Author Topic: Fr. Leonard Feeney - Who is he what did he teach? (Read 25697 times)

trad123 · « **Reply #105 on:** October 13, 2010, 05:24:00 PM »

Quote from: Charles

What of the protestant who walks in imitation of Christ but rejects the Doctrine and Dogma of the Church ?

Can they be saved without embracing it ?

No, such a person would not be saved.

Now, if that person was in the state of invincible ignorance then strictly speaking he isn't a true heretic. I say this: if it were possible that such a person's ignorance could be removed they would surely become a Catholic. It is possible for such a person, being in such a state, to have supernatural faith.

Alexandria · « **Reply #106 on:** October 13, 2010, 05:24:31 PM »

Quote from: trad123

Quote from: Alexandria
Do you agree with these two statements: "Many people who are totally ignorant of Christ and His Church can be saved because their ignorance excuses them and confers on them baptism of desire."

No I don't agree with that, their ignorance is not a means of having Baptism of Desire. Invincible ignorance merely excuses one of any guilt.

Quote from: Alexandria
"A person can have baptism of desire, even if he is ignorant of the baptism of water, even if he refuses to be baptized by water."

I agree with the first point, but the second point is iffy. I don't think there would ever be a case like that. Catechesis is always suppose to precede the receiving of the Sacrament of Baptism.

I admit that I am not an intellectual. I also admit that I can be quite dense. But for the life of me I have no idea what it is you think or believe. You have twisted my mind like a pretzel that is beyond straightening out at this point.

If it is all the same to you, I will stick with what the Dominican Sisters of Newburgh taught me fifty years ago and leave all of this "evolving of dogma and doctrine" to others.

To think like you is to make a mockery of St. Francis Xavier, the North American Martyrs and others who suffered unspeakable tortures and sufferings to bring people to the Faith. Too bad no one ever told St. Isaac Jogues, who was foolish enough to even come back here after he managed to escape once, about implicit desires which make someone Catholic without their even knowing it.

trad123 · « **Reply #107 on:** October 13, 2010, 05:28:38 PM »

To say that this is "evolving of dogma and doctrine" is to accuse me of believing in Modernism.

trad123 · « **Reply #108 on:** October 13, 2010, 05:48:43 PM »

These doctrines do nothing to invalidate the necessity of missionary activity.

Neither Baptism of Desire or Blood can be had without the theological virtues: supernatural faith, hope, and charity.

trad123 · « **Reply #109 on:** October 13, 2010, 06:35:56 PM »

Does the fact that God Himself can, through the interior light of grace, instruct a person in the truths of religion negate the necessity for missionaries?

As stated already, supernatural faith is absolutely necessary, but this faith cannot be acquired through natural reason alone; instruction must come from somewhere.

The fact that a person may learn of the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation by other means than a preacher does not mean that missionary activity is therefore unnecessary.

trad123 · « **Reply #110 on:** October 13, 2010, 07:11:48 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

"A person can have baptism of desire (. . .) even if he refuses to be baptized by water."

I want to say something else. Why in the world would someone refuse to receive the Sacrament of Baptism? If it's out of contempt for the sacrament itself then I'd say if he were to die after he refused then he'd be damned.

anonymouse · « **Reply #111 on:** October 13, 2010, 08:06:29 PM »

If people do not have to be Catholic, or baptized with water, to get into Heaven, then why did missionaries once travel far and wide to try to convert the pagans. Why bother? Following this argument, it would be better to stay home because presenting pagans with the truth would place a great burden on their soul if they chose to reject the truth.

Myrna, the writings of a saint are not de fide and they do not equal the words of a Pope speaking on faith and morals. Besides, I don't have the original writings of St. Alphonsus and you probably don't either. Anything printed now could very easily be tampered with. Maybe he thought you didn't need baptism with water, or maybe he did think baptism with water was necessary to get to Heaven. We really don't know, and he isn't around to ask.

One thing to think about is why would a just, loving God consign an innocent infant to limbo for all eternity, because he or she wasn't baptized with water, but let someone well beyond the age of reason enter Heaven? This never made sense to me.

umblehay anmay · « **Reply #112 on:** October 13, 2010, 08:08:17 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

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]

It is my understanding that the Pope was speaking to schismatics.

No, Alexandria I don't know everything, but I know that Bod/Bob are de fide.

But other than "the nuns told me so in the 1950's" and "its in catechisms" you have no other reason to say that it's de fide.

trad123 · « **Reply #113 on:** October 13, 2010, 08:08:33 PM »

Quote from: anonymouse

One thing to think about is why would a just, loving God consign an innocent infant to limbo for all eternity, because he or she wasn't baptized with water, but let someone well beyond the age of reason enter Heaven? This never made sense to me.

Before I respond to the rest of what you've written, you mistakenly believe infants are innocent when in fact they're born in original sin.

Alexandria · « **Reply #114 on:** October 13, 2010, 08:10:24 PM »

Quote from: trad123

Quote from: Alexandria
Do you agree with these two statements: "Many people who are totally ignorant of Christ and His Church can be saved because their ignorance excuses them and confers on them baptism of desire."

No I don't agree with that, their ignorance is not a means of having Baptism of Desire. Invincible ignorance merely excuses one of any guilt.

Quote from: Alexandria
"A person can have baptism of desire, even if he is ignorant of the baptism of water, even if he refuses to be baptized by water."

I agree with the first point, but the second point is iffy. I don't think there would ever be a case like that. Catechesis is always suppose to precede the receiving of the Sacrament of Baptism.

To further clarify, "Alexandria" didn't say the above. Alexandria took those quotes from a biography of Fr. Feeney. The quotes are what Jesuits were teaching in Boston College in the 1940s.

anonymouse · « **Reply #115 on:** October 13, 2010, 08:13:48 PM »

How do you wash away the original sin?

And, yes, relatively speaking, an infant has not reached the age of reason, and is incapable of actual sin. There is still the matter of original sin, and the need for baptism with water.

Do we know of any hypothetical people who died just before they were about to be baptized with water?

trad123 · « **Reply #116 on:** October 13, 2010, 08:14:48 PM »

Quote from: anonymouse

If people do not have to be Catholic, or baptized with water, to get into Heaven, then why did missionaries once travel far and wide to try to convert the pagans. Why bother? Following this argument, it would be better to stay home because presenting pagans with the truth would place a great burden on their soul if they chose to reject the truth.

You're creating a false dilemma.

As quoted earlier:

Quote

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.

A person with such a disposition of soul would not reject the truth when presented with it.

anonymouse · « **Reply #117 on:** October 13, 2010, 08:16:48 PM »

Yes, a person of good will would want to be baptized with water, as soon as they accepted the truth.

trad123 · « **Reply #118 on:** October 13, 2010, 08:18:21 PM »

In the case of a Protestant or Eastern Orthodox who is in the state of invincible ignorance, such ignorance cannot be overcome by study.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm#article2

Quote

Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.

anonymouse · « **Reply #119 on:** October 13, 2010, 08:28:35 PM »

I don't understand what point you are trying to make with protestants and Eastern Orthodox. Many of these people, if they were born into these religions, would have been validly baptized. This would all depend upon what protestant denomination they were born into.

So, if they were validly baptized, it would then become a matter of becoming Catholic, not being baptized.