Author Topic: On Feeneyism (poem) (Read 8057 times)

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!

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** December 30, 2010, 02:06:05 PM »

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:

Quote

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

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** December 30, 2010, 02:11:40 PM »

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

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** December 30, 2010, 02:15:29 PM »

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

Belloc · « **Reply #4 on:** December 30, 2010, 02:16:14 PM »

:applause:

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.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #10 on:** December 31, 2010, 12:27:40 AM »

Quote from: Tradycja

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.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #11 on:** December 31, 2010, 12:29:22 AM »

Quote from: Tradycja

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?

Tradycja · « **Reply #12 on:** December 31, 2010, 12:30:44 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: Tradycja
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.

Tradycja · « **Reply #13 on:** December 31, 2010, 12:34:30 AM »

He believed in explicit faith for salvation, do you believe that you need to have explicit faith in Jesus Christ for salvation as well?

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #14 on:** December 31, 2010, 12:36:11 AM »

Quote from: Tradycja

Quote from: Roman Catholic

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?