Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Disputaciones on June 30, 2016, 02:33:54 PM
-
The modern day rejection of BOD/BOB is of course derived from the founder himself, the excommunicate Fr. Feeney. There did not exist a single Feeneyite or person who rejected these doctrines in 1940. This should give these people pause, but it doesn't. His present-day followers don't even believe in all that he believed, however, and even go beyond where he dared to go.
So that means that all those here who reject BOD/BOB do so either because of the writings of Feeney, or because of his followers, or the Dimonds, who themselves got it from Feeney.
Any way you look at it, this all started with Feeney, and is not Catholic.
-
St. Augustine and 7/8 Church Fathers rejected BoD.
Abelard rejected BoD in the pre-scholastic era.
In fact, not a single Catholic ever believed that those without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation could be saved ... for 1600 years, until some Jesuits introduced the theory.
So the correct "History" is that the modern Vatican II ecclesiology ... to which most Traditionalists adhere ... began in the 1600s.
-
The modern day rejection of BOD/BOB is of course derived from the founder himself, the excommunicate Fr. Feeney. There did not exist a single Feeneyite or person who rejected these doctrines in 1940. This should give these people pause, but it doesn't. His present-day followers don't even believe in all that he believed, however, and even go beyond where he dared to go.
So that means that all those here who reject BOD/BOB do so either because of the writings of Feeney, or because of his followers, or the Dimonds, who themselves got it from Feeney.
Any way you look at it, this all started with Feeney, and is not Catholic.
St. Paul said: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism."
My only question to you is: How many baptisms are there?
-
St. Augustine...rejected BoD.
He is one of 2 of the early weightiest authorities who taught BOD, along with St. Ambrose.
Who are you trying to kid? Come on now.
and 7/8 Church Fathers
Name them.
Abelard rejected BoD in the pre-scholastic era.
Yeah, that beacon of orthodoxy and sanctity right? Whose treatise on the Trinity had been condemned in 1121, and he himself had thrown his book into the fire? Who was refuted and silenced by St. Bernard and condemned by the Church? That Abelard?
In fact, not a single Catholic ever believed that those without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation could be saved ... for 1600 years, until some Jesuits introduced the theory.
And where is the condemnation of these nasty Jesuits by the Church?
Your buddy Abelard was condemned, but what about these Jesuits?
So the correct "History" is that the modern Vatican II ecclesiology ... to which most Traditionalists adhere ... began in the 1600s.
Dream on.
The irrefutable fact is that all the opponents of BOD have all been condemned by the Church, from Abelard to Feeney, and never have they had one single Saint, Doctor or eminent authority behind them, while on the other hand, the highest authorities have all taught BOD.
Why do you side yourself with the condemned and excommunicate?
-
He is one of 2 of the early weightiest authorities who taught BOD, along with St. Ambrose.
St. Augustine recanted his initial views on BOD, as evident in his later writings against the Donatists.
From A Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed:
16. In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins but to the baptized. The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? When they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remits. For how can they say, Our Father, who are not yet born sons? The Catechumens, so long as they be such, have upon them all their sins. If Catechumens, how much more Pagans? How much more heretics? But to heretics we do not change their baptism. Why? Because they have baptism in the same way as a deserter has the soldier's mark: just so these also have Baptism; they have it, but to be condemned thereby, not crowned. And yet if the deserter himself, being amended, begin to do duty as a soldier, does any man dare to change his mark?
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1307.htm
Listen well. St Augustine says here that there is simply not remission of sins for the unbaptized and what is BOD but an act of perfect contrition for the unbaptized?
What is that flag you have next to your profile, Disputaciones? You are South American and speak Spanish. Come on, you shouldn't be defending BOD!!!!!
-
What is that flag you have next to your profile, Disputaciones? You are South American and speak Spanish. Come on, you shouldn't be defending BOD!!!!!
Can't see the flag well from my phone but it is extremely weird to see someone with Spanish heritage promoting BOD as the watered - down sissy Americanists do.
-
Once again BoDers fail to focus on the main issue. Thomistic BoD itself is not a problem, no one objects to the possibility that a catechumen who dies on his way to baptism can receive the sacrament in voto.
The problem is the heretical belief that BoD applies to unconverted Jews, Muslims etc. who are "invincibly ignorant". This view has no basis whatsoever in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and requires to deny or radically re-interpret host of dogmatic docuмents and statemens, including Cantate Domino and Athanasian Creed.
-
St. Augustine...rejected BoD.
He is one of 2 of the early weightiest authorities who taught BOD, along with St. Ambrose.
Who are you trying to kid? Come on now.
You put your ignorance on display. St. Augustine forcefully rejected BoD later in life, during his anti-Pelagian days, when he had matured in the faith. Would you like some citations?
and 7/8 Church Fathers
Name them.
They have been named and quoted many times in this subforum.
Abelard rejected BoD in the pre-scholastic era.
Yeah, that beacon of orthodoxy and sanctity right? Whose treatise on the Trinity had been condemned in 1121, and he himself had thrown his book into the fire? Who was refuted and silenced by St. Bernard and condemned by the Church? That Abelard?
Yet, at the same time, Abelard's position overturning St. Augustine regarding the fate of unbaptized children, was adopted by Church after having been held almost universally for 800 years before him.
In fact, not a single Catholic ever believed that those without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation could be saved ... for 1600 years, until some Jesuits introduced the theory.
And where is the condemnation of these nasty Jesuits by the Church?
Your buddy Abelard was condemned, but what about these Jesuits?
He was not condemned for his opinion regarding BoD. And, as I had mentioned, the Church actually adopted his position regarding unbaptized infants.
So the correct "History" is that the modern Vatican II ecclesiology ... to which most Traditionalists adhere ... began in the 1600s.
Dream on.
I've proven this dozens of times on this forum, and my arguments have never been refuted. In fact, no one has even attempted a refutation.
The irrefutable fact is that all the opponents of BOD have all been condemned by the Church, from Abelard to Feeney, and never have they had one single Saint, Doctor or eminent authority behind them, while on the other hand, the highest authorities have all taught BOD.
False. Neither Father Feeney nor Abelard were condemend for their position on BoD, the former for his refusal to show up in Rome and the latter for other reasons. And the Church "sided with" Abelard regarding his rejection of the Augustinian position on the fate of unbaptized. So you need to argue on the merits of various positions rather than from ad hominems ... but it seems that it's all you have.
-
Once again BoDers fail to focus on the main issue. Thomistic BoD itself is not a problem, no one objects to the possibility that a catechumen who dies on his way to baptism can receive the sacrament in voto.
The problem is the heretical belief that BoD applies to unconverted Jews, Muslims etc. who are "invincibly ignorant". This view has no basis whatsoever in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and requires to deny or radically re-interpret host of dogmatic docuмents and statemens, including Cantate Domino and Athanasian Creed.
Perfectly stated. Yep, that is always their tactic. They hold the various other heresies and then run for cover behind BoD ... and St. Thomas. They cite St. Thomas et al. as being in favor of BoD and then pretend that this means he also approves of the various heretical implications they falsely draw from it.
As I have stated repeatedly, I have never once found fault with the position held by Nishant and Matto here on CI. If I differ from them, it amounts to little more than a friendly disagreement.
-
What is that flag you have next to your profile, Disputaciones? You are South American and speak Spanish. Come on, you shouldn't be defending BOD!!!!!
Can't see the flag well from my phone but it is extremely weird to see someone with Spanish heritage promoting BOD as the watered - down sissy Americanists do.
I don't see how being Latin American would equal to being a staunch EENS defender. My entire family believes in salvation outside the church outright. I am the only traditionalist in my family and the only one who believes in the dogma.
The flag is Nicaragua, btw.
Are you Latin American too? You look like it.
-
What is that flag you have next to your profile, Disputaciones? You are South American and speak Spanish. Come on, you shouldn't be defending BOD!!!!!
Can't see the flag well from my phone but it is extremely weird to see someone with Spanish heritage promoting BOD as the watered - down sissy Americanists do.
I don't see how being Latin American would equal to being a staunch EENS defender. My entire family believes in salvation outside the church outright. I am the only traditionalist in my family and the only one who believes in the dogma.
The flag is Nicaragua, btw.
Are you Latin American too? You look like it.
My entire family are of Spanish Blood, Catholics, born in South America and Spain, now exiled in the USA (the few still alive). My grandfather was born in 1890 and lived with me till I was 40. We lived and worked together till he was over 100. I'm old enough to be your grandfather, and I never heard of anything but that all Protestants go to hell. Nobody in my family ever heard of even BOD of the catechumen, let alone anyone else, except baptized Catholics who died in a state of grace.
You say your entire family believes in salvation outside the church outright. That makes sense, as they are likely all Protestants now, like the rest of South America. It was not like that prior to 1960's. But what would you know about that, what are you like 23?
There are many low life communist henchmen in Nicaragua, just like in Cuba, I could never live around people like that.
-
There did not exist a single Feeneyite or person who rejected these doctrines in 1940.
Well, there it is. I was right in my feeling that I was wasting my time in conversing with you. Oh well, can't say I didn't give you a shot.
-
What is that flag you have next to your profile, Disputaciones? You are South American and speak Spanish. Come on, you shouldn't be defending BOD!!!!!
Can't see the flag well from my phone but it is extremely weird to see someone with Spanish heritage promoting BOD as the watered - down sissy Americanists do.
I don't see how being Latin American would equal to being a staunch EENS defender. My entire family believes in salvation outside the church outright. I am the only traditionalist in my family and the only one who believes in the dogma.
The flag is Nicaragua, btw.
Are you Latin American too? You look like it.
My entire family are of Spanish Blood, Catholics, born in South America and Spain, now exiled in the USA (the few still alive). My grandfather was born in 1890 and lived with me till I was 40. We lived and worked together till he was over 100. I'm old enough to be your grandfather, and I never heard of anything but that all Protestants go to hell. Nobody in my family ever heard of even BOD of the catechumen, let alone anyone else, except baptized Catholics who died in a state of grace.
You say your entire family believes in salvation outside the church outright. That makes sense, as they are likely all Protestants now, like the rest of South America. It was not like that prior to 1960's. But what would you know about that, what are you like 23?
There are many low life communist henchmen in Nicaragua, just like in Cuba, I could never live around people like that.
Contrary to what you believe, I have read about the history of Latin America.
I know that almost every single Latin American country was Catholic, but that it all fell apart after Vatican II, what with religious liberty and all that.
I know that there were barely any Protestant sects around and that they have come out like locusts after Vatican II.
No my family is not Protestant, but Novus Ordo.
Did your grandfather read his catechism or devotionary? Have you? Because I have an old Salesian devotionary from the 50's from Colombia that teaches baptism of desire.
-
what are you like 23?
I wish i were. I'm older than what i look like.
There are many low life communist henchmen in Nicaragua, just like in Cuba, I could never live around people like that.
Then you should give thanks you didn't have to live and grow up in a country like this.
I could leave if i really wanted to, but I have to take care of some things here first.
-
St. Augustine...rejected BoD.
He is one of 2 of the early weightiest authorities who taught BOD, along with St. Ambrose.
Who are you trying to kid? Come on now.
You put your ignorance on display. St. Augustine forcefully rejected BoD later in life, during his anti-Pelagian days, when he had matured in the faith. Would you like some citations?
So forcefully that he is always cited by the other Doctors of the Church and theologians.
and 7/8 Church Fathers
Name them.
They have been named and quoted many times in this subform.
I came back to this part of the forum a couple days ago after months and months of absence; i don't live here like you do, so go ahead and name them, if you'd be so kind.
Abelard rejected BoD in the pre-scholastic era.
Yeah, that beacon of orthodoxy and sanctity right? Whose treatise on the Trinity had been condemned in 1121, and he himself had thrown his book into the fire? Who was refuted and silenced by St. Bernard and condemned by
the Church? That Abelard?
Yet, at the same time, Abelard's position overturning St. Augustine regarding the fate of unbaptized children, was adopted by Church after having been held almost universally for 800 years before him.
So what? Does that mean he's an authority now? A Doctor? The point is that he wasn't reliable, but you were propping him up as if he was some Doctor.
But being a Doctor of the Church is meaningless to you anyway, so what the heck.
In fact, not a single Catholic ever believed that those without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation could be saved ... for 1600 years, until some Jesuits introduced the theory.
And where is the condemnation of these nasty Jesuits by the Church?
Your buddy Abelard was condemned, but what about these Jesuits?
He was not condemned for his opinion regarding BoD. And, as I had mentioned, the Church actually adopted his position regarding unbaptized infants.
You're saying St. Bernard didn't refute and silence him on this very matter?
And how come you didnt respond to the question as to why the Church didnt condemn the "heresies" of these Jesuits?
You just ignored this question.
So the correct "History" is that the modern Vatican II ecclesiology ... to which most Traditionalists adhere ... began in the 1600s.
Dream on.
I've proven this dozens of times on this forum, and my arguments have never been refuted. In fact, no one has even attempted a refutation.
Maybe because nobody has wanted to waste their time proving the obvious.
The irrefutable fact is that all the opponents of BOD have all been condemned by the Church, from Abelard to Feeney, and never have they had one single Saint, Doctor or eminent authority behind them, while on the other hand, the highest authorities have all taught BOD.
False. Neither Father Feeney nor Abelard were condemend for their position on BoD, the former for his refusal to show up in Rome
He saw what was coming and chickened out. He sensed the impending condemnation so he chose the lesser evil, being condemned for disobedience rather than as a heretic, which is a lot worse.
and the latter for other reasons. And the Church "sided with" Abelard regarding his rejection of the Augustinian position on the fate of unbaptized. So you need to argue on the merits of various positions rather than from ad hominems ... but it seems that it's all you have.
The point is that there is nobody of repute that denies BOD/BOB, and the only one of some merit, Abelard, was refuted by St. Bernard and he dropped it anyway.
On the other hand you have 7 Doctors of the Church and a host of other reputable and authoritative sources that all point in one direction and teach BOD, but you side with Abelard.
That's your choice. I just wanted to highlight that.
-
St. Augustine...rejected BoD.
He is one of 2 of the early weightiest authorities who taught BOD, along with St. Ambrose.
Who are you trying to kid? Come on now.
You put your ignorance on display. St. Augustine forcefully rejected BoD later in life, during his anti-Pelagian days, when he had matured in the faith. Would you like some citations?
Forgot to include this:
And I am not unaware that [that Father] himself withdrew the example of the thief, which he had put forward, and acknowledged its inadmissibility as proof of his opinion, in that it cannot be known for certain whether or not the thief had been baptized. That does not stop him from pressing his view strongly and confirming it in various ways; nor, unless I am mistaken, will you find any instance of his having retracted it. Elsewhere Augustine, after bringing forward other figures whom Scripture records as having been invisibly rather than visibly sanctified, writes in conclusion: 'We may gather from these examples that some have experienced and profited from an invisible sanctification unaccompanied by visible sacraments, which latter have changed with changing times and differed then from now.' A little further on we read: 'Not, however, that the visible sacrament is to be contemned, for it is not possible for anyone acting thus to be invisibly sanctified.' In these passages he demonstrates clearly that the faithful person who turns to God in his heart is deprived of the fruit of baptism not by failing to be baptized, but by holding baptism in contempt.
It would be hard, believe me, to tear me away from these two pillars - I mean Augustine and Ambrose. I own to going along with them in wisdom or in error, for I too believe that a person can be saved by faith alone, through the desire to receive the sacrament, but only if such a one is forestalled by death or prevented by some other insuperable force from implementing this devout desire. Perhaps this was why the Savior, when he said: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, took care not to repeat 'whoever is not baptized', but only, whoever does not believe will be condemned, intimating strongly that faith is sometimes sufficient for salvation and that without it nothing suffices. And while it is conceded that martyrdom can stand in for baptism, it is clearly not the torment but the faith which is operative. For without faith what is martyrdom but torment? If faith, then, which gives to martyrdom an eminence that sets it on par with baptism, is so impotent and feeble of itself, how can it confer on something else what it is not potent enough to win on its own? To shed one's blood for Christ is without doubt a proof of great faith, but one given not to God, but to human beings. Supposing God, who has no need of tangible proofs, sees in the heart of someone dying in peace an equally great faith, a faith not put to the test of martyrdom but nonetheless meet for it; if that person, recalling that he has not yet received the mystery of salvation, longs for it with the fullness of a disconsolate and contrite heart, and if sudden death prevents him attaining it, will God condemn his faithful servant? Will he condemn, I ask you, someone who is ready to die for him? Paul says: No one is able to say 'Lord Jesus' save in the Holy Spirit. So what then of the person who at the hour of death not only invokes the Lord Jesus, but also longs for his sacrament with all the fullness of his heart, shall we say that he does not speak in the Holy Spirit, thus making a liar of the Apostle, or, alternatively, that even with the Spirit he will be condemned? He has the Savior dwelling in his heart through faith and in his mouth through avowal; with his Savior present will he be condemned? Since martyrdom earns from faith alone the exceptional privilege of being received in all security in place of baptism, I do not see why faith should not have the same sway with God, who does not need the proof of martyrdom to recognize it. I should certainly say that it is as efficacious for salvation, though not for the amassing of merit, where martyrdom undoubtedly takes precedence. We read that Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and again that If a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. What is plainer than that the will is taken for the deed, when force of circuмstance prevents the doing? Unless perhaps it is thought that ill will carries a greater weight than good with the God who is love, and that the merciful and magnanimous Lord is quicker to avenge himself than to reward. Just as someone who calls to mind - it may be at the point of death - that he is pledged to a creditor and lacks the wherewithal to discharge his debt, is believed nonetheless to win remission and be let off any judgment by simple dint of repentance and genuine sorrow, even so will faith alone and the conversion of the mind to God, without the shedding of blood and pouring of water, assuredly win salvation for whomsoever wishes to be baptized but, waylaid by death, is unable to put that wish into effect. And just as no repentance can remit the sin of the debtor who, when he can, does not restore what he has taken, even so no faith will avail the other who fails to receive the sacrament when he is able. Indeed, neglecting to do so proves that his faith is not perfect. A true and full faith embraces all commands; and this is the very chief of commands. Anyone therefore who refuses to obey it will rightly be deemed, not faithful, but frankly rebellious and contemptuous. For how can one be faithful and hold God's sacrament in contempt?
-
what are you like 23?
I wish i were. I'm older than what i look like.
There are many low life communist henchmen in Nicaragua, just like in Cuba, I could never live around people like that.
Then you should give thanks you didn't have to live and grow up in a country like this.
I could leave if i really wanted to, but I have to take care of some things here first.
Nicaragua was bad in 1970's, if your parents did not leave then, there is something wrong there. They had their chance in the 1970's why didn't they leave like all the other Nicaraguans that moved to Miami? Now, Nicaragua is run by Marxists voted in by the people, you are just classified now as another illegal immigrant now, not a legal refugee from communism.
-
My entire family are of Spanish Blood, Catholics, born in South America and Spain, now exiled in the USA (the few still alive). My grandfather was born in 1890 and lived with me till I was 40. We lived and worked together till he was over 100. I'm old enough to be your grandfather, and I never heard of anything but that all Protestants go to hell. Nobody in my family ever heard of even BOD of the catechumen, let alone anyone else, except baptized Catholics who died in a state of grace.
Contrary to what you believe, I have read about the history of Latin America.
I know that almost every single Latin American country was Catholic, but that it all fell apart after Vatican II, what with religious liberty and all that.
I know that there were barely any Protestant sects around and that they have come out like locusts after Vatican II.
No my family is not Protestant, but Novus Ordo.
Did your grandfather read his catechism or devotionary? Have you? Because I have an old Salesian devotionary from the 50's from Colombia that teaches baptism of desire.
You have "read the history of South America", you "read a Salesian devotionary from the 1950's", I lived it every day from 1890. I don't need to read the history. It is like I told you, "I never heard of anything but that all Protestants go to hell. Nobody in my family ever heard of even BOD of the catechumen, let alone anyone else, except baptized Catholics who died in a state of grace". I am talking about a greater family of over 300 people that I lived and talked with all my life till they died.
South American has a Catholic culture, but that is all, they are only nominally Catholic, Masonic run countries. The one thing that kept the Protestants out was the belief that all Protestants go to hell. Only in Colombia and Brazil (maybe one other country in Latin America) was Catholicism the state religion, and in those countries it was against the law for Protestants and Jews to proslytize or to have any signs on their places of "worship"(and other laws). The Vatican ordered them to remove Catholicism as the state religion after Vat II.
Unfortunately, the anti-Catholic (Masonic) elements have run the governments of Latin America with the assistance of the USA. Until the people realize that their wealth is in the Faith, and they return to live as Catholics, they will continue on the same path of poverty, immorality, illegitimate births, and crime.
The anti-Catholicism of U.S. policy in Latin America has sometimes been stated explicitly by it's leaders. Theodore Roosevelt when he paid a visit to South America at the turn of the 20th century said: "While these countries remain Catholic," he said, "we will not be able to dominate them."
Put another way, as long as the people are "Protestants", we will be able to dominate them.
-
On the other hand you have 7 Doctors of the Church and a host of other reputable and authoritative sources that all point in one direction and teach BOD, but you side with Abelard.
Like I said, one should never debate explicit BOD and BOB with someone who believes and teaches that anyone can be saved without explicit belief in the Incarnation, the Holy Trinity, explicit BOD or BOB.
St. Augustine:
“If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
-
The modern day rejection of BOD/BOB is of course derived from the founder himself, the excommunicate Fr. Feeney. There did not exist a single Feeneyite or person who rejected these doctrines in 1940. This should give these people pause, but it doesn't. His present-day followers don't even believe in all that he believed, however, and even go beyond where he dared to go.
So that means that all those here who reject BOD/BOB do so either because of the writings of Feeney, or because of his followers, or the Dimonds, who themselves got it from Feeney.
Any way you look at it, this all started with Feeney, and is not Catholic.
St. Paul said: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism."
My only question to you is: How many baptisms are there?
Bump
-
what are you like 23?
I wish i were. I'm older than what i look like.
There are many low life communist henchmen in Nicaragua, just like in Cuba, I could never live around people like that.
Then you should give thanks you didn't have to live and grow up in a country like this.
I could leave if i really wanted to, but I have to take care of some things here first.
Nicaragua was bad in 1970's, if your parents did not leave then, there is something wrong there. They had their chance in the 1970's why didn't they leave like all the other Nicaraguans that moved to Miami? Now, Nicaragua is run by Marxists voted in by the people, you are just classified now as another illegal immigrant now, not a legal refugee from communism.
They did leave, but they came back in the 90's, like many other people.
It was bad in the 80's, not 70's. The revolution was in 79.
-
The modern day rejection of BOD/BOB is of course derived from the founder himself, the excommunicate Fr. Feeney. There did not exist a single Feeneyite or person who rejected these doctrines in 1940. This should give these people pause, but it doesn't. His present-day followers don't even believe in all that he believed, however, and even go beyond where he dared to go.
So that means that all those here who reject BOD/BOB do so either because of the writings of Feeney, or because of his followers, or the Dimonds, who themselves got it from Feeney.
Any way you look at it, this all started with Feeney, and is not Catholic.
St. Paul said: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism."
My only question to you is: How many baptisms are there?
Bump
St. Thomas answered that.
-
So forcefully that he is always cited by the other Doctors of the Church and theologians.
Indeed, the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence come from St. Augustine. Not all of his texts were widely available in the late Middle Ages.
-
The modern day rejection of BOD/BOB is of course derived from the founder himself, the excommunicate Fr. Feeney. There did not exist a single Feeneyite or person who rejected these doctrines in 1940. This should give these people pause, but it doesn't. His present-day followers don't even believe in all that he believed, however, and even go beyond where he dared to go.
So that means that all those here who reject BOD/BOB do so either because of the writings of Feeney, or because of his followers, or the Dimonds, who themselves got it from Feeney.
Any way you look at it, this all started with Feeney, and is not Catholic.
You are mistaken in your allegation that Pius XII excommunicated Fr Feeney
:detective:
-
St. Augustine...rejected BoD.
He is one of 2 of the early weightiest authorities who taught BOD, along with St. Ambrose.
Who are you trying to kid? Come on now.
and 7/8 Church Fathers
Name them.
Abelard rejected BoD in the pre-scholastic era.
Yeah, that beacon of orthodoxy and sanctity right? Whose treatise on the Trinity had been condemned in 1121, and he himself had thrown his book into the fire? Who was refuted and silenced by St. Bernard and condemned by the Church? That Abelard?
In fact, not a single Catholic ever believed that those without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation could be saved ... for 1600 years, until some Jesuits introduced the theory.
And where is the condemnation of these nasty Jesuits by the Church?
Your buddy Abelard was condemned, but what about these Jesuits?
So the correct "History" is that the modern Vatican II ecclesiology ... to which most Traditionalists adhere ... began in the 1600s.
Dream on.
The irrefutable fact is that all the opponents of BOD have all been condemned by the Church, from Abelard to Feeney, and never have they had one single Saint, Doctor or eminent authority behind them, while on the other hand, the highest authorities have all taught BOD.
Why do you side yourself with the condemned and excommunicate?
:applause:
-
:applause:
Back here polluting threads again, are you?
-
Talk about an ironic question. :roll-laugh1:
-
What is that flag you have next to your profile, Disputaciones? You are South American and speak Spanish. Come on, you shouldn't be defending BOD!!!!!
Can't see the flag well from my phone but it is extremely weird to see someone with Spanish heritage promoting BOD as the watered - down sissy Americanists do.
I don't see how being Latin American would equal to being a staunch EENS defender. My entire family believes in salvation outside the church outright. I am the only traditionalist in my family and the only one who believes in the dogma.
The flag is Nicaragua, btw.
Are you Latin American too? You look like it.
I thought that was the Nicaraguan flag but my vision is not good.
I’m from Nicaragua. Until 1965, EENS was taught everywhere and never heard the name “Feeney” or BOD/BOB until I came to the U.S. In my home town, all babies were baptized at the hospital chapel before the mother went home and all baptisms registered at the same church near the hospital. Confirmations were done after the first year. We had a Confirmation Godmother or Godfather since they had to answer for us and traditionally, we were given the Godmother's Catholic name. I was
1 1/2.
I never met a Protestant anywhere. Now, even relatives who go to the N.O. daily, believe everyone is saved. Most are Medjugorje fanatics . Divorce and remarriage is okay and everything is great.
-
The modern day rejection of BOD/BOB is of course derived from the founder himself, the excommunicate Fr. Feeney. There did not exist a single Feeneyite or person who rejected these doctrines in 1940. This should give these people pause, but it doesn't. His present-day followers don't even believe in all that he believed, however, and even go beyond where he dared to go.
So that means that all those here who reject BOD/BOB do so either because of the writings of Feeney, or because of his followers, or the Dimonds, who themselves got it from Feeney.
Any way you look at it, this all started with Feeney, and is not Catholic.
This OP demonstrates an astounding amount of ignorance. It also is another demonstration of how the enemy was able to get the lethargic Catholic population to learn that error is dogma and dogma is error. Error, once learned, is very difficult to unlearn for some and all but impossible to unlearn for most.
The modern day acceptance of a BOD and a BOB has the Archbishop of Boston then Cardinal Cushing (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31043&min=5#p3) as it's father. Without this man, the devil would have had to find some other high ranking cleric to convince the cretins to accept error for truth.
So the real fact is not that the modern day rejection of BOD/BOB is derived from Fr. Feeney, it is that the modern day rejection of the dogma EENS as it has always been taught, can be traced directly back to +Cushing.
BTW......
St. Paul said: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism."
My only question to you is: How many baptisms are there?
-
The ignorance or willful blindness is on the side of the feeneyites.
-
As I said, error once learned is all but impossible for most to unlearn - sadly, you are a shining example of this truth.
You and the OP most assuredly are completely ignorant when it comes to the history of Feeneyism - but sadly, you won't let that stop you.
-
Ipse dixit. The kettle calling the snow black.
-
No, just stating the facts.
By now, the whole world knows Fr. Feeny was excommunicated for disobedience to his heretical superior and not for any heresy. Yet you willfully reject this historical fact in your efforts to carry on promoting the error of +Cushing.
-
They didn't just call him there to see what he looked like in person.
I do not reject it. But the controversy was over his novel interpretation of the dogma. He would not have been called to Rome were it not for that? Are you honest enough to admit that?
-
He was excommunicated for disobedience - historical fact.
You can say whatever you want, but he was excommunicated for disobedience to his heretical superior. If you actually love truth, then this should be cause for you to be glad. OTOH, if you cannot accept this truth, then that is a testament that you actually are no lover of truth, rather, you are a lover of iniquity......if you cannot accept the above truth that is.
-
See you you avoid my question. You are intellectually dishonest. WHY was he called to Rome? Answer the question.
-
He was never told why he was called to Rome - and he asked several times but was ignored. Far as that goes, no one knows why he was summoned, till this day no one knows.
Now, do you or do you not accept the fact that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated, NOT for any heresy, but that he was excommunicated for disobedience to his heretical superior, Archbishop Cushing?
-
He was excommunicated for disobedience. He was called to Rome for promoting his grave error or heresy which is why the Holy Office Letter was sent out. Do you deny that is the reason for the Holy Office Letter?
-
He was called to Rome for promoting his grave error or heresy which is why the Holy Office Letter was sent out.
You have absolutely no way of knowing this. He had also disobeyed his Jesuit superiors, and was causing all kinds of waves against Cushing. This could have been a hearing that was intended to be primarily disciplinary in nature. As for Suprema Haec, that may or may not have had anything to do with the hearing itself, and disregarding it may or may not have been deemed excommunicable ... especially since it wasn't part of the authentic Magisterium and was most likely a hoax.
-
Just to continue listing your logical errors, you committed the old post hoc, propter hoc fallacy in your allegations about Father Feeney's excommunication.
-
There is no way around the fact that you are willfully blind on the issue. Charity would not oblige us to think otherwise but stupidity.
-
He was excommunicated for disobedience. He was called to Rome for promoting his grave error or heresy which is why the Holy Office Letter was sent out. Do you deny that is the reason for the Holy Office Letter?
And if only you could prove your lying accusation you might be able to justify lying about the reason he was excommunicated.
But seeing as how the decree of excommunication explicitly notes disobedience as the reason for his excommunication, I guess the only thing you can do is to keep lying about it.
I am not denying or confirming the reason - because no one knows. That information has never been made known to anyone. We can only surmise and opine that there were crooks in high places within the Church already at that time who were bent on silencing Fr. Feeney.
Who else beside lying crooks, enemies of the Church would try to silence a Catholic priest who preached the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church for salvation?
-
What caused the Holy Office to Write the letter to Cushing? Was the letter discussing disobedience or the fact that non-members can be saved within the Church? When you respond try to keep a straight face even though no one is looking?
-
He was never told why he was called to Rome - and he asked several times but was ignored. Far as that goes, no one knows why he was summoned, till this day no one knows.
Now, do you or do you not accept the fact that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated, NOT for any heresy, but that he was excommunicated for disobedience to his heretical superior, Archbishop Cushing?
Who exactly was it that allegedly excommunicated Fr Feeney? It wasn't Pius XII. ...
-
He did in fact excommunicate Father Feeney when he was called to Rome due his promotion of grave error or heresy after repeated warnings not to.
Why would a good Priest not accept a free trip to Rom to see the Pope?
-
What caused the Holy Office to Write the letter to Cushing? Was the letter discussing disobedience or the fact that non-members can be saved within the Church? When you respond try to keep a straight face even though no one is looking?
I already told you we can only surmise and opine that there were crooks in high places within the Church already at that time who were bent on silencing Fr. Feeney.
But you already know he was excommunicated for disobedience to his heretical superior, +Cushing.
Your problem is your disconnect in admitting +Cushing was the enemy when you believe what he taught.
-
To dare pretend that he was not called to Rome because he was promulgating grave error or heresy is dishonest and sinful. Hopeful anyone who might not know the truth of the matter will look for themselves instead of those who seek to keep his heresy alive.
-
He was never told why he was called to Rome - and he asked several times but was ignored. Far as that goes, no one knows why he was summoned, till this day no one knows.
Now, do you or do you not accept the fact that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated, NOT for any heresy, but that he was excommunicated for disobedience to his heretical superior, Archbishop Cushing?
Who exactly was it that allegedly excommunicated Fr Feeney? It wasn't Pius XII. ...
You are correct.
Officially? It was the then Archbishop Cushing (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19490903&id=X-lOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GQAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3012,5419704&hl=en) with the help of the Holy Office, but make no mistake about it, while "the letter" came from the Holy Office, it was +Cushing who held the pen.
This article appeared about a month after "The Letter".
A Vatican source said today that a Jesuit priest and four discharged Boston professors may be excommunicated if they persist in their "obstinate ways.
The source referred to Fr. Feeney and four professors who charged the Catholic college with teaching heresy for teaching that salvation was possible outside the Church.
The source implied that Archbishop Richard James Cushing of Boston would decide on the matter.
"They have disobeyed," the source said, "if Fr. Feeney as a priest vowed obedience when he was ordained. The four professors were bound by the principle of obedience of all the faithful to higher Church authorities in religious matters. If they continue in their obstinate ways, after the admonition of both Archbishop Cushing and the Holy Office, they will receive a punishment through the ordinary canon law.
"After they have been deprived of the sacraments, they may even be excommunicated.
"It is absolutely out of the question that the Pontiff will say anything after the action of Archbishop Cushing and the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. Now it is only a matter of procedure according to canon law. There is no further need for Vatican action because the Archbishop has full jurisdiction, authority and guidance."
-
To dare pretend that he was not called to Rome because he was promulgating grave error or heresy is dishonest and sinful. Hopeful anyone who might not know the truth of the matter will look for themselves instead of those who seek to keep his heresy alive.
What grave error? You should not talk about the Catholic faith in such a manner.
You should take your own advice and look for yourself so as to stop constantly anathematizing yourself.
-
The grave error or heresy that he was condemned for by the authoritative letter issued by the Holy Office and approved by Pope Pius XII which all good Catholics are obliged to accept under the pain of mortal sin which was his novel idea that only members of the Roman Catholic Church can possibly be saved no matter what the circuмstances might be.
-
the authoritative letter
Lie. It's not part of the authentic Magisterium. It did not appear in AAS; Canon Law required that acts of the authentic Magisterium be published in AAS.
-
It is still an authoritative letter approved by the Pope. No lie.
-
It is still an authoritative letter approved by the Pope. No lie.
He didn't approve anything. Likely he never even saw it. Which is why they refused to put it into AAS ... because then Pius XII would have scrutinized it. Also why they waited until the Cardinal who allegedly signed it had passed away (a good year after it had been issued). Why sit on it otherwise for that long?
This was a complete hoax ... brought to us by the same modernists who would later bring us Vatican II. But then of course they magically became heretics at 2:54 PM on July 3rd 1963, no?, ... having theretofore been completely orthodox.
-
The grave error or heresy that he was condemned for by the authoritative letter issued by the Holy Office and approved by Pope Pius XII which all good Catholics are obliged to accept under the pain of mortal sin which was his novel idea that only members of the Roman Catholic Church can possibly be saved no matter what the circuмstances might be.
Yes, yes, yes, the "grave error" of disobedience to his heretic superior, Archbishop Cushing. We understand you cannot see the heresies of +Cushing because you believe his heresies are actually Catholic teachings, presumably because that is what you want to believe even though you know better.
FYI, "The Letter", best known as "Suprema Haec Sacra" or "Protocol 122/49", was officially only a letter sent to Archbishop Cushing from Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani. The only thing it might bind is your innards if you were to eat it.
-
FYI, "The Letter", best known as "Suprema Haec Sacra" or "Protocol 122/49", was officially only a letter sent to Archbishop Cushing from Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
Yep, and they refused to release it until quite a bit after it had reportedly been written ... right after Marchetti-Selvaggiani had died. Why? It could easily have been tampered with and the Cardinal wouldn't be around to call them on it. Or else they could have just forged his signature entirely. Cushing most likely had some crony of his write this thing up and then waited for some elderly Cardinal to die who was part of the appropriate curial office, and then attributed it to him.
The only thing it might bind is your innards if you were to eat it.
:roll-laugh1:
-
his novel idea that only members of the Roman Catholic Church can possibly be saved
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
How can you possibly say this with a straight face?
What a disgusting heretic you are, calling dogma a novelty.
-
By far the most complete and explicit authoritative statement of the ecclesiastical magisterium on the subject of the Church’s necessity for salvation is to be found in the letter sent by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to His Excellency Archbishop Cushing of Boston. The letter was written as a result of the trouble occasioned by the St. Benedict Center group in Cambridge. The Suprema haec sacra was issued on August 8, 1949, but it was not published in full until the fall of 1952. The encyclical letter Humani generis was dated August 12, 1950. Thus, while actually composted after the Holy Office letter, it was published two years before the letter.
The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office asserts, in the letter, that it “is convinced that the unfortunate controversy [which occasioned the action of the Holy Office] arose from the fact that the axiom ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’ was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above [St. Benedict Center and Boston College] refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.” (Fenton 1958)
-
his novel idea that only members of the Roman Catholic Church can possibly be saved
Um, then what the hell does Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation mean? Even though I believe in BOD and BOB I have to come to the conclusion after reading this that you are a heretic, LOT. I think you don't know better so you are probably a material heretic, but still, you just called dogma a novelty.
-
his novel idea that only members of the Roman Catholic Church can possibly be saved
Um, then what the hell does Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation mean? Even though I believe in BOD and BOB I have to come to the conclusion after reading this that you are a heretic, LOT. I think you don't know better so you are probably a material heretic, but still, you just called dogma a novelty.
You can think what you like what the heck is BOD/B for if not non-members? Why would members need BOB/D? :facepalm:
-
You can think what you like what the heck is BOD/B for if not non-members? Why would members need BOB/D? :facepalm:
I will leave you to argue with Ladislaus. You can continue with your mental gymnastics to find a way to let everyone into heaven outside of the Church while still pretending to believe that outside the Church there is no salvation but I will pass.
-
You can think what you like what the heck is BOD/B for if not non-members? Why would members need BOB/D? :facepalm:
False. People who profess the Catholic faith and receive Baptism in voto are imperfect members, or members in voto; by their public profession they belong to the visible society that is the Catholic Church and meet the chief requirement for membership. It's this preposterous nonsense of having people within the Church without being members that is the novelty and the heresy. You create a Church which is not co-extensive with her own body.
-
You can think what you like what the heck is BOD/B for if not non-members? Why would members need BOB/D? :facepalm:
I will leave you to argue with Ladislaus. You can continue with your mental gymnastics to find a way to let everyone into heaven outside of the Church while still pretending to believe that outside the Church there is no salvation but I will pass.
That's what they do, Matto, and that's their agenda and intent. They care NOTHING about the isolated case of a catechumen or catechumen-like person who professes the Catholic faith who might die before Sacramental catechism. Hopefully people like LoT help everyone see what the BoD crusade is all about. As I told you, Matto, I respect your opinion on BoD and have zero issues with it. If LoT believed the same way as you do, I wouldn't even bother writing a word in response to his posts. But that is NOT what he's all about.
-
Please explain how a baptized member of the Catholic Church would benefit from BOB or BOD? :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Please explain how a baptized member of the Catholic Church would benefit from BOB or BOD? :facepalm: :facepalm:
Obviously a BAPTIZED member would not.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
We're talking about unbaptized imperfect members or members in voto, not baptized members. I guess you can't read very well.
Of course, I don't believe in BoD ... so it's a moot point in my regard.
-
Members of the Church are those who are baptized, profess the Faith and submit to legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
Are you trying to broaden the definition of membership like V2?
Matto throws a bomb and runs away like a coward. He says he believes in BOB/D and at the same time believes only members can be saved?
He can't have it both ways. You are either more ignorant than I thought or a plant to undermine Catholic teaching.
Is it "No Salvation OUTSIDE the Church" or "No Salvation for NON-MEMBERS" as the coward Matto insinuates.
-
Members of the Church are those who are baptized, profess the Faith and submit to legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
ACTUAL members of the Church have all these characteristics, dummy. Cf. Pius XII in Mystici Corporis.
-
Members of the Church are those who are baptized, profess the Faith and submit to legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
Are you trying to broaden the definition of membership like V2?
Matto throws a bomb and runs away like a coward. He says he believes in BOB/D and at the same time believes only members can be saved?
He can't have it both ways. You are either more ignorant than I thought or a plant to undermine Catholic teaching.
Is it "No Salvation OUTSIDE the Church" or "No Salvation for NON-MEMBERS" as the coward Matto insinuates.
I am not a coward. I just know that there is little point to argue with heretics like you. I have better things to do. Of course it is a sign of your good will to call me a coward and assume the worst of me.
-
I am not a coward. I just know that there is little point to argue with heretics like you. I have better things to do. Of course it is a sign of your good will to call me a coward and assume the worst of me.
And he's the first one crowing about name-calling when we insult him the same way.
I only argue with this heretic lest some innocent third party lurker might be persuaded by his errors.
-
I heard it said that God put a limit to our intelligence but not to our stupidity and Matto proves this assertion splendidly.
Matto believes in salvation for members alone and BOB/D.
That is an absurdity that cannot be paralleled. Now Ladislaus agrees with V2 in expanding "membership" as an excuse to agree with Matto's supreme nonsense against me. This would be something I would not believe had I not experienced it first hand. Madness.
-
Members of the Church are those who are baptized, profess the Faith and submit to legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
Are you trying to broaden the definition of membership like V2?
Matto throws a bomb and runs away like a coward. He says he believes in BOB/D and at the same time believes only members can be saved?
He can't have it both ways. You are either more ignorant than I thought or a plant to undermine Catholic teaching.
Is it "No Salvation OUTSIDE the Church" or "No Salvation for NON-MEMBERS" as the coward Matto insinuates.
I am not a coward. I just know that there is little point to argue with heretics like you. I have better things to do. Of course it is a sign of your good will to call me a coward and assume the worst of me.
You call me a heretic and then say you won't debate after a simple question. Talk about the kettle calling the snow black.
-
the authoritative letter
Lie. It's not part of the authentic Magisterium. It did not appear in AAS; Canon Law required that acts of the authentic Magisterium be published in AAS.
Irrelevant.
The Holy Office letter was never published in the Acts of the Apostolic See, that is correct. However, it does not need to be in order to have magisterial force -- why should it, anyway? Do you think the Popes in the 3rd century had an Acta Apostolicae Sedis to publish their docuмents in?
"The Roman Congregations do not publish all their decisions. An enormous number of these have no interest whatever except to those who solicit them. But if they contribute to the interpretation of some point of canon law or are of interest in jurisprudence, they are published in the Aeta Apostolicae Sedis, created by the Apostolic Constitution Promiilgardi of Pius X in 1908." (Michael Williams, The Catholic Church in Action [1958], p. 90; available here: https://archive.org/details/ca...
It really doesn't matter what other errors Feeneyites may oppose, or whether they are personally pious, etc. They have an obligation to submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Feeneyism distorts Catholic teaching by changing the dogma "no salvation outside the Church" to "no salvation apart from Church membership."
Besides, to say it is necessary for something to be published in the AAS before it can be considered magisterial is silly because it would mean that when a docuмent is issued, you'd have to wait first until the following year to see if it's published there.
-
I heard it said that God put a limit to our intelligence but not to our stupidity and Matto proves this assertion splendidly.
Matto believes in salvation for members alone and BOB/D.
That is an absurdity that cannot be paralleled. Now Ladislaus agrees with V2 in expanding "membership" as an excuse to agree with Matto's supreme nonsense against me. This would be something I would not believe had I not experienced it first hand. Madness.
I am blinded by the sheer retardedness here. I might return to unravel your stupidity tomorrow. I have somewhere to go now.
-
You call me a heretic and then say you won't debate after a simple question. Talk about the kettle calling the snow black.
I owe you nothing. You can insult me all you like. I have to go to the grocery store now so if I do not respond to any further questioning don't call me a coward again, just know that I am away from my computer.
-
his novel idea that only members of the Roman Catholic Church can possibly be saved
Wow, I had to do a double take on this one.
So LoE has no idea what a dogma even is, but actually considers it a "novel idea".
Amazing.
Now I wonder if all rabid BODers share that belief.
-
his novel idea that only members of the Roman Catholic Church can possibly be saved
Um, then what the hell does Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation mean? Even though I believe in BOD and BOB I have to come to the conclusion after reading this that you are a heretic, LOT. I think you don't know better so you are probably a material heretic, but still, you just called dogma a novelty.
You can think what you like what the heck is BOD/B for if not non-members? Why would members need BOB/D? :facepalm:
BoD/BoB is not some sort of exception from the necessity of membership in the Church and explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity. BoD is only for those with explicit faith in Christ (absolutely necessary for salvation - see Athanasian Creed, Cantate Domino and Vatican I), it provides them with sacrament in voto and makes them members of the Church. In other words, BoD make one a Catholic.
his novel idea that only members of the Roman Catholic Church can possibly be saved
For a moment I had a hard time to believe what I'm reading :shocked:. Here LoT calls EENS a "novel idea". Go read Cantate Domino once again:
"It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church."
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
Only those who abide in Church's sacraments and persevere in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church can be saved.
As to Suprema Haec Sacra, even if it was not a fraud (very likely it was), it was a non-infallible docuмent, and since it contradicts Athanasian Creed, Vatican I and Cantate Domino, the infallible teachings on EENS trump it in authority.
-
As to Suprema Haec Sacra, even if it was not a fraud (very likely it was), it was a non-infallible docuмent, and since it contradicts Athanasian Creed, Vatican I and Cantate Domino, the infallible teachings on EENS trump it in authority.
As far as Suprema Haec Sacra goes, After reading it a few times and then reading the Athanasian Creed, I came to the conclusion that the two were contradictory. But I saw an interesting letter from Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton about it which is posted in the Catholic Resources subforum over at Te Deum forums here (http://tedeum.boards.net/thread/2389/msgr-fenton-1949-office-letter). Fenton says that Suprema Haec Sacra didn't really teach that people can be saved without belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation and that it is compatible with the Athanasian Creed. So if Fenton is right and then there is no contradiction then I would have no problem with Suprema Haec Sacra . Fenton was obviously a lot more qualified than I am and since he has a reputation for being a traditionalist I give his opinion more weight than others.
-
As to Suprema Haec Sacra, even if it was not a fraud (very likely it was), it was a non-infallible docuмent, and since it contradicts Athanasian Creed, Vatican I and Cantate Domino, the infallible teachings on EENS trump it in authority.
As far as Suprema Haec Sacra goes, After reading it a few times and then reading the Athanasian Creed, I came to the conclusion that the two were contradictory. But I saw an interesting letter from Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton about it which is posted in the Catholic Resources subforum over at Te Deum forums here (http://tedeum.boards.net/thread/2389/msgr-fenton-1949-office-letter). Fenton says that Suprema Haec Sacra didn't really teach that people can be saved without belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation and that it is compatible with the Athanasian Creed. So if Fenton is right and then there is no contradiction then I would have no problem with Suprema Haec Sacra . Fenton was obviously a lot more qualified than I am and since he has a reputation for being a traditionalist I give his opinion more weight than others.
You were right the first time Matto.
LoT is a student of Fenton, as well as other 20 century theologians, LoT believes much the same as the rest of the world - that dogma is a novelty. Enough said.
It is most often best to be suspicious and to avoid Fenton and the other 20th century theologians who have not clearly defended the dogma.
-
I heard it said that God put a limit to our intelligence but not to our stupidity and Matto proves this assertion splendidly.
Matto believes in salvation for members alone and BOB/D.
That is an absurdity that cannot be paralleled. Now Ladislaus agrees with V2 in expanding "membership" as an excuse to agree with Matto's supreme nonsense against me. This would be something I would not believe had I not experienced it first hand. Madness.
I am blinded by the sheer retardedness here. I might return to unravel your stupidity tomorrow. I have somewhere to go now.
I did not "agree" with Matto's "nonsense" against you. If you look at the thread, I am the first one who called you out for heresy in declaring EENS to be a novel idea. So it was entirely the other way around.
Fenton himself describes the different opinions regarding how to explain that people who are not actual members of the Church can be saved. And one of the opinions considers people who profess the Catholic faith to be imperfect members because they meet most of the criteria for membership but only have Baptism in voto. So this is not a Vatican II notion, dimwit. Pius XII in Mystici Corporis referred to membership in actu, implying the possible existence of a membership in voto.
I consider your idea (and Fenton's) that people can be in the Church without being members to be ridiculous; it creates a Church which is not co-extensive with her own body, and that's the same error of body/soul separation condemned by Pius XII, despite the fact that Fenton tries to whitewash it.
-
LoT is a student of Fenton, as well as other 20 century theologians
Except when Fenton declared V2 ecclesiology to be an "improvement". But LoT is smarter than Fenton.
-
You call me a heretic and then say you won't debate after a simple question. Talk about the kettle calling the snow black.
I owe you nothing. You can insult me all you like. I have to go to the grocery store now so if I do not respond to any further questioning don't call me a coward again, just know that I am away from my computer.
When did I say you owe me something?
You call me a heretic. Then you say you want respond when I defend myself when your obviously available to respond. Coward.
-
his novel idea that only members of the Roman Catholic Church can possibly be saved
Um, then what the hell does Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation mean? Even though I believe in BOD and BOB I have to come to the conclusion after reading this that you are a heretic, LOT. I think you don't know better so you are probably a material heretic, but still, you just called dogma a novelty.
You can think what you like what the heck is BOD/B for if not non-members? Why would members need BOB/D? :facepalm:
BoD/BoB is not some sort of exception from the necessity of membership in the Church and explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity. BoD is only for those with explicit faith in Christ (absolutely necessary for salvation - see Athanasian Creed, Cantate Domino and Vatican I), it provides them with sacrament in voto and makes them members of the Church. In other words, BoD make one a Catholic.
his novel idea that only members of the Roman Catholic Church can possibly be saved
For a moment I had a hard time to believe what I'm reading :shocked:. Here LoT calls EENS a "novel idea". Go read Cantate Domino once again:
"It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church."
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
Only those who abide in Church's sacraments and persevere in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church can be saved.
As to Suprema Haec Sacra, even if it was not a fraud (very likely it was), it was a non-infallible docuмent, and since it contradicts Athanasian Creed, Vatican I and Cantate Domino, the infallible teachings on EENS trump it in authority.
BOB/D applies only to non-members as only those who are not Baptized and not members of the Catholic Church can benefit from it. The are within the Church despite not being members though they become members at death.
When asked what heresy/error Feeney taught I could have said:
"Salvation apart from water" or the idea that one dies justified and in a state of sanctifying grace but will still go to Hell if water was poured on his head" as this is less confusing to the ignorant who cannot distinguish the difference between "member" and "inside" thinking they both mean exactly the same thing.
-
As to Suprema Haec Sacra, even if it was not a fraud (very likely it was), it was a non-infallible docuмent, and since it contradicts Athanasian Creed, Vatican I and Cantate Domino, the infallible teachings on EENS trump it in authority.
[/quote]
:roll-laugh1:
This is an example of a quote from a desperate Feeneyite. Incredible.
-
I heard it said that God put a limit to our intelligence but not to our stupidity and Matto proves this assertion splendidly.
Matto believes in salvation for members alone and BOB/D.
That is an absurdity that cannot be paralleled. Now Ladislaus agrees with V2 in expanding "membership" as an excuse to agree with Matto's supreme nonsense against me. This would be something I would not believe had I not experienced it first hand. Madness.
I am blinded by the sheer retardedness here. I might return to unravel your stupidity tomorrow. I have somewhere to go now.
I did not "agree" with Matto's "nonsense" against you. If you look at the thread, I am the first one who called you out for heresy in declaring EENS to be a novel idea. So it was entirely the other way around.
Fenton himself describes the different opinions regarding how to explain that people who are not actual members of the Church can be saved. And one of the opinions considers people who profess the Catholic faith to be imperfect members because they meet most of the criteria for membership but only have Baptism in voto. So this is not a Vatican II notion, dimwit. Pius XII in Mystici Corporis referred to membership in actu, implying the possible existence of a membership in voto.
I consider your idea (and Fenton's) that people can be in the Church without being members to be ridiculous; it creates a Church which is not co-extensive with her own body, and that's the same error of body/soul separation condemned by Pius XII, despite the fact that Fenton tries to whitewash it.
You are so dishonest. EENS is anything but a novel idea. It has been Dogma since the beginning. It is heresy to deny it. Please show me where I made this claim.
-
Members of the Church are those who are baptized, profess the Faith and submit to legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
ACTUAL members of the Church have all these characteristics, dummy. Cf. Pius XII in Mystici Corporis.
You are broadening the definition of "membership" and "Mystical Body of Christ" like the V2ers liberal nitwit.
-
Why don't you respond to the following Ladislaus:
The Holy Office letter was never published in the Acts of the Apostolic See, that is correct. However, it does not need to be in order to have magisterial force -- why should it, anyway? Do you think the Popes in the 3rd century had an Acta Apostolicae Sedis to publish their docuмents in?
"The Roman Congregations do not publish all their decisions. An enormous number of these have no interest whatever except to those who solicit them. But if they contribute to the interpretation of some point of canon law or are of interest in jurisprudence, they are published in the Aeta Apostolicae Sedis, created by the Apostolic Constitution Promiilgardi of Pius X in 1908." (Michael Williams, The Catholic Church in Action [1958], p. 90; available here: https://archive.org/details/ca...
It really doesn't matter what other errors Feeneyites may oppose, or whether they are personally pious, etc. They have an obligation to submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Feeneyism distorts Catholic teaching by changing the dogma "no salvation outside the Church" to "no salvation apart from Church membership."
Besides, to say it is necessary for something to be published in the AAS before it can be considered magisterial is silly because it would mean that when a docuмent is issued, you'd have to wait first until the following year to see if it's published there.
Wouldn't be easier for you to just say the above facts are not facts like you claim Trent does not teach what Trent teaches?
-
Doesn't matter what Popes did in the 3rd Century. Modern Canon Law states that docuмents must be included within the Acta in order to be considered authentic acts of the Magisterium. There's a reason for that; it's to prevent various attempts at forgery, interpolations of texts, and other duplicity. ... such as exactly what happened with the so-called SH. What's absurd is that they give this ridiculous heretical text a Latin title, using the first two words of the text, in order to give the impression that it's on a par with Encyclicals or something. What a joke.
-
Not to mention that decisions of the Holy Office are NOT even part of the Magisterium, dummy. They're typically practical application of Magisterium to specific cases or concrete situations.
-
Wouldn't be easier for you to just say the above facts are not facts like you claim Trent does not teach what Trent teaches?
Yes, LoT, I believe you when you claim that Trent teaches that the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation when Trent actually anathematizes you and your opinion.
I have explained why Trent doesn't teach BoD, and my argument has never been refuted. You just rely on tautologies and repeated ipse dixits.
-
BOB/D applies only to non-members as only those who are not Baptized and not members of the Catholic Church can benefit from it. The are within the Church despite not being members though they become members at death.
No, they become member immediately after receiving BoD, as they receive the sacrament of baptism in voto.
The heart of the issue is - to receive BoD you need to have explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity for salvation.
As to Suprema Haec Sacra, even if it was not a fraud (very likely it was), it was a non-infallible docuмent, and since it contradicts Athanasian Creed, Vatican I and Cantate Domino, the infallible teachings on EENS trump it in authority.
:roll-laugh1:
This is an example of a quote from a desperate Feeneyite. Incredible.
Ad hominem without any arguments. You claim that it is possible to be saved without faith in Christ through beliving in Rewarder God and in another thread you cited Suprema Haec Sacra to support that heretical assertion. Athanasian Creed teaches that it is impossible to be saved without faith in Christ and the Most Holy Trinity, ruling out the Rewarder God theory (which Suprema Haec Sacra, according to you, supports). Thus, by your own admission Suprema Haec contradicts the Athanasian Creed. Not to mention this letter he zero magisterial authority.
Also, I accept Thomistic BoD as a theological possibility, thus I'm hardly a Feeneyite.
-
Members of the Church are those who are baptized, profess the Faith and submit to legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
ACTUAL members of the Church have all these characteristics, dummy. Cf. Pius XII in Mystici Corporis.
You are broadening the definition of "membership" and "Mystical Body of Christ" like the V2ers liberal nitwit.
I am broadening nothing, you witless moron. Your hero Msgr. Fenton says that many theologians (pre-V2) held that such as might be saved by BoD have imperfect membership in the Church or membership in voto.
-
Incredible. How can one desire what he already has. You sound like Cushing.
-
Incredible. How can one desire what he already has. You sound like Cushing.
You sound like a retard and a heretic.
-
You are one. Redefining "membership" and "mystical body of Christ" as both something broader than has been defined. You reduce EENS to an empty formula by doing that.
-
You are one. Redefining "membership" and "mystical body of Christ" as both something broader than has been defined. You reduce EENS to an empty formula by doing that.
This from a man who believes dogmas are novel ideas.
Talk about an exercise in futility.
-
False accusation. That is all you have to "defend" your error.
-
You reduce EENS to an empty formula ... .
:roll-laugh1:
That has to be the funniest thing I've heard in years, a foaming-at-the-mouth EENS-denier accusing ME of turning EENS into an empty formula.
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
-
I've grown weary of responding to your incessant flow of garbage in this forum.
-
I've grown weary of responding to your incessant flow of garbage in this forum.
The feeling is mutual. As long as you post error I will post truth.
-
St. Augustine and 7/8 Church Fathers rejected BoD.
Abelard rejected BoD in the pre-scholastic era.
In fact, not a single Catholic ever believed that those without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation could be saved ... for 1600 years, until some Jesuits introduced the theory.
So the correct "History" is that the modern Vatican II ecclesiology ... to which most Traditionalists adhere ... began in the 1600s.
Three who dare challenge Church Teaching
Peter Abélard, Fr. Leonard Feeney and Peter Dimond against St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the Saints, Fathers, Doctors and Popes of the holy Catholic Church.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jul/jul14str.htm
Part one of this series Word Twisting to Change the Meaning, discussed scholastic dishonesty in a general manner to show how selective and defective and out-of-context quotes can be used to make it seem as if the Bible, or popes and saints, or scholars, have stated unreasonable propositions which they themselves would never endorse, and indeed would have been shocked and offended to see their own words being so misapplied.
Part two, Ellipses Can Eclipse Ecclesial Intent, introduced Peter Dimond's treatise, "Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation," (hereinafter referred to as "the Treatise"), which is in my opinion the most exhaustive attempt to gather all the basic material regarding the various debates that have occurred regarding the question of Baptism of Blood (hereinafter referred to as "BOB") and Baptism of Desire (hereinafter referred to as "BOD") under one cover. In that installment I addressed the manner in which Peter Dimond misreads a great many standard dogmatic texts by failing to take into account a number of other dogmatic considerations, clearly known to the popes who enunciated the dogmatic texts themselves, selectively quoting them so as to make them seem to say something they do not in fact say.
Another one of the 20 misreadings of Scripture discussed by James W. Sire in his book "Scripture Twisting," is "virtue by association." This particular misreading is not so much a misreading of any text itself as it is the use of Bible texts (or even Bible figures) merely to lend credibility to plainly non-biblical claims. For example it cites a book by Rick Chapman titled "How to Choose a Guru" which lists twenty-one gurus that "you can't go wrong with." Along with Jesus are listed Christian figures (St. Francis and St. Theresa) and such others as Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Meher Baba, and Lao-tsu.
Another example of such "virtue by association" mentioned in "Scripture Twisting" is the way that the Book of Mormon was written to sound so very much like the Bible, with all of its King's English, Behold!'s, And it came to pass...'s, and Lo!'s and a two-column format similar to most Bibles, and so forth. But as corollary to virtue by association there is also guilt by association, which the Scripture Twisting book also mentions in passing.
A rather considerable amount of space in the Treatise is spent in refuting any number of anti-Catholic positions, ranging from those who see no necessity in being baptized, in being subject to the Supreme Pontiff, in belonging specifically to the Catholic Church, in reading the ancient magisterial docuмents only in the sense in which they were originally written, or even being a Catholic, in order to be "saved." One could argue that Peter Dimond was attempting to take on all positions other than his own, be they Catholic, Protestant, Modernist, Liberal, Agnostic, Deist, Atheist, or whatever.
However, in each case the evidences adduced to prove many of the alternative positions false are merely those sorts of evidences that would have meaning only to conservative and traditional Catholics who take their faith seriously. Namely, he uses the declarations of Popes, Councils, Doctors, Canonists, Theologians, and Saints, with an occasional (and selective) borrowing from historical practices of the Church. To any Catholic these sorts of sources obviously must have weight, but these sources would mean nothing at all to Protestants, agnostics, deists, atheists, and for that matter the general run of liberals who think that Vatican II (and the declarations that have followed since) has rendered obsolete all previous Papal and Church teaching.
Is he trying thereby to lump Catholics who simply believe in the Catholic doctrines of BOB and BOD in with all the various heretics who deny the necessity of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff or belief in all that the Church teaches, and all the rest, for salvation? This is nothing but guilt by association. Or perhaps he also intends to so associate his wicked pseudo-arguments denying BOB/BOD with the perfectly valid arguments against claims that other churches and religions can save or that water baptism need not be sought or that ignorance of itself can save and so forth. That would be nothing but virtue by association.
The result of this is that a number of the chapters of the Treatise can basically be ignored here since their basic contentions are in no way challenged by any Catholic of the sort who would be persuaded by what the Pre-Vatican II Popes and Councils etc. have infallibly taught. This applies to sections 2 (The Keys of St. Peter and His Unfailing Faith), 3 (Believe Dogma as it was once declared), 7 (Subjection to the Church/Roman Pontiff), 9 (partially, namely the requirement that the water used for water baptism be literal water, Water is Necessary for Baptism and John 3:5 is literal), 10 (Infants Cannot Be Saved Without Baptism), 11 (Those who Die in Original Sin or Mortal Sin Descend into Hell), 13 (The Athanasian Creed and There is No Salvation for members of Islam, Judaism or other heretical or schismatic non-Catholics sects), 24 (Catholics Must Believe and Profess that the Sacramental System as a whole is Necessary for Salvation), and the three Appendices (The Form of Baptism, The Profession of Faith for converts to the Catholic Faith, and The Apostle's Creed). Though some of these sections may contain certain flaws, what few such flaws as are in them are simply borrowed from other sections and it would be redundant to address them here. I have therefore nothing further to say about the above listed sections.
So where did denials of BOB and BOD get their start? In the opening couple centuries of the Church this question seems to have never come up. And in the next several centuries several ancient Church Fathers mentioned both BOB and BOD, though there were some few who listed only the martyrs (BOB) as being any exception to the requirement to be baptized in water. And yet, through selective quotation many of them are made to seem as if they entertained a variety of different opinions about BOB and BOD among themselves. However, no useful quotes have been found (even out of context) to suggest that any of the most ancient Fathers were in any way aware of any such difference of opinion among themselves
One salient point that necessarily has to emerge from these facts is that there is little evidence that many of the ancients ever gave these questions much thought. By the time of Saint Augustine however, there had already been established a clear moral unanimity regarding the BOB, which was clearly in favor. Of the very most ancients, even what few could be quoted (or even misquoted) as being against either one of BOB or BOD never once invoked any of the official pronouncements (of the sort listed in my previous installment, or what equivalents to them must have existed in their own day) in defense of any such opinion, assuming any ever entertained such an opinion at all.
If such official teachings as those cited in the previous installment were meant to be applicable to these particular cases, this kind of discussion would not have been permissible. One finds no further discussions on the question of BOB or BOD until the late 1120's when Peter Abélard, who had just recently put forth (but then had already withdrawn) some rather irregular ideas regarding the Holy Trinity, first began to deny that those ancient Church Fathers and Doctors, such as Augustine and Ambrose, could have been right about allowing for BOD.
There is much about the whole situation regarding St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter Abélard which the Treatise quite dishonestly passes over in silence. The Catholic Encyclopedia brings out a number of salient historical points about these two men and how they related to each other with regards to the doctrinal differences between the two men, including the discussion about BOD. It states (as extracted from its articles about St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter Abélard):
Abélard's treatise on the Trinity had been condemned in 1121, and he himself had thrown his book into the fire. But in 1139 he advocated new errors. Bernard, informed of this by William of St. Thierry, wrote to Abélard who answered in an insulting manner. Bernard then denounced him to the pope who caused a general council to be held at Sens. Abélard asked for a public discussion with Bernard; the latter showed his opponent's errors with such clearness and force of logic that he was unable to make any reply, and was obliged, after being condemned, to retire. The pope confirmed the judgment of the council, Abélard submitted without resistance, and retired to Cluny to live under Peter the Venerable, where he died two years later.
There were admonitions on the one side and defiances on the other; St. Bernard, having first warned Abélard in private, proceeded to denounce him to the bishops of France; Abélard, underestimating the ability and influence of his adversary, requested a meeting, or council, of bishops, before whom Bernard and he should discuss the points in dispute.
Accordingly, a council was held at Sens (the metropolitan see to which Paris was then suffragan) in 1141. On the eve of the council a meeting of bishops was held, at which Bernard was present, but not Abélard, and in that meeting a number of propositions were selected from Abélard's writings, and condemned. When, on the following morning, these propositions were read in solemn council, Abélard, informed, so it seems, of the proceedings of the evening before, refused to defend himself, declaring that he appealed to Rome. Accordingly, the propositions were condemned, but Abélard was allowed his freedom. St. Bernard now wrote to the members of the Roman Curia, with the result that Abélard had proceeded only as far as Cluny on his way to Rome when the decree of Innocent II confirming the sentence of the Council of Sens reached him.
The Council of Sens condemned some 19 errors of Peter Abélard (Denzinger 368-387), of which the condemned proposition number 15 reads "That even chaste fear is excluded from future life." (Denzinger 382) This peculiar phrasing would be taken from Peter Abélard's own writings in which he had argued to the effect that even someone who dies with a chaste and holy fear of God, (but without being baptized in water) would still be excluded from Heaven. So, in review, Peter Abélard's unusual teachings, including his denial of BOD, were condemned in council (Sens) and then also by the Pope (Innocent II). Even Peter Abélard himself appears to have subsequently withdrawn his propositions.
The denial of BOD would never arise again for just over 800 years, when Fr. Leonard Feeney,S.J. would begin championing Peter Abélard's unique opinion. But why is all of this history omitted? Pope Innocent II does get mentioned (page 144 of the Treatise), but only with regard to a rather strange docuмent pertaining to the situation of an unbaptized priest. Why is the council of Sens not mentioned? Even more germane to the question, why is Pope Innocent II's endorsement of the decision of the Council of Sens not mentioned? From the way this whole episode is written up in the Treatise, one gets the picture that it all went much like controversies go in the Church today (in view of the lack of anyone of sufficient authority willing to arbitrate between differing doctrinal opinions) - someone writes up some claim, another writes against the claim, each side gets its followers, no authority steps in to resolve the question so people just continue lining up with whatever side they individually choose to agree with. Occasionally one side or the other may convert some adherants to their side through some particularly brilliant preaching, but no permanent gains are made and no resolutions emerge, and thus it remains indefinitely. Ignoring the council of Sens and the Pope's endorsement of said council, one gets the idea that Peter Abélard just writes up one claim, Bernard of Clairvaux writes against that claim, and then it's up to you, the reader, to decide which side you agree with.
At least, Saint Bernard IS mentioned, and even with regard to this episode (page 82), but only in that he had written a treatise (Tractatus de Baptismo) in which he affirmed his stand with Saints (and Doctors) Ambrose and Augustine, as two pillars, in BOD. St. Bernard's own treatise had been written in response to a number of comments of Peter Abélard's and was written in direct response to a letter from Hugh of Saint Victor who desired to prepare a response to Abélard (or any of his disciples) who had spread pernicious ideas including the notion that the law of baptism became law the moment Jesus spoke of it secretly to Nicodemus, and that the ancient Fathers had known as fully as could be known today the full details of God's plan of redemption including the Virgin Birth and Jesus' death on the Cross. And important also to note is that Peter Abélard was only critical of BOD. He plainly did not reject the all-too widely held belief in BOB.
It is instructive to take a good look at how St. Bernard responded to these errors, for he did far more than merely state that he disagreed with them. He reasoned from Scripture and the Fathers and the love of God in a manner exactly consistent with how all the ancient Fathers defended the doctrines. The full text of his response is available in the book Bernard of Clairvaux: "On Baptism and the Office of Bishops" Translated by Pauline Matarasso, available as Cistercian Fathers Series #67 from Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN, web address litpress.org, and also available from Cistercian Publications. The relevant portion reads thus (from pages 157-162):
Once the remedy of baptism was common knowledge, any adult still refusing to be baptized added to the general and original stain - and this time on his own account - the crime of pride, carrying with him a double cause of just damnation should he happen to leave the body in that state. If, however, he should have second thoughts before the end, and want and ask to be baptized, but, forestalled by death, fail in the obtaining, so long as true faith, devout hope, and unfeigned love are present and only water is lacking - may God forgive me - I am quite unable to despair of this man's salvation, nor will I believe his faith empty, crush his hope or prune away his charity: this on condition that he does not spurn the water, but is prevented by the impossibility I have just mentioned. If anyone takes a different view, I suggest he look at the grounds on which he bases what he advances, for I confess that I would grudge my assent unless a more powerful argument swayed my reason or a greater authority compelled my belief.
But my amazement would pass all bounds if this new inventor of novel assertions and assertor of new inventions was able to find a supportive argument which escaped the notice of the holy Fathers Ambrose and Augustine, or indeed an authority weightier than theirs. For, in the case he does not know, each held exactly the same opinion - the very one I admit to sharing. He should make a point of reading - if he has not already done so - Ambrose's book On the Death of Valentinian. If he has read it, he should recall it to mind and, recalling it, not fail to register but positively note, that the saint confidently assumes the salvation of one who met death unbaptized, and has no hesitation in allowing good will to substitute for capacity. He should also read Augustine's On the One Baptism, Book IV, and either admit that he has let himself be led astray or prove himself brazenly stubborn. 'Blessed Cyprian', says Augustine, 'to show that suffering can sometimes stand in for baptism, adduces the weighty example of that unbaptized thief to whom Christ said: Today you shall be with me in paradise.' Augustine goes on: 'I found, on turning this over and over in my mind, that it is not only suffering for the name of Christ, but also faith and conversion of heart which can make good the loss borne by those who want of time robs of the benefits of the baptismal mystery'. 'That thief', he continues, 'exemplifies the Apostle's words on the value of the inner disposition in the absence of the visible sacrament, It is by believing with the heart that we are justified, by confessing with the lips that we are saved. But', adds Augustine, 'it is only when baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion but by outward constraints, that the mystery is invisibly implemented.' And I am not unaware that [that Father] himself withdrew the example of the thief, which he had put forward, and acknowledged its inadmissibility as proof of his opinion, in that it cannot be known for certain whether or not the thief had been baptized. That does not stop him from pressing his view strongly and confirming it in various ways; nor, unless I am mistaken, will you find any instance of his having retracted it. Elsewhere Augustine, after bringing forward other figures whom Scripture records as having been invisibly rather than visibly sanctified, writes in conclusion: 'We may gather from these examples that some have experienced and profited from an invisible sanctification unaccompanied by visible sacraments, which latter have changed with changing times and differed then from now.' A little further on we read: 'Not, however, that the visible sacrament is to be contemned, for it is not possible for anyone acting thus to be invisibly sanctified.' In these passages he demonstrates clearly that the faithful person who turns to God in his heart is deprived of the fruit of baptism not by failing to be baptized, but by holding baptism in contempt.
It would be hard, believe me, to tear me away from these two pillars - I mean Augustine and Ambrose. I own to going along with them in wisdom or in error, for I too believe that a person can be saved by faith alone, through the desire to receive the sacrament, but only if such a one is forestalled by death or prevented by some other insuperable force from implementing this devout desire. Perhaps this was why the Savior, when he said: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, took care not to repeat 'whoever is not baptized', but only, whoever does not believe will be condemned, intimating strongly that faith is sometimes sufficient for salvation and that without it nothing suffices. And while it is conceded that martyrdom can stand in for baptism, it is clearly not the torment but the faith which is operative. For without faith what is martyrdom but torment? If faith, then, which gives to martyrdom an eminence that sets it on par with baptism, is so impotent and feeble of itself, how can it confer on something else what it is not potent enough to win on its own? To shed one's blood for Christ is without doubt a proof of great faith, but one given not to God, but to human beings. Supposing God, who has no need of tangible proofs, sees in the heart of someone dying in peace an equally great faith, a faith not put to the test of martyrdom but nonetheless meet for it; if that person, recalling that he has not yet received the mystery of salvation, longs for it with the fullness of a disconsolate and contrite heart, and if sudden death prevents him attaining it, will God condemn his faithful servant? Will he condemn, I ask you, someone who is ready to die for him? Paul says: No one is able to say 'Lord Jesus' save in the Holy Spirit. So what then of the person who at the hour of death not only invokes the Lord Jesus, but also longs for his sacrament with all the fullness of his heart, shall we say that he does not speak in the Holy Spirit, thus making a liar of the Apostle, or, alternatively, that even with the Spirit he will be condemned? He has the Savior dwelling in his heart through faith and in his mouth through avowal; with his Savior present will he be condemned? Since martyrdom earns from faith alone the exceptional privilege of being received in all security in place of baptism, I do not see why faith should not have the same sway with God, who does not need the proof of martyrdom to recognize it. I should certainly say that it is as efficacious for salvation, though not for the amassing of merit, where martyrdom undoubtedly takes precedence. We read that Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and again that If a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. What is plainer than that the will is taken for the deed, when force of circuмstance prevents the doing? Unless perhaps it is thought that ill will carries a greater weight than good with the God who is love, and that the merciful and magnanimous Lord is quicker to avenge himself than to reward. Just as someone who calls to mind - it may be at the point of death - that he is pledged to a creditor and lacks the wherewithal to discharge his debt, is believed nonetheless to win remission and be let off any judgment by simple dint of repentance and genuine sorrow, even so will faith alone and the conversion of the mind to God, without the shedding of blood and pouring of water, assuredly win salvation for whomsoever wishes to be baptized but, waylaid by death, is unable to put that wish into effect. And just as no repentance can remit the sin of the debtor who, when he can, does not restore what he has taken, even so no faith will avail the other who fails to receive the sacrament when he is able. Indeed, neglecting to do so proves that his faith is not perfect. A true and full faith embraces all commands; and this is the very chief of commands. Anyone therefore who refuses to obey it will rightly be deemed, not faithful, but frankly rebellious and contemptuous. For how can one be faithful and hold God's sacrament in contempt?
There are several things to observe from this rather lengthy discourse of the saint. For one thing he has called the BOD-denying opponent he refutes a "new inventor of novel assertions and assertor of new inventions," and openly challenges this opponent to produce any weightier authorities in this matter than Saints Ambrose and Augustine, who also each spoke at quite some length to defend BOD. If all of these "no salvation outside the Church" papal declarations were supposedly so authoritatively meant to imply that BOD (or even BOB) were teachings to be denied, why is it that Peter Abélard in no way has had recourse to any of these? Why, for example, had Abélard not quoted Pope Saint Leo the Great as is quoted in the Treatise, thus:
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451: "Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ's blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle's words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony - Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) in other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the Blood of redemption and the water of Baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."
This quote was clearly extant, and indeed it might even have come up in the course of the discussions in connection with the Holy Trinity as this comes from that most famous docuмent (it is "the Tome"). It had to have been known to both Abélard and Bernard, and certainly both would have recognized the Sainted and Great Pope to be one of the very few authorities who would have qualified as being even more weighty than Saints Ambrose and Augustine. Yet it goes unmentioned. Or else if Abélard had mentioned it, then why would Bernard so risk seriously disappointing his correspondent Hugh of Saint Victor by neglecting to respond to such a great argument?
Of course, Abélard simply never thought of it. And neither did anyone else in the Church until in the twenty-first century two laymen named Peter and Michael Dimond at last discovered what the Pope had really said way back then! The reason that Abélard would not have thought of it is that, unlike the Dimonds, he had been raised and steeped in the instruction of the Church and thereby understood in what sense these sorts of declarations were being made, what the Popes really and truly meant. Such quotes as those cited in the previous installment or even here above might look intimidating to us lay amateurs who might not have been instructed in how the Church has always understood such declarations, but to those so instructed the argument loses all value and interest.
In a manner strikingly similar to the Watchtower book's attempt to claim that Catholic scholars "admit that the doctrine [of the Holy Trinity] must be dated as from about three hundred and fifty years after the death of Jesus Christ" (when the Catholic scholars in fact admit no such thing), Dimond's Treatise claims that
"Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau (of the SSPX) is forced to admit in his book Baptism of Desire (p. 37) that during St. Bernard's period, when the idea of baptism of desire really began to gain momentum based on the passages of Augustine and Ambrose's funeral speech for Valentinian, the well-known Peter Abelard (whose orthodoxy nevertheless was suspect on other points) stated that any idea of baptism of desire based on St. Ambrose 'contradicts tradition in this matter.'"
Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau's book says no such thing on page 37 or anywhere else. Instead, what it reads on page 37 (having just given quite a compelling quote from Hugh of Saint Victor) is that "Only one dissident voice is heard, that of Abelard (1079-1142), who claims that St. Ambrose contradicts tradition in this matter. But this writer, whose orthodoxy is, at the very least, suspect, is refuted by St. Bernard (1090-1153)." And then a few very short but relevant passages of Tractatus de Baptismo are given in both the original Latin and in an English translation.
So, what has Dimond's Treatise to say of this episode? Well it so happened that in the course of the Tractatus de Baptismo St. Bernard had, in confessing his union with the two great pillars Augustine and Ambrose, stated that "I confess that, whether in error or knowledge, I am with them." The Treatise attempts to make much mileage from the phrase "whether in error or knowledge" ("in wisdom or in error," in the translation provided above), as though St. Bernard had his own doubts about what he was about to expound upon. St. Augustine had once remarked that "If I am in error, then it is God Himself who has deceived me," and this is a clear reference to that remark. With this phrase St. Bernard is saying that "if I am wrong, then so are Saints Augustine and Ambrose, and for that matter the Church which has endorsed their teaching thereafter by recognizing them as doctors."
If St. Bernard had really entertained any doubts as to BOD he would not have bothered writing about it in the Tractatus de Baptismo to defend it in the first place (the contents of which, apart from the bit about being "in error or in knowledge," are not presented anywhere in the Treatise lest their contents be too persuasive). In a similar mode, if Peter or Michael Dimond were to be giving some sedevacantist presentation, and in the introductory remarks say something like, "Sedevacantism, be it true or not, is the claim that..." everyone would understand that such a remark does not mean that they are in doubt of whether they intend to present a case in favor of sedevacantism. For if not, then they would not have bothered to prepare it in the first place. This is the kind of statement that is meant merely to serve as a polite nod to any in the audience who, not as yet having had presented to them the material to follow, might be of a mind to have doubts regarding the topic, or even opinions to the contrary. One cannot construe from such phrases any actual doubt, any more than one would ever seriously claim that St. Augustine must have wondered if perhaps God really might have deceived him after all.
So why should it even matter if St. Bernard says, "whether in error or knowledge" in such a context as this? Well it so happens that when Fr. François Laisney quoted from St. Bernard, he omitted the phrase with ellipses, and Peter Dimond, finding no reprieve in any other part of the work and wanting to make as much of this as possible, treated the omission as being deliberately deceptive, saying "the words 'whether in error or knowledge' are removed by Fr. Laisney". Now, of course, it is perfectly justifiable to use ellipses (…) when quoting texts, in order to pass over parts of the quotation that are not crucial or necessary in the discussion. But, in this case, the readers of Fr. Laisney's book would have been well served to see this short, crucial admission by St. Bernard that he could have been right or wrong about baptism of desire. Fr. Laisney deliberately removed it because he knows that it is devastating to his contention that baptism of desire is a teaching of the Church based on the opinions of saints."
While one may wonder if it might have been more advisable for Fr. Laisney to have simply included the phrase (as Fr. Rulleau does in his book), or even pointed out what I am saying about it above, one has to realize that the omission changes nothing and that Fr. Laisney's ellipses were perfectly legitimate. And indeed, in view of what the saint wrote, the inclusion of such a phrase is not the least bit "devastating" at all.
But still continuing this theme of "it's up to me the writer and you the reader to decide for ourselves whether we believe Peter Abélard or Bernard of Clairvaux," the Treatise immediately goes on to mention the concept of salvation by Faith alone. Now as we Catholics know (and as the Treatise itself amply cites from the Council of Trent), the Protestant teaching of salvation by faith alone is a heresy, but Bernard's use of the phrase "faith alone" has nothing in common with the heretical Protestant teaching that the Council of Trent rightly condemned. For the Protestants were teaching that baptism has no role in salvation, like it is merely some unnecessary "thing" you can do if you happen to feel like doing it, but if you don't that's also okay, since your faith alone is all you need. Their "faith" demands nothing but this "faith" alone, a distorted faith which admits no other obligation and needs no excuse for failing to do anything else than believe it.
The saving faith that St. Bernard speaks of is that directed towards the fullness of the Catholic Church, a faith that understands and accepts the duty to join the Church Militant (which can only be done by water baptism), and obey the Church's laws and precepts in due submission to the Successor of Peter, and which proceeds to lead one promptly and directly in that direction. To delay needlessly would only demonstrate a lack of that particular kind of saving faith, but to have death intercept one during that narrow window of opportunity circuмstances necessarily provide between the interior decision and the exterior action, is quite another thing.
To illustrate it another way: Suppose you want a job with a certain employer. You apply for the job, interview, get accepted, and so the employer tells you to "report here for work this coming Monday morning." But Monday comes along and you don't show. Well, that previous Sunday night your heart stopped beating, or that previous Sunday night you lost your life saving the life of a fellow employee. Even the phrase "fellow employee" gives it away. Even though you have not as yet reported for work on the very first day, you are, from the moment he told you to report here for work, an employee already (as much as you remain an employee during the weekends you have off), though you have as yet done absolutely nothing for your employer. And as such you (or in this case, since you are dead, your heirs) would be entitled to at least some limited fiscal compensatory package, as though you had been working for some time and then died.
Your intention was to come and do work, hence this payment is justly due. But if you simply don't bother to show up on Monday (or any other day), and not for such a clear reason as death (or at least a debilitating sickness, which might legitimately excuse a reasonable delay in reporting for work), what is it you want? Just to get paid for doing no work? What employer would tolerate that? What employer would give you the time of day, let alone provide you any fiscal compensation if you came to him saying "Put me on your payroll please, but I figure on being dead before ever getting a chance to report for work"?
Fr. Feeney himself once wrote (in his book, Bread of Life), that "It is sinful to call men to salvation by offering them 'Baptism of desire'." That is what the Protestants did with their "faith alone" heresy, and certainly if any Catholic priest were to be so silly and foolish as to do the same, his guilt would also be at least as great as that of the Protestants. But might not Fr. Feeney have been exaggerating a bit to suggest that Catholic priests (or any appreciable number thereof anyway) were actually offering anyone baptism of desire? For that is not anyone's to offer and only God's to give. A baptism of desire or of blood would usher the soul receiving it directly into either the Church Suffering or the Church Triumphant, either way into being saved. That's like the new hire's heirs receiving fiscal compensation from the employer though the new hire died before showing up for work. But to seek the reward with no intention to work, that is what seeking a baptism of desire would mean and why seeking it is so reprehensible.
This is what St. Augustine was referring to when he wrote "Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments!" Why should God have the least intention of saving anyone who has no desire to enter into and serve in His Church Militant here on earth? What employer would feel the least obligation to provide any compensation to someone who never even intended to do any work, or even to show up? "He that findeth his life, shall lose it; and he that shall lose his life for Me, shall find it" (Matthew 10:39). We have no right over our own life, which is why murder and ѕυιcιdє are both such serious sins. To be justified before God, our own will can only be for the Church Militant, to join it (by water baptism) if we are not as yet in it, and to remain in it (by all means, sacramental and otherwise) once we are inside. BOB and BOD can only apply where this will towards the Church Militant (as seen by Him who sees into the hearts of all) is present.
As another example, when St. Justin Martyr wrote "...hasten to learn in what way forgiveness of sins and a hope of the inheritance ... may be yours. There is no other way than this: acknowledge Christ, be washed in the washing announced by Isaias [Baptism]," the point is that YOU have no power to procure a baptism of blood or of desire, only that of water. To pursue a baptism of blood or desire directly, you would have to seek death, and that would be ѕυιcιdє, a mortal sin. The others are given by God alone, and only in the circuмstance that death intercepts your direct and unhesitating journey to the baptismal font. And His willingness to do this will be keyed directly on your pursuit of "the washing announced by Isaias."
So when St. Bernard writes of anyone being saved by "faith alone" he means quite specifically he that intends and plans (before God) to enter the Church Militant (which would be done only by water baptism) so as to do the works that God has for him. This has nothing in common with the Protestant "faith alone" which has no such intentions or plans but rests on its own laurels as if salvation has already been attained. Even Peter Dimond is constrained to admit in his Treatise that "I'm sure that St. Bernard did not really believe that faith alone justifies and saves (Luther's heretical doctrine)."
When one considers what it takes to be recognized as a Doctor of the Church one would have to realize that St. Bernard's statements and even his wordings cannot even be injudicious, let alone wrong about something as basic as who can be saved or how salvation works or what means God has provided for salvation! Yet the Treatise faults St. Bernard for using the unfortunate phrase "faith alone" ("unfortunate" only in retrospect, in view of how the Protestants would use a similar phrase for something quite different and quite heretical, indeed some may have been similarly quoting Saint Bernard out of context to try and turn this rather limited instance of salvation by "faith alone" in order to help push their own peculiar "faith alone" doctrine) three times as if to imply that in doing so he was fallible.
All of which foregoing now enables us to view yet one other category of dogmatic or doctrinal papal teaching, and that is that which speaks of the necessity of water baptism:
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema."
Pope Pius IV, "Iniunctum nobis," Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: "I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, although all are not necessary for each individual…"
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, ex cathedra: "I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all."
The denial of the necessity of water baptism is a Protestant (and Modernist) heresy quite different and alien from the Church's perpetual teaching that some few souls might be admitted to Heaven despite their own inability to obtain a water baptism. Even they had to desire it, seek it, and be oriented towards joining and serving in the Church Militant. They can't just say, "Please send me to Heaven, God." They would have to be able to say truthfully, "What would you have me do, Lord; Here I am, send me!" Water Baptism is a necessary duty on our part. There is no means open to us by which we may will ourselves into a Baptism of Blood or of Desire.
The above passages are speaking of water Baptism as being necessary in that sense, not in any sense that would seem to suggest that God is powerless to admit into Heaven any soul into Heaven who was not baptized in water. One cannot construe these declarations or those in the previous installment to mean that every saved soul had to have been baptized in water (even in the New Testament era), and the Church has never so taken them.
Next question: Is there one baptism or three? Sacred Scripture clearly refers to there being "one baptism," and several magisterial docuмents cited in the Treatise state the same, albeit merely reiterating the scriptural text and not commenting on it in any way. Does there being only one baptism exclude there being three modes of baptism? One can easily quote any number of scriptures and magisterial sources to the effect that there is only one God. Does there being only one God exclude there being three Divine Persons who are the Holy Trinity?
If the Scripture had allowed for more than one Faith or Lord or baptism then multiple different baptisms would have brought one into multiple different churches, with multiple different lords, and into multiple different faiths. So of course Scripture states that there is only one baptism, for there is only one faith to believe and one God to worship, though there should be three persons to that one God. No one would ever claim that there would be one Church and Faith of the Father, another Church and Faith of the Son, and yet a third Church and Faith of the Holy Ghost, would they? Neither would one say that Baptism of Water joins one to the Church of the Father (but not of the Son or the Holy Ghost), that Baptism of Blood joins one to the Church of the Son (but not of the Father or the Holy Ghost), and that Baptism of Desire joins one to the Church of the Holy Ghost (but not of the Father or the Son), or any other similar combinations. For there is only the one Church, reigned in glory over by the one God who is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and entered into by the one baptism which is by Water, Blood, or Desire. So looking at the following:
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: "Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as 'one God and one faith,' which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children."
It should be obvious in looking at the preceding that baptism can only be celebrated (performed by the Church) "in water." Baptisms of Blood and Desire by their very nature cannot be performed ("celebrated") by the Church but only be performed by God Himself personally. And this statement is again just yet another instance of the broad sweeping generalization which cannot be taken as referring to each and every individual case, even to the most unusual and extraordinary. The attempt in the Treatise to make it out that there would be "three baptisms" is therefore fully as disingenuous as the Watchtower's claim that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity teaches that there are "three gods."
One other claim adduced by the Treatise to try to deny the Church teaching regarding three modes of baptism would be the following quote:
St. Jerome (+386): "The Lord is one and God is one… Moreover the faith is said to be one… And there is one baptism, for it is in one and the same way that we are baptized in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit."
Who is the "we" who are (presumably all) baptized "one and the same way" (never mind some of the variations that occurred in some of the earliest days of the Church, such as immersion, or doing it three times (be it immersion or another more contemporary practice), and so forth)? Is he speaking of the whole Church, Militant, Suffering, and Triumphant taken together? Or might he be speaking of only the Church Militant, for which such a statement would be obviously true but similarly obviously in no way implying that everyone in the Church Suffering or Triumphant might have been baptized in a different mode?
Another small group of quotes misused in the Treatise pertain to justification, namely the contention that justification can only be applied to a soul in water baptism. But even on the face of them the quotes plainly say no such thing. Let us begin by looking at them:
St. Ambrose (+ 390): "… when the Lord Jesus Christ was about to give us the form of baptism, He came to John, and John said to Him: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest Thou to me? And Jesus answering said: Suffer it to be so for now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice (Mt. 3:14-15). See how all justice rests on baptism."
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7, ex cathedra: "…the instrumental cause [of Justification] is the Sacrament of Baptism, which is 'the Sacrament of Faith,' without faith no one is ever justified…"
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7, ex cathedra: "… the efficient cause [of Justification] is a truly merciful God who gratuitously 'washes and sanctifies', 'signing and anointing with the Holy Spirit…"
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Foreword, ex cathedra: "For the completion of the salutary doctrine of Justification… it has seemed fitting to treat of the most holy sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased or being lost is restored."
The first quote from Saint Ambrose comments on the Scripture regarding the baptism of Jesus, and specifically His remark that His being baptized by John would "fulfill all justice," for "all justice rests on baptism." This shows that baptism is the basis that there exists justification, not that each and every soul must be baptized in water in order to obtain the fruit of this justification that baptism has provided to all Mankind, if only they but choose to avail themselves of it.
In the second quote, the principle spoken of in the Saint Ambrose quote seems to be getting enlarged upon in that "the instrumental cause is the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the Sacrament of Faith, without FAITH no one is ever justified." The Treatise would try to persuade us (though at least it didn't actually reprint it this way) that it reads "the instrumental cause is the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the Sacrament of Faith, without WHICH no one is ever justified." But of course that is not what it says. It says that "without FAITH no one is ever justified." But this harks straight back to the point made by Saint Bernard to the effect that "he that does not believe [but nothing is said about whether "he" gets baptized or not] shall be condemned, for indeed WITH FAITH, a person can be justified, either as a baptized member of the Church Militant, or (at least in a provisional sense) as someone who is legitimately and genuinely seeking the sacrament. But WITHOUT FAITH, even be he baptized, he is not justified.
In the third quote it is God, and not baptism, Who is identified as the efficient cause of justification, that it is He Who washes, sanctifies, signs, and anoints with the Holy Spirit. Water Baptism is the first and most ordinary means by which God has elected to perform this, but clearly nothing in this quote precludes God from performing these functions upon him that dies as a martyr or else on the way to the baptismal font upon that person's final death.
In the case of the fourth quote, this is why I have spoken of the justification of a person who is WITH FAITH as being possibly "in a provisional sense," for the person so progressing towards the Church (as opposed to the person who prefers to remain simply "in orbit" around the Church without ever actually joining), though he lacks the graces conveyed by the sacraments (since he can as yet have not sacraments), and though he cannot obtain a juridical forgiveness for his sins (since Penance is also not as yet open to him), he can nevertheless be "justified" in the eyes of God Who sees the heart, such that if he dies then all the graces of the sacrament of water baptism would be applied to him exactly as if he had been baptized, with the one exception that in the case of a BOD it may be the case that not all temporal punishment for sin has been atoned for and the merits of martyrdom would not apply.
For water baptism itself is a death. In it we die to sin and are buried in the water (an immersion baptism would bring out this symbolism much better than the more common, though perfectly acceptable, alternative practiced in most places and at most times) as if into and under the soil, and then we are brought back to life in the Spirit as our resurrected body must one day emerge from the grave, the water having also washed our sins. How much more can a real death, freely endured in perfect faith and love of God, suffice to achieve the same welcome into the Church, if God so wills, though in this case it be directly into the Church Suffering or the Church Triumphant.
On page 208 of the Treatise, the extraordinary claim is made that faith equals baptism (presumably, in water). If that were the case then why even bother with desiring water baptism at all, since faith itself would already be the exact selfsame identical thing by that line of "reasoning"! There is however quite an intimate relation between faith and baptism, for (as the quotes it provides show), "… for in the Christian what comes first is faith. And at Rome for this reason those who have been baptized are called the faithful (fideles)… it was because you believed that you received Baptism." Faith came first, and because of faith those with faith were then baptized. For true faith seeks water baptism, where it has not as yet obtained it. Only regarding infants does water baptism impart a kind of "faith" (albeit by proxy) though the infant is incapable of faith (or of sin) by virtue of his childish nature.
With each sacrament there is both an exterior aspect and an interior aspect. Faith is a part of the interior aspect of baptism, and water baptism an exterior aspect of faith. But one is internal and as such invisible, but the other external and as such visible. And this manner of relationship pertains to all sacraments. Fr. Feeney, in The Bread of Life once made fun of Baptism of Desire by asking about "Eucharist of Desire" or "Matrimony of Desire" or "Holy Orders of Desire." As a priest he should have known better.
There most certainly is a "Eucharist of Desire," for many of us Catholics do this every time we cannot make it to a Mass and so we make a spiritual communion in the course of pray-reading the Missal in lieu of attendance at Mass.
The love between a man and a woman that motivates them to jump through all the hoops it takes to get married would certainly qualify as a desire for Matrimony, though of course only the Sacrament itself would confer to them the rights and responsibilities of Matrimony, even as water baptism alone can confer the right (and the power) to receive all the other sacraments, and to any offices in the Church.
And The Catechism of the Council of Trent has much to say about the difference between the exterior priesthood, which belongs to those duly ordained into the Sacrament of Holy Orders on the one hand, and the interior priesthood, which belongs to all faithful Catholics (and of which Sacred Scripture speaks of in 1 Peter 2: 5 when it mentions a "priesthood" of all believers), so that interior priesthood would be that interior aspect, the "Holy Orders of Desire," if you will (to put it crudely), and so on through all the Sacraments.
When the Jailor asked the Apostle what he must do to be saved, he was told first to "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house," so it was upon their faith that their ability to be saved began, and yes, as it promptly led to their being baptized the Desire was promptly fulfilled. But their faith was already of a saving nature from that very moment that they believed, for their duty to be baptized was implicit in that faith.
Finally, the point is made that the Sacrament of water Baptism places an indelible mark upon the soul of him who receives it, something that can never be removed or replaced but becomes a part of him forevermore. And in the writings of the Ancient Fathers this "mark" is often spoken of as being a "seal" or a "sign." The Treatise refers to this fact on pages 78 and 219 where it says "The 'SEAL' is the fathers' term for the mark of the Sacrament of Baptism, as we saw already," and again, "Notice the term SIGNING. This term (SIGNING) is a clear reference to the character or mark of the Sacrament of Baptism; for the "SIGN" of Baptism only comes with the Sacrament of Baptism, as everyone admits." Everyone? Notice what Saint Ambrose said on his quote given on page 47 of the Treatise: "Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is SIGNED; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace."
True, the unbaptized catechumen cannot have his sins forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance, and must also function without the sanctifying and other graces of the remaining sacraments as well (though actual graces are often provided), Saint Ambrose here plainly regarded the catechumen as being SIGNED by his belief in the Cross of Christ. Whatever the Church may have come to say later on about where and how and if the indelible mark of the Sacrament of Baptism is conferred, Saint Ambrose here plainly regarded his unbaptized catechumens as being already connected to Jesus Christ by some bond of love and faith that desires Baptism and which would plainly mature into a valid Baptism of Desire should death overtake them too soon.
-
One salient point that necessarily has to emerge from these facts is that there is little evidence that many of the ancients ever gave these questions much thought. By the time of Saint Augustine however, there had already been established a clear moral unanimity regarding the BOB, which was clearly in favor. Of the very most ancients, even what few could be quoted (or even misquoted) as being against either one of BOB or BOD never once invoked any of the official pronouncements (of the sort listed in my previous installment, or what equivalents to them must have existed in their own day) in defense of any such opinion, assuming any ever entertained such an opinion at all.
If such official teachings as those cited in the previous installment were meant to be applicable to these particular cases, this kind of discussion would not have been permissible. One finds no further discussions on the question of BOB or BOD until the late 1120's when Peter Abélard, who had just recently put forth (but then had already withdrawn) some rather irregular ideas regarding the Holy Trinity, first began to deny that those ancient Church Fathers and Doctors, such as Augustine and Ambrose, could have been right about allowing for BOD.
There is much about the whole situation regarding St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter Abélard which the Treatise quite dishonestly passes over in silence. The Catholic Encyclopedia brings out a number of salient historical points about these two men and how they related to each other with regards to the doctrinal differences between the two men, including the discussion about BOD. It states (as extracted from its articles about St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter Abélard):
Abélard's treatise on the Trinity had been condemned in 1121, and he himself had thrown his book into the fire. But in 1139 he advocated new errors. Bernard, informed of this by William of St. Thierry, wrote to Abélard who answered in an insulting manner. Bernard then denounced him to the pope who caused a general council to be held at Sens. Abélard asked for a public discussion with Bernard; the latter showed his opponent's errors with such clearness and force of logic that he was unable to make any reply, and was obliged, after being condemned, to retire. The pope confirmed the judgment of the council, Abélard submitted without resistance, and retired to Cluny to live under Peter the Venerable, where he died two years later.
There were admonitions on the one side and defiances on the other; St. Bernard, having first warned Abélard in private, proceeded to denounce him to the bishops of France; Abélard, underestimating the ability and influence of his adversary, requested a meeting, or council, of bishops, before whom Bernard and he should discuss the points in dispute.
Accordingly, a council was held at Sens (the metropolitan see to which Paris was then suffragan) in 1141. On the eve of the council a meeting of bishops was held, at which Bernard was present, but not Abélard, and in that meeting a number of propositions were selected from Abélard's writings, and condemned. When, on the following morning, these propositions were read in solemn council, Abélard, informed, so it seems, of the proceedings of the evening before, refused to defend himself, declaring that he appealed to Rome. Accordingly, the propositions were condemned, but Abélard was allowed his freedom. St. Bernard now wrote to the members of the Roman Curia, with the result that Abélard had proceeded only as far as Cluny on his way to Rome when the decree of Innocent II confirming the sentence of the Council of Sens reached him.
The Council of Sens condemned some 19 errors of Peter Abélard (Denzinger 368-387), of which the condemned proposition number 15 reads "That even chaste fear is excluded from future life." (Denzinger 382) This peculiar phrasing would be taken from Peter Abélard's own writings in which he had argued to the effect that even someone who dies with a chaste and holy fear of God, (but without being baptized in water) would still be excluded from Heaven. So, in review, Peter Abélard's unusual teachings, including his denial of BOD, were condemned in council (Sens) and then also by the Pope (Innocent II). Even Peter Abélard himself appears to have subsequently withdrawn his propositions.
-
The denial of BOD would never arise again for just over 800 years, when Fr. Leonard Feeney,S.J. would begin championing Peter Abélard's unique opinion. But why is all of this history omitted? Pope Innocent II does get mentioned (page 144 of the Treatise), but only with regard to a rather strange docuмent pertaining to the situation of an unbaptized priest. Why is the council of Sens not mentioned? Even more germane to the question, why is Pope Innocent II's endorsement of the decision of the Council of Sens not mentioned? From the way this whole episode is written up in the Treatise, one gets the picture that it all went much like controversies go in the Church today (in view of the lack of anyone of sufficient authority willing to arbitrate between differing doctrinal opinions) - someone writes up some claim, another writes against the claim, each side gets its followers, no authority steps in to resolve the question so people just continue lining up with whatever side they individually choose to agree with. Occasionally one side or the other may convert some adherants to their side through some particularly brilliant preaching, but no permanent gains are made and no resolutions emerge, and thus it remains indefinitely. Ignoring the council of Sens and the Pope's endorsement of said council, one gets the idea that Peter Abélard just writes up one claim, Bernard of Clairvaux writes against that claim, and then it's up to you, the reader, to decide which side you agree with.
-
I guess that you win, LoT. You can outspam anyone else here in this forum.
You are the master cut-and-paster.
Not a single logical argument or refutation of an argument in your entire career here on CI.
-
I guess that you win, LoT. You can outspam anyone else here in this forum.
You are the master cut-and-paster.
Not a single logical argument or refutation of an argument in your entire career here on CI.
I win because of Truth.
-
Not to mention he admits to having zero knowledge regarding the history of Fr. Feeney, but that does not stop his spamming up the place.
-
Not to mention he admits to having zero knowledge regarding the history of Fr. Feeney, but that does not stop his spamming up the place.
I admitted he was excommunicated for disobedience. Is that wrong? Does Trent teach justification by desire? Feeney believed it. Have you settled this issue with Ladislaus yet?
-
If you admitted he was excommunicated for disobedience, then you admit that Fr Feeney was no heretic. Since he was no heretic, then, as you say - since the Church did not condemn what he taught, his teaching that a BOD is not salvific is a teaching of the Church. See if you admit that one outright.
-
If you admitted he was excommunicated for disobedience, then you admit that Fr Feeney was no heretic. Since he was no heretic, then, as you say - since the Church did not condemn what he taught, his teaching that a BOD is not salvific is a teaching of the Church. See if you admit that one outright.
I never "admitted" he was not a heretic. The Church clearly condemns what he taught. Any intellectually honest person will admit he was called to Rome over the errors or heresy he was teaching. It wasn't just to say "hi". Those who prefer their belief's over the Church's will do everything they can to deny this.
Why was he called to Rome?
-
Why was he called to Rome?
That's entirely unknown. He had been disobeying various commands from his superiors. Father Feeney was never informed of what charges he was facing, which is why he didn't go. Under Canon Law he had a right to know the charges so he could prepare a defense.
-
Why was he called to Rome?
That's entirely unknown. He had been disobeying various commands from his superiors. Father Feeney was never informed of what charges he was facing, which is why he didn't go. Under Canon Law he had a right to know the charges so he could prepare a defense.
It is quite known to the intellectually honest as S.H. has made abundantly clear.
-
If you admitted he was excommunicated for disobedience, then you admit that Fr Feeney was no heretic. Since he was no heretic, then, as you say - since the Church did not condemn what he taught, his teaching that a BOD is not salvific is a teaching of the Church. See if you admit that one outright.
I never "admitted" he was not a heretic. The Church clearly condemns what he taught. Any intellectually honest person will admit he was called to Rome over the errors or heresy he was teaching. It wasn't just to say "hi". Those who prefer their belief's over the Church's will do everything they can to deny this.
Why was he called to Rome?
As I already told you - He asked why he was summoned to Rome, but never received any answer as to why he was called to Rome. Rome entirely ignored the question.
Do you think that is business as usual for Rome?
You conclude it was because he was preaching heresy - yet what heresy you cannot say. Remember, he was excommunicated for disobedience, not heresy for a reason......because he did not preach any heresy!
-
If you admitted he was excommunicated for disobedience, then you admit that Fr Feeney was no heretic. Since he was no heretic, then, as you say - since the Church did not condemn what he taught, his teaching that a BOD is not salvific is a teaching of the Church. See if you admit that one outright.
I never "admitted" he was not a heretic. The Church clearly condemns what he taught. Any intellectually honest person will admit he was called to Rome over the errors or heresy he was teaching. It wasn't just to say "hi". Those who prefer their belief's over the Church's will do everything they can to deny this.
Why was he called to Rome?
As I already told you - He asked why he was summoned to Rome, but never received any answer as to why he was called to Rome. Rome entirely ignored the question.
Do you think that is business as usual for Rome?
You conclude it was because he was preaching heresy - yet what heresy you cannot say. Remember, he was excommunicated for disobedience, not heresy for a reason......because he did not preach any heresy!
You can't say with a straight face he did not know what the controversy was about. Maybe you can. Perhaps S.H. can shed some light on it for you. He was called to Rome. Why would he not enjoy a free trip to see the Pope as a loyal son would readily do, so long as he had nothing to fear?
-
If you admitted he was excommunicated for disobedience, then you admit that Fr Feeney was no heretic. Since he was no heretic, then, as you say - since the Church did not condemn what he taught, his teaching that a BOD is not salvific is a teaching of the Church. See if you admit that one outright.
I never "admitted" he was not a heretic. The Church clearly condemns what he taught. Any intellectually honest person will admit he was called to Rome over the errors or heresy he was teaching. It wasn't just to say "hi". Those who prefer their belief's over the Church's will do everything they can to deny this.
Why was he called to Rome?
As I already told you - He asked why he was summoned to Rome, but never received any answer as to why he was called to Rome. Rome entirely ignored the question.
Do you think that is business as usual for Rome?
You conclude it was because he was preaching heresy - yet what heresy you cannot say. Remember, he was excommunicated for disobedience, not heresy for a reason......because he did not preach any heresy!
You can't say with a straight face he did not know what the controversy was about. Maybe you can. Perhaps S.H. can shed some light on it for you. He was called to Rome. Why would he not enjoy a free trip to see the Pope as a loyal son would readily do, so long as he had nothing to fear?
SH did nothing except make a member of the Church, Fr. Feeney, into a member of the Church by desire. Big deal!
Also, NO ONE HAS EVER ANSWERED THIS QUESTION..........SH says: It is clear, from what is stated above, that the ideas proposed by the periodical From the Housetops (n.3) as the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, are far from being so and are very dangerous not only for those in the Church but also for those who live outside her.
EXACTLY what are those "ideas" that are "very dangerous not only for those in the Church but also for those who live outside her."? Exactly what is so "very dangerous" about a Catholic priest preaching what the Church has always taught - infallibly, that there is no salvation outside of the Church? What is so very dangerous about that? Hhhmmmm?
Go ahead, talk yourself into a hole and answer the question.
Here (http://catholicism.org/book-loyolas-and-the-cabots.html) is a little history of Fr. Feeney for you. Now you can read it and learn, or you can remain willfully ignorant. It starts out.........
This book is going to press one year after the people of the United States, and eventually the people of the world were shocked by, a stubborn profession of faith made on the part of some Boston Catholics, who were at once silenced and interdicted by the ecclesiastical and sacerdotal authorities in what has come to be known far and wide as the “Boston Heresy Case.”
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. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine.
-
By far the most complete and explicit authoritative statement of the ecclesiastical magisterium on the subject of the Church's necessity for salvation is to be found in the letter sent by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to His Excellency Archbishop Cushing of Boston. The letter was written as a result of the trouble occasioned by the St. Benedict Center group in Cambridge. The Suprema haec sacra was issued on August 8, 1949, but it was not published in full until the fall of 1952. The encyclical letter Humani generis was dated August 12, 1950. Thus, while actually composted after the Holy Office letter, it was published two years before the letter.
The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office asserts, in the letter, that it "is convinced that the unfortunate controversy [which occasioned the action of the Holy Office] arose from the fact that the axiom 'outside the Church there is no salvation' was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above [St. Benedict Center and Boston College] refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities." Fenton
-
St. Augustine and 7/8 Church Fathers rejected BoD.
Abelard rejected BoD in the pre-scholastic era.
In fact, not a single Catholic ever believed that those without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation could be saved ... for 1600 years, until some Jesuits introduced the theory.
So the correct "History" is that the modern Vatican II ecclesiology ... to which most Traditionalists adhere ... began in the 1600s.
The brilliant, turbulent, and tragic Peter Abelard influenced the literature and the teaching of sacred theology as few men have ever done. His rash dialectics and his evident anxiety to shock and impress all with whom he came in contact led him to definite misinterpretations of sacred doctrine. St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1153) was too robust and keen a defender of the faith to allow these errors to go unchallenged. Consequently Abelard found himself condemned by the Council of Sens, and the condemnation was confirmed by Rome.
The work which troubled many of Abelard’s contemporaries, but which contributed a great deal to the advancement of sacred theology was known as Sic et Non. In this work he took one hundred and fifty important questions in theology, and then listed opinions of the Fathers for and against each resolution. It was a bold venture. Some of his contemporaries accused him showing contempt for patristic teaching in trying to demonstrate that the Fathers actually contradicted one another. Actually Abelard’s method was faulty. But he merely opened these questions for discussion, so that out of this conflict of explanations the true theological conclusion might be found in each case. To Abelard, and to those who have profited by the scholastic method which he initiated, the clash of opinions has been a means to an end, the certain apprehension of truth. Abelard saw in the conflicting statements of patristic writers a fact which admitted of and demanded explanation. Merely to point contradictory teachings was to do comparatively little for the advance of sacred theology. But in his own writings and especially through the works of the men he trained, Abelard showed very clearly that he did not regard the indication of conflicting statements as the ultimate end of his studies. The movement he began was to bear fruit in the works of Peter the Lombard and his other students, and through them to form the method of Latin theology. The first of the medieval canonists, Gratian (1155?), applied this same method to canon law and thus aided in the development of moral theology.
Abelard wrote summaries of the entire content of sacred theology. More important than these, however, are the Summae and the Books of Sentences left by his pupils and successors. There was no work in scholastic theology properly so called which did not feel his influence. As a matter of fact the very method which Abelard gave to the Church would very certainly have been discredited because of the naïve cocksureness of its author had it not been for the excellent works in which his own pupils utilized his procedure for the proper end of sacred theology. Fenton
-
St. Augustine and 7/8 Church Fathers rejected BoD.
So Fenton basically credits Abelard as the inventor of the scholastic method.
-
You read but you do not understand. It is not a flattering description of him. It is the scraps that fall from the table that you depend on for your novelties.
-
You read but you do not understand. It is not a flattering description of him. It is the scraps that fall from the table that you depend on for your novelties.
No, it's a balanced description ... unlike your venomous frothing. Abelard's position on Limbo was adopted by the Church and he invented the scholastic method. According to your biased perspective, however, he could do no right simply because he erred in some areas.
-
Perhaps I was mistaken, maybe you can neither read or understand.
-
Perhaps I was mistaken, maybe you can neither read or understand.
Indeed you are mistaken; your mental capacity barely exceeds that of a young child.