the first edition of the Catechism of the Council of Trent taught BOD.
-
He makes it very clear that the very first edition of the Catechism of Trent approved by Pius V taught BOD.
Yes, I have watched all of the videos in this Catechism series and I am waiting for the future episodes that will be made until the Catechism is over. I wish I didn't have to wait so long. When I discovered this series I quickly watched all of the videos in a few days but since then I have to wait like two weeks for each next video. I guess I am not patient enough.
I should say that very recently on another Cathinfo thread I pointed to this same video for the same reason, as evidence that the first edition of the Catechism of the Council of Trent taught BOD.
Are the other videos good? All by Father Jenkins?
-
Are the other videos good? All by Father Jenkins?
I would highly recommend them. They are all by Father Jenkins and they are basically him reading from a pre-Vatican II Catechism and explaining it. I think they are good for those who are not experts in the faith. If you already know everything about the faith you might be bored with them, but if you are ignorant because when you were growing up no one taught you the faith (like me) I think they are excellent.
-
Are the other videos good? All by Father Jenkins?
I would highly recommend them. They are all by Father Jenkins and they are basically him reading from a pre-Vatican II Catechism and explaining it. I think they are good for those who are not experts in the faith. If you already know everything about the faith you might be bored with them, but if you are ignorant because when you were growing up no one taught you the faith (like me) I think they are excellent.
It sounds most interesting. I don't think I have any excuse not to listen. Thank you for motivating me.
-
Yes, Father Jenkins is a great preacher and teacher.
-
In Father s presentation of Baptism, (and explaining BOD), he is reading from a pre VaII Catechism, stress s the ending words ....
Will avail them to "Grace and Righteouness"
Grace and Righteouness .. These are the key words , I take from it.
Can anyone here explain to me How Grace and Righteousness translates into Salvation Without ever receiving the Waters of Regeneration ?
In other words , Define "Grace and Righteousness" from a Church teaching or docuмent.
-
In Father s presentation of Baptism, (and explaining BOD), he is reading from a pre VaII Catechism, stress s the ending words ....
Will avail them to "Grace and Righteouness"
Grace and Righteouness .. These are the key words , I take from it.
Can anyone here explain to me How Grace and Righteousness translates into Salvation Without ever receiving the Waters of Regeneration ?
In other words , Define "Grace and Righteousness" from a Church teaching or docuмent.
I believe that this phrase comes from the Tridentine Catechism. I surmise that the Latin would be ad gratiam et justitiam ... meaning to a state of grace and justification.
I'll get back to this, but there's a quote from St. Fulgentius that has almost this exact phrase in it. But if you look at the entire passage, St. Fulgentius says that the proper dispositions will avail unto grace/righteousness (something like that) ... because God will most certainly provide the Sacrament of Confession to those with these dispositions. I'll try to dig it up again. I've quoted this before and it's very revealing in terms of how we should understand the Catechism of Trent. It very much backs Father Feeney's understanding of Trent.
-
OK. St. Fulgentius refers to "salvation" rather than to "justification".
avail
And as for that young man whom we know to have believed and confessed his faith, ... God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation ...
-
oh, wait ...
But God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since he preserved him in this life until the time of his holy regeneration.
Thus the proper understanding of the passage from the Catechism of Trent.
If anyone is not baptized, not only in ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession, and salvation itself was in baptism. At his age, not only was confession without baptism of no avail: Baptism itself would be of no avail for salvation if he neither believed nor confessed.
Notice, both the CONFESSION AND THE BAPTISM are necessary for salvation, harkening back to Trent's teaching that both the laver AND the "votum" are required for justification, and harkening back to Our Lord's teaching that we must be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit.
In fact, you see the language of St. Fulgentius reflected in the Council of Trent. Trent describes the votum (so-called "desire") as the PATH TO SALVATION, the disposition to Baptism, and then says that "JUSTIFICATION ITSELF" (St. Fulgentius says "SALVATION ITSELF") follows the dispositions in the Sacrament of Baptism.
Yet another solid argument for why Trent is teaching that BOTH the votum AND the Sacrament are required for justification.
-
We know that St. Fulgentius' formulations regarding EENS were incorporated into the Church's dogmatic teachings.
Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that not only all pagans but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics who end this present life outside the Catholic Church are about to go into the eternal fire that was prepared for the Devil and his angels.
Cantate Domino[/i]]The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
-
Yes, Father Jenkins is a great preacher and teacher.
But when it comes to Fr. Feeney, he's as misguided as LoE.
-
Yes, Father Jenkins is a great preacher and teacher.
But when it comes to Fr. Feeney, he's as misguided as LoE.
Yes. I don't agree with him on that particular issue. Otherwise, he actually takes a very well reasoned and measured view on sedevacantism (he's extremely non-dogmatic about it and admits that it's only his personal opinion).
-
It would do Fr. Jenkins, the SSPX leadership, and all Catholics good to read the article by the modernist theologian By Thomas P. Rausch, S.J. and posted on another thread and here in part:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Defenders-of-Dogma-Vindicated-by-our-Enemies
Salvation outside of the Church
The Christian tradition, beginning from the earliest centuries, has affirmed salus extra ecclesia non est, there is no salvation outside the Church (Cipriano, Ep. LXXIII, 21). The rigorist interpretation of the axiom came from the work of Fulgenzio di Ruspe (467-532), a disciple of Augustine. In De fide ad Petrum, a collection of rules for the Christian life, he affirms: “Hold it with absolute certainty and never doubt that not only all the pagans, but also all the Jews, the heretics and schismatics who conclude their present life outside of the Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for his devils and his angels.” Thus in 1208, in a profession of faith to which the Waldensians, who wanted to reconcile with the Catholic Church, had to submit, Pope Innocent III prescribed the following declaration: “With the heart we believe and with the mouth we confess one only Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic, outside of which we believe no one is saved”[13].
It is interesting to study how in the course of the centuries the Church has given different interpretations and has gradually come to a better understanding of this. But first with the discovery of the New World, and then the advent of modernity, we have come to a deeper understanding of this doctrine. Pope Pius IX repeated this teaching in 1854 in his Address Singulari quadam, excluding however people in a state of invincible ignorance: “Those who ignore the true religion, when their ignorance is invincible, are not guilty of this before the eyes of the Lord”.
After the Encyclical Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII (1943) there was a magisterial pronouncement provoked by the teachings of some American theologians who interpreted the axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus in a rigorist sense, conceding salvation only to baptized Catholics and to those catechumens who had explicitly asked for entry into the Catholic Church. The Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Cushing, asked for the intervention of the Holy Office, the answer which, while reaffirming the dogmatic dignity of the axiom, condemned the rigorist interpretation, recovering the thesis of invincible ignorance (see DS 3866-3873).
Vatican Council II reiterated that the Church is necessary for salvation (LG 14), but deepened the understanding of the traditional doctrine with a decisively evolutionary passage: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience” (LG 16). The Declaration of Vatican II Nostra aetate at n. 2 uses other tones and above all changes the perspective, affirming that the Catholic Church recognizes all that is good and holy in the great worldwide religions. Pope Pius XII’s identification of the mystical body of Christ with the Catholic Church in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943), later confirmed in the Encyclical Humani generis (1950)[14], underwent a sudden evolution in Lumen gentium, which, instead of simply saying that the only Church of Christ “is” the Catholic Church, specified that it “subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by a successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure” (LG 8, emphasis ours). Finally, in a recent interview, Benedict XVI even spoke of “a profound evolution of dogma” as having occurred in the case regarding the salvation of the non-baptized.[15]
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUAtPCA1rUs
Starts around 35 minute mark
Once one takes the doctrinal position that Fr. Jenkins holds (and all other SSPX trained priests like him) that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement, they have unknowingly undermined any possibility of opposing the new Ecuмenical Ecclesiology. In other words once one thinks that dogma is not the final definitive teaching, but must be interpreted by others, then they have opened the door to having to tolerate all interpretations, in this case on baptism of desire, all interpretations from the dogma on EENS as it is written (as the strict EENS'ers teaching, like St. John Chrysostom) all the way to the teachings of Vatican II. Fr. Jenkins wants to limit everyone's belief to whatever he deems is the correct interpretation, but that is just his wishful thinking.
There are only two groups in this debate:
A) the Strict EENSers - who believe that dogma is the final definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith. (and who in the case of BOD, believe that only those can be saved who are water baptized Catholics and die in a state of sanctifying grace).
B) those who believe that dogmas are a human expression open to endless theological refinement (and believe that people can be saved from a Catholic catechumen all the way to a Muslim who has no explicit faith in Christ)