Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Matthew on December 30, 2010, 12:26:22 PM
-
De Feeneyismo - Iterum
(in iambic pentameter)
The Feeneyites think all of those who died,
unbaptized, will be sent to Hell, and fried!
The simple-minded really ought to know
the grace of God is more than H-2-0!
They have their pride, they want to understand:
It must be simple for the mind of man.
Respond to grace? Does that mean water's off?
"Too simple," I inject between a cough.
Since many Catholics land themselves in Hell,
Think you that life in Pagan Land is swell?
And just because the Lord gives each a chance,
the godless Pagans have no cause to dance:
For their whole world does war against the soul:
instilling vice, the devil's on a roll!
They have no sacraments, no Catholic books,
they have no priests to get them off the hook.
For missionaries there is quite a need;
For all these souls from darkness must be freed.
What number save their souls with driest head?
We leave the mystery to God instead.
For God can give his grace to whom He will:
He need not use a liquid or a pill.
Of course there are the ordinary means;
(The truth is not at opposite extreme)
And it is quite forbidden to assume
that for THIS pagan, God has made a Room.
For Christ commanded priests to Baptise men,
that they, through Holy Ghost, be born again.
For Baptism is not an option clicked,
like something in a menu that is picked.
So if you would be freed from Adam's fault,
Bring out the Font, the water and the salt.
But once you have been baptized, be aware:
the obligations in your face will stare.
Though countless men have all been baptized well,
You never know who you could meet in Hell!
So all you Catholics heed now what I say,
And strive to do God's holy will each day:
Take care of family, work and also pray,
and study well the errors of today!
Waste not your time and argue with your peers,
hawk Feeneyism like you work at Sears,
For if you take this path for twenty years,
On deathbed you will find yourself in tears!
-
Tradycja -- is that supposed to be a rebuttal? A pretty poor one if you ask me.
The quotes you gave were completely out of context and were not a rebuttal of the position I laid out.
The quote about "God not commanding the impossible" was a refutation of Luther's teaching that God's commandments are impossible to observe. What does that have to do with Baptism of Desire?
Nice that you agree with me on some of the points:
For Baptism is not an option clicked,
like something in a menu that is picked!
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
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 know the Catholic Faith, but I didn't study enough Theology to be able to teach it to others. I think there's a good chance you're not a theologian either (unless you count the Armchair variety).
For example, water Baptism is necessary quoad nos (We have to choose it; it's not optional) but it's not necessary in another sense. God has to give the grace of justification, because Original Sin closes the gates of heaven, and natural virtue isn't enough for salvation.
Nevertheless it's not impossible that someone could be lacking water baptism and could still save his soul. Perhaps the only good example is the Catechumen getting run over by a car? Maybe all the examples of ignorant pagans aren't good examples, because it's virtually impossible to follow God in such a case? Who knows. It's a mystery. The Church doesn't go into talk of "numbers" -- just the fact that Baptism of Desire exists.
And I do believe in Baptism of Desire, just as I believe in Baptism of Blood and every other doctrine of the Catholic Faith.
I also believe in EENS -- extra ecclesiam nulla salus -- outside the Church there is no salvation. But those who have been baptised by desire or in their blood are BAPTISED so they're not outside the Church.
Matthew
-
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
-
:applause:
-
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?
-
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.
-
....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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
Catholics must believe all dogmas. That is entirely different from decreeing that they need to hold any of the various Feeneyite interpretations of EENS.
-
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.
What about the Angelic Doctor of the Church who believed in BOD and taught it with the approval of the Church?
-
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.
Catholics must believe all dogmas. That is entirely different from decreeing that they need to hold any of the various Feeneyite interpretations of EENS.
I believe Dogmas as they were once declared by the Church.
-
He believed in explicit faith for salvation, do you believe that you need to have explicit faith in Jesus Christ for salvation as well?
-
What about the Angelic Doctor of the Church who believed in BOD and taught it with tha approval of the Church?
What about him? [/quote]
St Thomas certainly knew a lot more than you or I about the dogmas of Holy Church.
Yet he taught BOD.
Was he a heretic for believing and teaching BOD?
-
No he was not a heretic for believing BOD. But you must remember that he died 37 years before the Council of Vienne which declared 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’ [Eph. 4:5], 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.”
He also, of course, died before Florence and Trent. Therefore, one actually could say that we DO know MORE than St. Thomas, due to the further Papal clarification that the Church was given after his death.
-
No he was not a heretic for believing BOD.
But we are heretics if we believe what St Thomas taught?
-
Did I ever say in any of these threads that you were a heretic?
-
Since you say that you believe what St. Thomas taught do you agree with the following statement?
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 7.)
-
Did I ever say in any of these threads that you were a heretic?
I don't know everything you said in all these threads; nor do I know if you believe it, but did not say it yet; that's why I am asking.
-
Since you say that you believe what St. Thomas taught do you agree with the following statement?
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 7.)
Yes, and in the last sentence of that paragraph from the Summa which you omitted.
-
Doesn't change much:
"As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office."
The Holy Office in 1703 said the same thing---> Bare minimum knowledge required is the Trinity and the Incarnation.
-
Did I ever say in any of these threads that you were a heretic?
I don't know everything you said in all these threads; nor do I know if you believe it, but did not say it yet; that's why I am asking.
Do you think St Thomas believed and taught heresy?
Do you believe we are heretics if we believe what St Thomas taught in The Summa regarding Baptism of Desire?
-
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.
With friends like the Feeneyites, they wouldn't brag about it.
-
Being the "devil's advocate" here...
You know, Saint Thomas Aquinas said he wanted his books BURNED because of the error that he thought they could contain....
Something to ponder.
-
Being the "devil's advocate" here...
You know, Saint Thomas Aquinas said he wanted his books BURNED because of the error that he thought they could contain....
Something to ponder.
Humility, what would we do without those Saints.
-
Saint Augustine was the one that wanted his books burned because of error.
Saint Thomas Aquinas also wanted them burned, but that was after he saw Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, and said that none of his writings even mattered after he saw Him.
Saints are not infallible. The Church, however, cannot make mistakes, and therefore, we must listen to what has been infallibly pronounced over what some saints have said. I'm sure they would agree.
-
What's the difference between BOD and BOB?
Does not the unbaptized one desire to be baptized who is about to be martyred?
-
Being the "devil's advocate" here...
You know, Saint Thomas Aquinas said he wanted his books BURNED because of the error that he thought they could contain....
Something to ponder.
Pondered-he is the only Angelic Doctor and one that is cited the most in doctrine, esp by Leo XIII, Pius X,etc,etc....so, not infallible, but seems to be held in high regard and I have never heard of any of his books burned nor on Index...
-
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.
With friends like the Feeneyites, they wouldn't brag about it.
I'm a Feeneyite, proud of it.
Folks seem to place too much value on various learned saints against infallible declarations as though the saints were infallible, as though their authority overides infallible Papal declarations.
Don't be behind the times.
Get with the times, Roma Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est - (Rome has spoken, the case is closed.) There is no salvation outside the Church.
-
There really is no such thing as a 'Feeneyite'. Fr Feeney was just a traditional Jesuit who saw corruption creeping into his order and the Church. There May be something called a neo-Feeneyite--Dimond Bros.
-
As Matthew has correctly if somewhat sarcastically pointed out, BOD and EENS are both doctrines of the Church. Each must be understood to properly understand the other.