Author Topic: Fr. Leonard Feeney - Who is he what did he teach? (Read 25535 times)

trad123 · « **Reply #75 on:** October 12, 2010, 11:23:13 PM »

Jude, in the very first link I provided

http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html

which lists the sources of Church teaching for these doctrines, the word "implicit" is stated many times.

One more source from St. Thomas:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4069.htm#article4

Quote

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; (. . .)

trad123 · « **Reply #76 on:** October 12, 2010, 11:47:38 PM »

Does anyone else this forum believe that it is impossible that the Chair of Peter can be occupied by more than one person at the same time?

trad123 · « **Reply #77 on:** October 12, 2010, 11:56:40 PM »

edit: anyone else on this

MyrnaM · « **Reply #78 on:** October 13, 2010, 07:44:41 AM »

Only one pope at a time!

Goose · « **Reply #79 on:** October 13, 2010, 12:05:11 PM »

Quote from: innocenza

To Myrna --

How do you know that BOB and BOD are de fide? Some one told you? Who? You read it? Where?

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, he states that it's proximate to the faith and not de fide. There are other theologians of the same mind - and again, there are others who say otherwise (such as St. Alphonsus Ligouri). I think it's safe to say that because of the disparity of opinion that sententia fidei proxima is the most objective opinion.

Alexandria · « **Reply #80 on:** October 13, 2010, 12:07:44 PM »

Quote from: Goose

Quote from: innocenza
To Myrna --

How do you know that BOB and BOD are de fide? Some one told you? Who? You read it? Where?

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, he states that it's proximate to the faith and not de fide. There are other theologians of the same mind - and again, there are others who say otherwise (such as St. Alphonsus Ligouri). I think it's safe to say that because of the disparity of opinion that sententia fidei proxima is the most objective opinion.

Like Limbo? That is what I always thought. I know there are various degrees of certainty, and I didn't think that BOD/BOB had made it to the top.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #81 on:** October 13, 2010, 12:21:25 PM »

Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.

Concerning Baptism

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.

*******

I have Ott here and will check that out as well, but later, have an appointment now.

Alexandria · « **Reply #82 on:** October 13, 2010, 12:25:36 PM »

It can't be de fide[/b] if there are varying opinions about it. You post Liguori, he posts Ludwig Ott, someone else something else...if it was de fide, they would all agree.

Is there a final word on this somewhere?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #83 on:** October 13, 2010, 12:30:56 PM »

He mentioned Liguori along with Ott.

Alexandria you have a free will and if you choose not to believe a de fide teaching, along with "goose" so be it. You will never shake my faith.

The teaching is in every single catechism book I have ever read, and none say it is a theory. I was taught in a Catholic school in Chicago, where the old nuns were sent to die because the newer Modern nuns were there setting the stage for Vatican II. They never said baptism of desire was a nice thought, but told us it was a de fide teaching.

Follow Feeney and his ilk, your choice.

You will always be in my prayers.

Alexandria · « **Reply #84 on:** October 13, 2010, 12:41:03 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

He mentioned Liguori along with Ott.

Alexandria you have a free will and if you choose not to believe a de fide teaching, along with "goose" so be it. You will never shake my faith.

The teaching is in every single catechism book I have ever read, and none say it is a theory. I was taught in a Catholic school in Chicago, where the old nuns were sent to die because the newer Modern nuns were there setting the stage for Vatican II. They never said baptism of desire was a nice thought, but told us it was a de fide teaching.

Follow Feeney and his ilk, your choice.

You will always be in my prayers.

Myrna, you certainly do jump to conclusions rather quickly!

It is obvious that you are not patient with a searching soul. You will forgive me if I do not take your final word for anything since, and please correct me if I am wrong, you are not an authority on anything. Is there no room in your mind to consider the possibility that you do not know everything?

Alexandria · « **Reply #85 on:** October 13, 2010, 12:49:22 PM »

To further clarify, you seem to be of the opinion that I reject BOD/BOB. I do not. I am merely uncertain as to the degree of certitude in which they are viewed.

Alexandria · « **Reply #86 on:** October 13, 2010, 01:43:41 PM »

I did some research and this article sums it all up nicely:

Quote

2. Different categories assigned by theologians? Some correspondents believe that ALL theologians would assign the same theological “categories” (“notes,” “qualifications,” etc.) to baptism of desire and baptism of blood if a Catholic were truly obliged to accept the teachings.

This is false.

Collectively, all the theologians cited agree that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are “in conformity with the truth presented in the Sources of Revelation and the Universal Magisterium” — otherwise, they would not teach the doctrines.

Individually, the theologians may indeed assign different categories to the doctrines —theologically certain, Catholic doctrine, de fide, etc. But any of these categories still place the teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood among those teachings Catholics must believe and adhere to. (See I.A-C.)

The specific category assigned is important for another reason. Each has a corresponding theological censure which indicates your degree of error if you deny the doctrines — whether your denial constitutes theological error, error in Catholic doctrine, or heresy.

[/b]

and this:

Quote

Further, no matter what category theologians have assigned to these teachings — theologically certain, Catholic doctrine or de fide — rejecting them has the same consequences in the moral order: you commit a mortal sin against the faith.

And finally, you must reject the notion promoted in pro-Feeney circles that such teachings may be ignored because a Catholic’s obligation “is restricted to only those matters that the infallible judgment of the Church has proposed to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith” — for that is a principle the Church condemned in the Syllabus of Errors. (Dz 1722.)

[/b]

This is from an article by Fr. Cekada ( :shocked: :scared2:).

I did not know that it didn't matter what category theologians have assigned to this belief.

You see, Myrna, that is all I was trying to find out.

(The above came from www.traditionalmass.org)

Alexandria · « **Reply #87 on:** October 13, 2010, 02:14:42 PM »

How is this reconciled:

Quote

Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[clxxxv]

[/b]

trad123 · « **Reply #88 on:** October 13, 2010, 02:48:12 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

How is this reconciled:

Quote
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[clxxxv]
[/b]

Remember that it is not absolutely necessary for salvation to be a member of the Church, but within it, and it is possible to be within the Church without being a member. United to the body of the Church in desire, and the soul of the Church in actuality.

Alexandria · « **Reply #89 on:** October 13, 2010, 02:51:05 PM »

Quote from: trad123

Quote from: Alexandria
How is this reconciled:

Quote
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[clxxxv]
[/b]

Remember that it is not absolutely necessary for salvation to be a member of the Church, but within it, and it is possible to be within the Church without being a member. United to the body of the Church in desire, and the soul of the Church in actuality.

Where did you ever get such a notion? Is this like the "anonymous christian"?