Author Topic: On Feeneyism (poem) (Read 19598 times)

Tradycja · « **Reply #5 on:** December 30, 2010, 11:16:36 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Tradycja -- what problem do you have with me, in my daily life, because I am not a Feeneyite? In other words, who cares?

I have nothing against you, I did not write a poem in iambic pantameter against SSPX supporters, did I?

Tradycja · « **Reply #6 on:** December 30, 2010, 11:32:32 PM »

It wasn't until I became a Feeneyite that I understood the SSPX's crusade against modernism. In other words, becoming a Feeneyite made me an SSPX sympathizer. Before that I thought the SSPX was just "disobedient". The SSPX fights against modernism, but the biggest manifestation of modernism was the persecution of Fr. Feeney and the Dogma.

Matthew, you and SSPX supporters should realize who your real friends are------> Feeneyites.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #7 on:** December 31, 2010, 12:03:28 AM »

Quote from: Tradycja

....you and SSPX supporters should realize who your real friends are------> Feeneyites.

I think they realise that unless they also become Feeneyites their "real friends" are condemning them all to hell as heretics, to be in eternal fire with all the other reprobates.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #8 on:** December 31, 2010, 12:14:33 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote
What if a pagan never sees a priest?

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas replies- It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”

Your quote here seems to suggest BoD.

God revealing to him what had to be believed...God could justify him as well if the man was properly disposed.

You know, of course, that such disposition includes the implicit desire to do what God wants -- what the Church requires, etc. including Baptism. But the man might be ignorant of what that entails.

Matthew

And while we are quoting from the Summa have a look at this.

Baptism of desire is specifically mentioned in this treatment of simony in The Summa where St Thomas teaches that one must die unbaptized with water rather than participate in the sin of simony.

Article 2. Whether it is always unlawful to give money for the sacraments?
Objection 1. It would seem that it is not always unlawful to give money for the sacraments. Baptism is the door of the sacraments, as we shall state in the III, 68, 6; III, 73, 3. But seemingly it is lawful in certain cases to give money for Baptism, for instance if a priest were unwilling to baptize a dying child without being paid. Therefore it is not always unlawful to buy or sell the sacraments.

Reply to Objection 1. In a case of necessity anyone may baptize. And since nowise ought one to sin, if the priest be unwilling to baptize without being paid, one must act as though there were no priest available for the baptism. Hence the person who is in charge of the child can, in such a case, lawfully baptize it, or cause it to be baptized by anyone else. He could, however, lawfully buy the water from the priest, because it is merely a bodily element. But if it were an adult in danger of death that wished to be baptized, and the priest were unwilling to baptize him without being paid, he ought, if possible, to be baptized by someone else. And if he is unable to have recourse to another, he must by no means pay a price for Baptism, and should rather die without being baptized, because for him the baptism of desire would supply the lack of the sacrament.

S.T. II-II, Q. 100, A. 2, Ad. 2

Tradycja · « **Reply #9 on:** December 31, 2010, 12:21:01 AM »

My belief is that because the salvation doctrine has been under a cloud for so long, I cannot judge those who hold various loopholes concerning it. Nevertheless, I must still insist that once a person realizes that the dogma is defined ex cathedra, then they must hold it to be Catholic.

If they deny it outright, as did Archbishop Cushing when he said that the doctrine is “nonsense,” then that is a mortal sin. Does denying it place one “outside the Church” as a formal heretic?

If one holds, even privately, that the Church is “wrong” and that this definition, or any other, is not infallible, then, yes, in the internal forum they are no longer in the Church. In the external forum, they can believe themselves to be Catholic, even insist that they are “Catholic,” but that is a contradiction. When it comes to this particular doctrine, those who make a point of opposing it are almost always practicing Catholics who are embarrassed by its literal clarity. So, they try to water it down by expanding the definition of “Church,” by applying baptism of desire to anyone who is sincere, or by holding that no one can be punished for not believing what they had no way of knowing, i.e., invincible ignorance. These kinds of objections do not make one a “formal” heretic. But they are in material heresy. Only God can judge their culpability. It becomes a much more serious obligation to embrace the doctrine as defined when someone is shown the infallible definitions and one admits that the teaching is de fide ex cathedra.

American clergy seem to have a more difficult time with the doctrine. When I question Europeans about it, they are surprised that Father Feeney was persecuted for defending it. In fact, I know a Frenchman whose SSPX priest introduced him to "Feeneyism" go figure.