Stubborn, I will answer you but don't duck, dodge or evade the question. Tell me frankly and honestly what you think about the "Feeneyites" and their fruits.

I don't side with Archbishop Cushing, I think Fr. Feeney was a good priest who made a mistake on this point and should have gone to Rome and talked to the Pope and readily accepted correction on it. I certainly side with Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office and make no apology for it.

In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII taught, as Pope Pius IX had said earlier and in the First Vatican Council, on the ordinary Magisterium,

"Nor should we think that the things taught in Encyclical letters do not of themselves call for assent, on the plea that in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the Supreme power of their Magisterium. For these things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, of which it is also correct to say: 'He who hears you, hears Me.(Lk 10:16)"

Your reasoning is fallacious. It seems to go something like this, I say seems because otherwise the conclusion you trumpet simply does not follow even if the premise is granted that BOD is not a dogma.

1. We are obliged only to believe dogmas.
2. BOD is not a dogma.
3. Therefore, we are not obliged to believe BOD.

Is this accurate?

Now, 1 is condemned but even 2 need not be granted.

In contrast, I offer two syllogisms for you.

1. We are obliged to believe not only extraordinary pronouncements but also ordinary magisterial teaching. (Pius IX, Pius XII etc)
2. BOD is taught by the ordinary magisterium and by all Catechisms (including those that by your own source have at least the authority of a dogmatic Encyclical) to the faithful (again Pius IX, Pius XII Magisterium; Trent, Baltimore, St. Pius X Catechisms etc)
3. Therefore, we are obliged to believe BOD as a Catholic doctrine even if not a dogma

Identify the premise you disagree with and we'll go from there.

And finally, just for the amusement of it, I will repeat St. Alphonsus's enlightened reasoning to meet your so called challenge, breaking it down for you since you will be inclined to deny one or more premise.

1. In the Council of Trent on baptism it is taught that justification cannot be effected without baptism or the desire of it
2. "Or" does not mean "and". Or means that each alternative effects justification otherwise "or" would not be "or".
3. But the Council of Trent is dogmatic.
4. Therefore it is de fide that men are also saved by baptism of desire just as they are by water baptism.

This at least was St. Alphonsus' reasoning and it certainly is sound and defensible.

It is laughable for Bowler to say he agrees with St. Alphonsus. If you dared assert what you have here, before St. Alphonsus, he would lock you up while he always allowed for the other opinion while expressing his disagreement and arguing against it as a permitted opinion in the Church.

What you have written about him above in your reply to QVP is just sheer nonsense. He allowed the other opinion while arguing against it just like all good Thomistic theologians do while he would certainly have vigorously condemned your false and impious opinion against BOD.

Here is Richard Ibranyi describing him and confirming this, showing how empty and false your accusation is,

Alphonsus de Liguori was a salvation heretic for presenting a heretical and apostate opinion as allowable, probable, and hence acceptable ... Alphonsus puts forward as allowable, possible, and hence acceptable, the heretical opinion that during the New Covenant era certain men with the use of reason can be sanctified and saved without explicit belief in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity

Besides repeating your own answered postings, you get your education, arguments and articles from these men, dogmatic sedevacantist Feeneyites who regard everyone, yourself included as a "salvation heretic", and you think you can avoid their conclusions, you are like those St. Pius X wrote about, men who are in no way able to draw from premises truly inevitable conclusions.

Never mind, bowler; you really are a sly one, pretending all this time to be not a Feeneyite when you were so all along, only a sympathizer. Very deceitful of you, IMHO.

Stubborn, repeating a question already answered does lots of harm to your cause since you can't even seem to answer Nishant's question, except with the same question, which begs the question. How does BOD make baptism optional?

Nishant asked: Tell me frankly and honestly what you think about the "Feeneyites" and their fruits.

The believers in EENS as it is written are not a group, therefore, it is silly to gauge their fruits by a chapel in New England and another in New Hampshire (the Feenyites)? That is just the enemies trying to reduce their opponents to a insignifant few, like a cult. Your opposition is the Fathers, the clear dogmas, and your own illogical conflicts with the clear dogmas. The numbers that opposes you is larger than the SSPX membership and growing every day, and only because they have truth and logic on their side. What are the fruits of EENSers?

- If it wasn't for them all of you would believe in implicit faith as the 20th century USA catechisms have been teaching you for over 100 years now.

- a large chunk of you would not be against ecuмenism

- a large chunk of you would not be sedevacantes, you'd be following "the magisterium"

- a large chunk would be following Vatican II

In short without the EENSers a large chunk of you would have been slow boiled to believe anything. Which by the way you already do by believing that the clear dogmas have to be interpreted by theologians. If you didn't have the EENSers telling you otherwise, you would have swallowed the camel big time.

Here is the problem I have with you people who believe in the BOD of St. Thomas of Aquinas, you don't do anything with it. If you did something with it, you would be writing as St. Alphonsus Ligouri. You are lukewarm, you are salt that has lost its flavor. Even worse, you are in bed with the implicit faith'ers attacking the "Feeneyites". That is the problem.

"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth". (Apco 3:16)

Quote

My posts that follow from there are all about implicit desire of STA. Like Stubborn, I don't believe in it. I don't see it as dangerous to the faith if people really only believed in STA's BOD, however, no one today does restrict it to STA's BOD. In my experience, even those that say they restrict it to STA's BOD, do not really, for you never see them strongly opposing implicit faith'ers as they do with there incesant adamant fight against strict EENSers. In my experience that is because they really do not restrict their belief to STA's BOD, because if they really believed STA's BOD like say St. Alphonsus Ligouri, they would oppose the teaching, like St. Alphonsus Ligouri did.

Here is St. Alphonsus Ligouri teaching the proper way about STA's BOD. He is clearly here teaching against what everyone today believes that BOD saves Protestants and other schismatics and heretics, Jews, Mohamedans, all non-Catholics, even the invisible ignorant. I don't see ONE so-called defender of STA's BOD teaching this way, not a ONE!.....

Never mind, bowler; you really are a sly one, pretending all this time to be not a Feeneyite when you were so all along, only a sympathizer. Very deceitful of you, IMHO.

I've told you many times that you would do yourself a great favor by posting the actual quotes before you write. What you wrote above is a total strawman. Not one person on CI does not know that I'm an EENSer as it is written.

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Never mind, bowler; you really are a sly one, pretending all this time to be not a Feeneyite when you were so all along, only a sympathizer. Very deceitful of you, IMHO.

I've told you many times that you would do yourself a great favor by posting the actual quotes before you write. What you wrote above is a total strawman. Not one person on CI does not know that I'm an EENSer as it is written.

You said you didn't believe in BOD in general, did you not by changing the direction of the thread from implicit faith to BOD in general?

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Sorry, bowler, you don't know what St. Alphonsus believed if you think he condemned implicit faith. He disagreed with it, as Nishant already showed, for sure, but he didn't condemn it, unlike some people around here, arrogating to themselves the power of the Church to bind others to their own fallible interpretations.

Like I told you before, if the clear words of St. alphonsus Ligouri do not convince you, then nothing I say will. No matter what you say you are, you are in bed with the implicit faith'ers.

Clear words which don't condemn implicit faith, unlike your erroneous interpretation. Nishant already showed the whole quote, and you twist it to make it suit your argument. Not a good way of making arguments.

What erroneous interpretation? Who needs an interpretation the words themselves are clear. Nishant showed the whole quote? I quoted St. Alphonsus like 10 times, you are in denial. AND you are defending implicit faith!!!!! Amazing. This confirms what I said before:

Quote

My posts that follow from there are all about implicit desire of STA. Like Stubborn, I don't believe in it. I don't see it as dangerous to the faith if people really only believed in STA's BOD, however, no one today does restrict it to STA's BOD. In my experience, even those that say they restrict it to STA's BOD, do not really, for you never see them strongly opposing implicit faith'ers as they do with there incesant adamant fight against strict EENSers. In my experience that is because they really do not restrict their belief to STA's BOD , because if they really believed STA's BOD like say St. Alphonsus Ligouri, they would oppose the teaching, like St. Alphonsus Ligouri did.

Here is St. Alphonsus Ligouri teaching the proper way about STA's BOD. He is clearly here teaching against what everyone today believes that BOD saves Protestants and other schismatics and heretics, Jews, Mohamedans, all non-Catholics, even the invisible ignorant. I don't see ONE so-called defender of STA's BOD teaching this way, not a ONE!

ST. ALPHONSUS LIGOURI REJECTED IMPLICIT FAITH

St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)

St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)

St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church.  How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.)

O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)

St. Alphonsus: “We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church, or if they are separated from it, cannot be saved.” (Saint Alphonsus Marie De Liguori, Instructions On The Commandments And Sacraments, G. P. Warren Co., 1846. Trans. Fr. P. M’Auley, Dublin, p. 57.)


4. St. Alphonsus: “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.” (Saint Alphonsus Maria De Liguori, Preparation for Death, unabridged version, p. 339.)

Quote from: Stubborn

QVP, you must first understand why this canon is even there in the first place - the reason is that the canon is teaching infallibly about the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. The canon is not teaching about the necessity of desiring the sacraments for salvation. If you read it in the correct context, you will have to admit your misunderstanding is obvious.



If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous;

Here above, we see plainly the sacraments of the New Law are necessary, not superfluous.

Now read what the rest of the cannon teaches...........


[If anyone says the sacraments are not necessary] and [say] that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each individual, let him be anathema."


Now that you've hopefully read this canon in it's correct context, if you still choose to believe it teaches BOD then you fool only yourself.

I see, so St. Alphonsus, of whom Pius VII said his writings were free from any dogmatic error, goes against defined dogma (basically calling him heretical) when saying BOD is de fide, using the same canon? Whatever!  :rolleyes:

Not one saint or theologian since Trent (including the mover to finish it, St. Charles Borromeo) has ever said BOD contradicts EENS, except you, bowler, and Fr. Feeney. St. Charles Borromeo, for heavens' sake, composed the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and yet you say he goes against defined dogma too, by saying catechumens can be saved when they die through no fault of their own without receiving baptism? A few years after the Council, and already St. Charles goes against defined dogma by publishing a catechism of an ecuмenical council that preaches explicit BOD? Again, whatever! Yours and bowler's logic are shot through with fallacies. You just can't admit that you call all BODers heretics, just as Richard and the Dimond brothers have.

 

And Stubborn, even under your false criteria of rejecting ordinary Magisterial teaching, a criterion which is false and impious and totally opposed to the Syllabus and other Popes, I gave you an example of an answer to your "challenge". Slightly edited.

Identify the premise you disagree with and we'll go from there.

And finally, just for the amusement of it, I will repeat St. Alphonsus's enlightened reasoning to meet your so called challenge, breaking it down for you since you will be inclined to deny one or more premise.

1. In the Council of Trent on baptism it is taught that justification cannot be effected without baptism or the desire of it
2. "Or" does not mean "and". Or means that each alternative effects justification otherwise "or" would not be "or".
3. But the Council of Trent is dogmatic.
4. Therefore it is de fide that men are also saved by baptism of desire just as they are by water baptism.

This at least was St. Alphonsus' reasoning and it certainly is sound and defensible in itself.