Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Jim on November 28, 2011, 12:46:57 AM
-
I need true instruction, advice, and prayers. This question of whether the Dimond brothers, the Feeneyites, etc are correct or whether the other side is has been boggling my mind, just as sedevacantism did before.
I read about baptism of desire/blood in the Baltimore catechism, this article (http://www.the-pope.com/feeneyite.html) on Mr. Griff Ruby's site, Fr. Anthony Cekada's article y here (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf), and more. I just don't know what to do. I care only for holding the Faith and going to Heaven. Its just that the Dimond argument is so strong. Its so clearly spelled out, dogmatically.
Please dear friends, can anyone help me. Especially when it comes to implicit faith and invincible ignorance.
I am feeling tempted to embrace Feeneyism and home-aloneism. I do not feel that I can be judged a pertinacious heretic by anyone, since we are not in normal times, and I cannot write the Holy Office, Pius XII, etc and ask them personally this conflict in my mind.
Please, say any players you can for me, even though I don't do so often for others. Please my friends. Our Lady of Good Counsel, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
-
I need true instruction, advice, and prayers. This question of whether the Dimond brothers, the Feeneyites, etc are correct or whether the other side is has been boggling my mind, just as sedevacantism did before.
I read about baptism of desire/blood in the Baltimore catechism, this article (http://www.the-pope.com/feeneyite.html) on Mr. Griff Ruby's site, Fr. Anthony Cekada's article y here (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf), and more. I just don't know what to do. I care only for holding the Faith and going to Heaven. Its just that the Dimond argument is so strong. Its so clearly spelled out, dogmatically.
Please dear friends, can anyone help me. Especially when it comes to implicit faith and invincible ignorance.
I am feeling tempted to embrace Feeneyism and home-aloneism. I do not feel that I can be judged a pertinacious heretic by anyone, since we are not in normal times, and I cannot write the Holy Office, Pius XII, etc and ask them personally this conflict in my mind.
Please, say any players you can for me, even though I don't do so often for others. Please my friends. Our Lady of Good Counsel, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
It's not something for a baptized Christian to worry about, unless you think all the saints who believed in Baptism of Desire are heretics. If that's the case, the Church has insoluble problems and has been leading people astray for centuries, if you believe that, why be Catholic?
-
I need true instruction, advice, and prayers. This question of whether the Dimond brothers, the Feeneyites, etc are correct or whether the other side is has been boggling my mind, just as sedevacantism did before.
I read about baptism of desire/blood in the Baltimore catechism, this article (http://www.the-pope.com/feeneyite.html) on Mr. Griff Ruby's site, Fr. Anthony Cekada's article y here (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf), and more. I just don't know what to do. I care only for holding the Faith and going to Heaven. Its just that the Dimond argument is so strong. Its so clearly spelled out, dogmatically.
Please dear friends, can anyone help me. Especially when it comes to implicit faith and invincible ignorance.
I am feeling tempted to embrace Feeneyism and home-aloneism. I do not feel that I can be judged a pertinacious heretic by anyone, since we are not in normal times, and I cannot write the Holy Office, Pius XII, etc and ask them personally this conflict in my mind.
Please, say any players you can for me, even though I don't do so often for others. Please my friends. Our Lady of Good Counsel, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
It's not something for a baptized Christian to worry about, unless you think all the saints who believed in Baptism of Desire are heretics. If that's the case, the Church has insoluble problems and has been leading people astray for centuries, if you believe that, why be Catholic?
Thank you Tele. Why don't the Dimonds condemn Monsignor J. Fenton et al as you have said as heretics, yet in these times, when the see can very well be vacant for almost 60 years, people are condemned as heretics.
-
My take is this, I can believe St. Thomas Aquinas or the Dimonds. I choose to believe St Thomas.
To answer your question about motive, it takes speculation. Throughout history, men have chosen to be heretics. I think most of the time it is pride. In the Dimonds case, I think it is pride and money. If they did not come up with a way to claim that they alone are Catholic, no one would listen to them or to give them money. For a reasonable person would align themselves with a priest that could administer the sacraments, rather than a couple of guys that have started a monestary.
-
I read about baptism of desire/blood in the Baltimore catechism, this article on Mr. Griff Ruby's site, Fr. Anthony Cekada's article y here, and more. I just don't know what to do. I care only for holding the Faith and going to Heaven. Its just that the Dimond argument is so strong. Its so clearly spelled out, dogmatically.
No they don't. They just have their Pharisee-like misinterpretation of dogma.
If a decree says "You must be baptized" that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Imagine if you read everything literally, like in the Apocalypse where it says "murderers, adulterers, liars" and so on won't reach the kingdom of heaven. If you read that literally, then you're damned if you tell one lie, and can't be forgiven.
Being able to grasp the SPIRIT of the law is of the highest importance. That is why you have to trust real theologians and not amateurs which is what the Dimonds are, not to mention spiritually occluded. Can you imagine St. Thomas spitting constant venom and claiming everyone is a heretic, cartoonishly, like these guys? Why would you trust people who think that pretty much no one in the world except their one or two disciples will be saved? That is a personal cult, not the Catholic cult.
These guys are preying on scruples. Pray to a saint or to Mary to end your scruples. I am convinced if more people did the consecration to Mary of St. Louis de Montfort this would not be happening. We go about it all backwards, trying to work things out with our brains instead of through the light of faith and humility. Probably the greatest spiritual leap I've ever taken is since beginning this consecration. It fills you with a sense of your own unworthiness and from this perspective you get far sharper vision. God does not reveal his secrets to the proud; He abhors pride. That is why so many arrogant young bucks are going stone-blind. And though they may not think they're arrogant, they are, because there is almost zero emphasis put on prayer and true spiritual progress these days, on mysticism.
-
I need true instruction, advice, and prayers. This question of whether the Dimond brothers, the Feeneyites, etc are correct or whether the other side is has been boggling my mind, just as sedevacantism did before.
I read about baptism of desire/blood in the Baltimore catechism, this article (http://www.the-pope.com/feeneyite.html) on Mr. Griff Ruby's site, Fr. Anthony Cekada's article y here (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf), and more. I just don't know what to do. I care only for holding the Faith and going to Heaven. Its just that the Dimond argument is so strong. Its so clearly spelled out, dogmatically.
You are right, it is clearly spelled out, and they answer all the points brought up by the SSPX, Cekada, Griff, whoever. it's easy to defend their position because they have the truth on their side. HOWEVER, telling people that they should not go to chapels that don't believe in EENS as it is written, would mean that there is practically nowhere to go today, as pretty much everyone believes that anyone who is "good' can be saved outside of the Church.
I came from the opposite camp than you. I'm from Latin America, and we were always taught that all non-Catholics go to hell. So, when I start hearing all these undefined excuses like implicit faith and invincible ignorance, I was forced to study the matter.
There is a thread that I started on BOD entitled Dying by "Accident" before being baptized, and BOD?, which is going on right now, you are welcomed to join it. And don't sweat it, you don't need to be a "home aloner" to be a believer in EENS as it is written.
Please dear friends, can anyone help me. Especially when it comes to implicit faith and invincible ignorance.
If you were to believe in the theory of baptism of desire catechumen, that would be one thing, you'd have some support from tradition, BUT, implicit faith and invincible ignorance, are way off the chart. They have absolutely no support from any tradition, they are novelties, that lead to our present situation where Catholics believe that anyone can be saved outside of the Church.
-
I need true instruction, advice, and prayers. This question of whether the Dimond brothers, the Feeneyites, etc are correct or whether the other side is has been boggling my mind, just as sedevacantism did before.
I read about baptism of desire/blood in the Baltimore catechism, this article (http://www.the-pope.com/feeneyite.html) on Mr. Griff Ruby's site, Fr. Anthony Cekada's article y here (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf), and more. I just don't know what to do. I care only for holding the Faith and going to Heaven. Its just that the Dimond argument is so strong. Its so clearly spelled out, dogmatically.
Please dear friends, can anyone help me. Especially when it comes to implicit faith and invincible ignorance.
I am feeling tempted to embrace Feeneyism and home-aloneism. I do not feel that I can be judged a pertinacious heretic by anyone, since we are not in normal times, and I cannot write the Holy Office, Pius XII, etc and ask them personally this conflict in my mind.
Please, say any players you can for me, even though I don't do so often for others. Please my friends. Our Lady of Good Counsel, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
Nadie-
You need to free your mind from the two Satanic snares of Sedevacantism and "No Salvation Without Water Baptism."
Come out of the manuals for a while and return to common sense.
If these people are right, the Church has been teaching error since the time of St. Peter.
-
I need true instruction, advice, and prayers. This question of whether the Dimond brothers, the Feeneyites, etc are correct or whether the other side is has been boggling my mind, just as sedevacantism did before.
I read about baptism of desire/blood in the Baltimore catechism, this article (http://www.the-pope.com/feeneyite.html) on Mr. Griff Ruby's site, Fr. Anthony Cekada's article y here (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf), and more. I just don't know what to do. I care only for holding the Faith and going to Heaven. Its just that the Dimond argument is so strong. Its so clearly spelled out, dogmatically.
Please dear friends, can anyone help me. Especially when it comes to implicit faith and invincible ignorance.
I am feeling tempted to embrace Feeneyism and home-aloneism. I do not feel that I can be judged a pertinacious heretic by anyone, since we are not in normal times, and I cannot write the Holy Office, Pius XII, etc and ask them personally this conflict in my mind.
Please, say any players you can for me, even though I don't do so often for others. Please my friends. Our Lady of Good Counsel, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
Nadie-
You need to free your mind from the two Satanic snares of Sedevacantism and "No Salvation Without Water Baptism."
Come out of the manuals for a while and return to common sense.
If these people are right, the Church has been teaching error since the time of St. Peter.
Correction-
I should have addressed this to Jim, not Nadie.
-
Sedevacantism is a satanic snare?
I think adhering to a false Pope would be more of a snare than that.
And trying convince oneself that it's possible to adhere and resist at the same time is a delusion.
-
Listen Seraphim! ALL of the trad groups, including the SSPX, all believe in baptism of desire and water. The sedes are not to blame for this.
I wouldnt classify the Diamond brother heretics in the same category as the trad priests and bishops.
/
The longer this inter regnum lasts, the more confusion there will be!
God has not left his church, but has at present provided us with priests to say mass and to give us the sacraments.
Try and look at things simply. We will soon be in the catacombs with no priests to say mass, as they will be hunted and killed by the NWO.
Then we can be home aloners.
-
You need to free your mind from the two Satanic snares of Sedevacantism and "No Salvation Without Water Baptism."
Come out of the manuals for a while and return to common sense.
If these people are right, the Church has been teaching error since the time of St. Peter.
The Dimonds definitive manual refuting with dogma all the theories against the dogmatic teaching of EENS as it is written
VS.
Just stick your head in the sand , ignore everything, and create a strawman ("If these people are right, the Church has been teaching error since the time of St. Peter.")
-
I read about baptism of desire/blood in the Baltimore catechism, this article on Mr. Griff Ruby's site, Fr. Anthony Cekada's article y here, and more. I just don't know what to do. I care only for holding the Faith and going to Heaven. Its just that the Dimond argument is so strong. Its so clearly spelled out, dogmatically.
No they don't. They just have their Pharisee-like misinterpretation of dogma.
If a decree says "You must be baptized" that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Imagine if you read everything literally, like in the Apocalypse where it says "murderers, adulterers, liars" and so on won't reach the kingdom of heaven. If you read that literally, then you're damned if you tell one lie, and can't be forgiven.
Being able to grasp the SPIRIT of the law is of the highest importance. That is why you have to trust real theologians and not amateurs which is what the Dimonds are, not to mention spiritually occluded. Can you imagine St. Thomas spitting constant venom and claiming everyone is a heretic, cartoonishly, like these guys? Why would you trust people who think that pretty much no one in the world except their one or two disciples will be saved? That is a personal cult, not the Catholic cult.
These guys are preying on scruples. Pray to a saint or to Mary to end your scruples. I am convinced if more people did the consecration to Mary of St. Louis de Montfort this would not be happening. We go about it all backwards, trying to work things out with our brains instead of through the light of faith and humility. Probably the greatest spiritual leap I've ever taken is since beginning this consecration. It fills you with a sense of your own unworthiness and from this perspective you get far sharper vision. God does not reveal his secrets to the proud; He abhors pride. That is why so many arrogant young bucks are going stone-blind. And though they may not think they're arrogant, they are, because there is almost zero emphasis put on prayer and true spiritual progress these days, on mysticism.
Brilliant and reposting so it gets emphasis to read.
-
:sleep:
Most of us here have heard this nonsense over and over . Please go back to the archives and see how the forum has discussed this subject.
-
The zealots don't come here to read - they come here to teach and convert other to their "truths".
-
The zealots don't come here to read - they come here to teach and convert other to their "truths".
Yep, you are right Roman!
-
Sedevacantism is a satanic snare?
I think adhering to a false Pope would be more of a snare than that.
And trying convince oneself that it's possible to adhere and resist at the same time is a delusion.
Only to a simple mind that lacks the ability to make and recognize such subtle distinctions as are found in theology.
-
Listen Seraphim! ALL of the trad groups, including the SSPX, all believe in baptism of desire and water. The sedes are not to blame for this.
I wouldnt classify the Diamond brother heretics in the same category as the trad priests and bishops.
/
The longer this inter regnum lasts, the more confusion there will be!
God has not left his church, but has at present provided us with priests to say mass and to give us the sacraments.
Try and look at things simply. We will soon be in the catacombs with no priests to say mass, as they will be hunted and killed by the NWO.
Then we can be home aloners.
Inter regnum?
You people crack me up.
Have you identified the lone bishop in the woods yet?
-
I read about baptism of desire/blood in the Baltimore catechism, this article on Mr. Griff Ruby's site, Fr. Anthony Cekada's article y here, and more. I just don't know what to do. I care only for holding the Faith and going to Heaven. Its just that the Dimond argument is so strong. Its so clearly spelled out, dogmatically.
No they don't. They just have their Pharisee-like misinterpretation of dogma.
If a decree says "You must be baptized" that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Imagine if you read everything literally, like in the Apocalypse where it says "murderers, adulterers, liars" and so on won't reach the kingdom of heaven. If you read that literally, then you're damned if you tell one lie, and can't be forgiven.
Being able to grasp the SPIRIT of the law is of the highest importance. That is why you have to trust real theologians and not amateurs which is what the Dimonds are, not to mention spiritually occluded. Can you imagine St. Thomas spitting constant venom and claiming everyone is a heretic, cartoonishly, like these guys? Why would you trust people who think that pretty much no one in the world except their one or two disciples will be saved? That is a personal cult, not the Catholic cult.
These guys are preying on scruples. Pray to a saint or to Mary to end your scruples. I am convinced if more people did the consecration to Mary of St. Louis de Montfort this would not be happening. We go about it all backwards, trying to work things out with our brains instead of through the light of faith and humility. Probably the greatest spiritual leap I've ever taken is since beginning this consecration. It fills you with a sense of your own unworthiness and from this perspective you get far sharper vision. God does not reveal his secrets to the proud; He abhors pride. That is why so many arrogant young bucks are going stone-blind. And though they may not think they're arrogant, they are, because there is almost zero emphasis put on prayer and true spiritual progress these days, on mysticism.
Brilliant and reposting so it gets emphasis to read.
Sedes and EENSers lack common sense.
End of argument.
-
Sedes lack common sense? Oh really? I think you should be saying heretics have no common sense instead.
-
Listen Seraphim! ALL of the trad groups, including the SSPX, all believe in baptism of desire and water. The sedes are not to blame for this.
I wouldnt classify the Diamond brother heretics in the same category as the trad priests and bishops.
/
The longer this inter regnum lasts, the more confusion there will be!
God has not left his church, but has at present provided us with priests to say mass and to give us the sacraments.
Try and look at things simply. We will soon be in the catacombs with no priests to say mass, as they will be hunted and killed by the NWO.
Then we can be home aloners.
Inter regnum?
You people crack me up.
Have you identified the lone bishop in the woods yet?
Shows your ignorence, Seraphim. We have been without a true pope since John XX111. Where have you been?
Maybe you should educate yourself before you come on here and make stupid statements!
-
Have you identified the lone bishop in the woods yet?
Have you identified a bishop who possesses and preaches the true Catholic Faith whole and entire in the Novus Ordo Establishment?
-
Thanks everyone for responding. Raoul, thanks for the words. I'm gonna have myself consecrated.
I do have scruples, you were right. Anyways, I do see what both "sides" are saying. However:
Why wasn't Mons. Joseph C. Fenton, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, et alia ever condemned by the Holy Office or a true pontiff? Alfred de Loisy was condemned, so was Arnold hαɾɾιs Matthew for his illicit consecrations, as well as the Brazillian schismatics. Yet not a word of condemnation for those supporting Baptismo fluminis or baptismo sanguinis.
No one founded their monastery. No abbot or prior or Benedictine motherhouse, with ordinary jurisdiction founded the Most Holy Family Monastery of New York. Bros. Michael and Peter were not trained in a Pontifical University, and do not hold degrees from a Pontifical Institute in say, dogmatic theology, moral theology, etc. In addition, do they fluently know Latin?
I also appeal to eternal Rome. If this were normal times, I would write H.H. Pius XII (of blessed memory) himself and submit these troubles to His Holiness. The Dimonds, who do not possess ordinary jurisdiction, cannot judge me to be a manifest and pertinacious heretic or denier of the Faith, just as Mons. Fenton, Sts. Alphonsus, Thomas, and all the many saints were never condemned vitandi or otherwise.
Why did essentially no one, besides the Dimonds, hold their interpretation of the axiom E.E.N.S. Fr. Feeney did, but was corrected by the Holy Office. The Prefect of the Holy Office at the time was H.H. Pius XII.
The shepherd is struck, and the sheep are scattered. I hope that a truly Catholic pope (whether the sedevacantist thesis, sedeprivationist thesis, SSPX "Rome must convert thesis" be correct), will one day, Deo volente, definitively settle this issue.
-
All of these sources, pre-Vatican II, were not condemned. Yet the Dimonds, whose only jurisdiction can be supplied jurisdiction claim that:
THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office
August 8, 1949
Protocol Number 122/49
Baltimore Catechism No.3
A Catechism of Christian Doctrine prepared and enjoined by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore
IMPRIMATURS:
Archbishop John McCloskey of New York 1885
Archbishop Gibbons Baltimore 1885
Archbishop Michael Augustine N.Y. 1901
Archbishop Patrick Hayes N.Y. 1921
NIHIL OBSTATS:
Rev. Remigius LaFort, Censor Librorum 1901
Arthur Scanlan, Censor Librorum 1921
P. Pius IX Solemn Allocution
Singulari Quadam
December 9, 1854
P. Pius IX Encyclical
QUANTO CONFICIAMUR
August 10, 1863
Vol. 2, BAPTISM, William H.W. Fanning
A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater
(Imprimatur/Nihil obstat 1946)
THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED
Rev. Francis Spirago, Professor of Theology
(c) 1899, 1921, by Benziger Bros. (Printers to the Apostolic See)
Nihil Obstat: Scanlon. Imprimatur: Archbishop Hayes, D.D.NY
And that men such as Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, member of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy, counselor of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, professor of fundamental dogmatic theology, Catholic University of America, are wrong, yet they two monks vagans, with no credentials or training, are correct.
That Pius XII, Pius XI, Benedict XV, St. Pius X, Leo XIII, Pius IX, et al, censors, professors, seminaries, sacred congregations, systematically failed to condemn and eradicate, or at least attempt to condemn and attempt to eradicate what they say is the "heresy of baptism of desire and of blood." So very high ranking churchmen, from the time of the late 18th cent. (time of St. Alphonsus, to 1958,) systematically failed.
-
All of these sources, pre-Vatican II, were not condemned. Yet the Dimonds, whose only jurisdiction can be supplied jurisdiction claim that:
THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office
August 8, 1949
Protocol Number 122/49
Baltimore Catechism No.3
A Catechism of Christian Doctrine prepared and enjoined by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore
IMPRIMATURS:
Archbishop John McCloskey of New York 1885
Archbishop Gibbons Baltimore 1885
Archbishop Michael Augustine N.Y. 1901
Archbishop Patrick Hayes N.Y. 1921
NIHIL OBSTATS:
Rev. Remigius LaFort, Censor Librorum 1901
Arthur Scanlan, Censor Librorum 1921
P. Pius IX Solemn Allocution
Singulari Quadam
December 9, 1854
P. Pius IX Encyclical
QUANTO CONFICIAMUR
August 10, 1863
Vol. 2, BAPTISM, William H.W. Fanning
A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater
(Imprimatur/Nihil obstat 1946)
THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED
Rev. Francis Spirago, Professor of Theology
(c) 1899, 1921, by Benziger Bros. (Printers to the Apostolic See)
Nihil Obstat: Scanlon. Imprimatur: Archbishop Hayes, D.D.NY
And that men such as Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, member of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy, counselor of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, professor of fundamental dogmatic theology, Catholic University of America, are wrong, yet they two monks vagans, with no credentials or training, are correct.
That Pius XII, Pius XI, Benedict XV, St. Pius X, Leo XIII, Pius IX, et al, censors, professors, seminaries, sacred congregations, systematically failed to condemn and eradicate, or at least attempt to condemn and attempt to eradicate what they say is the "heresy of baptism of desire and of blood." So very high ranking churchmen, from the time of the late 18th cent. (time of St. Alphonsus, to 1958,) systematically failed.
Practically all the Fathers of the Church, and today The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary teach/taught the same thing as Dimond regarding the absolute necessity of baptism, and EENS as it is written, and they have not been condemned either. The Slaves offer the Latin Mass every week with the approval of the local diocese bishop and Rome.
The theories of BOD and all it's offshoots have absolutely no support from dogma. If we are to read dogma as it is clearly written, then the strict EENSers are right and all those fallible catechism and fallible loose quote found here and there are wrong.
The Patristic Scholar Fr. William Jurgens, who has literally read thousands of texts from the fathers, was forced to admit the following in his three volume set on the Fathers.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”
-
All of these sources, pre-Vatican II, were not condemned. Yet the Dimonds, whose only jurisdiction can be supplied jurisdiction claim that:
THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office
August 8, 1949
Protocol Number 122/49
Baltimore Catechism No.3
A Catechism of Christian Doctrine prepared and enjoined by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore
IMPRIMATURS:
Archbishop John McCloskey of New York 1885
Archbishop Gibbons Baltimore 1885
Archbishop Michael Augustine N.Y. 1901
Archbishop Patrick Hayes N.Y. 1921
NIHIL OBSTATS:
Rev. Remigius LaFort, Censor Librorum 1901
Arthur Scanlan, Censor Librorum 1921
P. Pius IX Solemn Allocution
Singulari Quadam
December 9, 1854
P. Pius IX Encyclical
QUANTO CONFICIAMUR
August 10, 1863
Vol. 2, BAPTISM, William H.W. Fanning
A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater
(Imprimatur/Nihil obstat 1946)
THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED
Rev. Francis Spirago, Professor of Theology
(c) 1899, 1921, by Benziger Bros. (Printers to the Apostolic See)
Nihil Obstat: Scanlon. Imprimatur: Archbishop Hayes, D.D.NY
And that men such as Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, member of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy, counselor of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, professor of fundamental dogmatic theology, Catholic University of America, are wrong, yet they two monks vagans, with no credentials or training, are correct.
That Pius XII, Pius XI, Benedict XV, St. Pius X, Leo XIII, Pius IX, et al, censors, professors, seminaries, sacred congregations, systematically failed to condemn and eradicate, or at least attempt to condemn and attempt to eradicate what they say is the "heresy of baptism of desire and of blood." So very high ranking churchmen, from the time of the late 18th cent. (time of St. Alphonsus, to 1958,) systematically failed.
See what I mean?
Keep this foolishness up, and you will conclude we haven't had a pope since the 1st century (which would make your lone bishop in the woods about 2000 years old....better elect him pope quick).
-
See what I mean?
Keep this foolishness up, and you will conclude we haven't had a pope since the 1st century (which would make your lone bishop in the woods about 2000 years old....better elect him pope quick).
Dear Seraphim,
Please, lets limit this thread to Baptismo fluminis et baptismo sanguinis. Not an argument of sedevacantism.
-
Practically all the Fathers of the Church, and today The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary teach/taught the same thing as Dimond regarding the absolute necessity of baptism, and EENS as it is written, and they have not been condemned either. The Slaves offer the Latin Mass every week with the approval of the local diocese bishop and Rome.
Yes, the Servants were reconciled with the modern conciliar Vatican authorities. I am talking about this from a pre-Vatican II perspective/hierarchy.
The Dimonds would call the Servants "heretics, apostates" etc. just because they do not agree with them on the sedevacantist issue.
Fr. Feeney and his followers were disciplined by pre-Vatican II authorities, specifically the Holy Office. The only way I've seen this squared away and swept under the rug is by those neo-sedevacantists who say there has not been a Pope since Pius IX (an interregnum of 133 years, which is, save divine intervention, impossible to fix from a human perspective, since all clergy, bishops, etc from Pius IX's reign are long gone).
The theories of BOD and all it's offshoots have absolutely no support from dogma. If we are to read dogma as it is clearly written, then the strict EENSers are right and all those fallible catechism and fallible loose quote found here and there are wrong.
Yes, and many theologians, including Doctors of the Church, theologians and saints more learned than you or me, have found otherwise.
The Patristic Scholar Fr. William Jurgens, who has literally read thousands of texts from the fathers, was forced to admit the following in his three volume set on the Fathers.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”
Those same scholars who say baptismo fluminis et sanguinis is de fide found otherwise. They too had access to the Church Fathers.
-
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 66, Article 11
Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Question 65, Article 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.
On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."
I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Question 60, Article 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: 'by water'," according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.