Author Topic: ON THE FEENEYITE HERESY (Read 68428 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #825 on:** September 18, 2014, 11:50:28 PM »

J. Paul, there are many examples of souls saved by Baptism of Desire and Blood throughout Christian history. To limit ourselves only to the Apostolic age, Sts. Emerentiana and Victor of Braga were saved by means of the Baptism of Blood, as Tradition informs us and was always believed before Fr. Feeney, and Valentian and Herais were saved by means of the Baptism of Desire, as Tradition informs us and was, again, always believed before the 20th century.

The Popes have irreformably approved the teaching that "souls are saved Baptism of Desire" which St. Alphonsus bases on Trent and on Innocent II, and this latter letter tells us of a soul saved by Baptism of Desire. So it is not right to say what Fr. Feeeney mistakenly - and surely in good faith - said, and Catholics must not say it anymore, but hold to the traditional understanding on this point.

Saints like Catherine of Sienna, Therese Liseux, Padre Pio, John Vianney and countless others all bear witness, by special revelation made to them by the Lord or His Mother, that souls were saved by means of the Baptism of Desire.

Quote from: Christ the Lord, to St. Catherine

"I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed.

I honestly cannot understand how someone can read the Savior Himself explain the reason He poured out Blood and Water from His own Sacred Heart with such precision and doctrinal exactitude and then refuse to believe Him. Anyway, many of the Fathers of the Church, commenting on this passage in the Gospel of St. John, see revealed therein the Baptism of Water and of Blood. Many Doctors and other authorities see in the epistle of St. John the doctrine that baptism is triune - in water, in the blood and in the Spirit - just as God Himself is Triune and not a monad, 1 Jn 5:5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 6This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth. 7And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. 8And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. " St. Thomas in particular discourses in this sense.

Cantarella, yes, the Dimonds claim that the doctrine "souls are saved by Baptism of Desire" is a heresy and they claim their heresy is dogma. You are also correct Cornelius is an example of justification by Baptism of Desire. I understand the SBC is much better, they do not believe it is a heresy, however, they are also incorrect to think it is only an opinion. No, it is a doctrine we must accept as we accept any other, for example, perfect contrition or spiritual communion.

Ironically, Director's post above contains a good summary of why the "justification but not salvation" view is untenable. I mentioned some of the reasons above, and if only a dogmatic definition will satisfy you.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 16: “… hence IT MUST BE BELIEVED THAT NOTHING MORE IS NEEDED FOR THE JUSTIFIED TO BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE FULLY SATISFIED THE DIVINE LAW, according to this state in life, by the deeds they have wrought in him and to have truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace)…”

It is de fide that nothing else is necesary for the justified to be saved other than perseverance in the grace and justice received, in other words, justification is the translation to the state of grace, perseverance is dying in the state of grace, and this passage in Trent says it must be believed that the justified are heirs to eternal life and considered to have fully satisfied the divine law and will certainly inherit eternal life if they but die in the state of grace. So if not heretical, it is at least next door to heresy, to say that this is insufficient but that something else is necessary.

Stubborn · « **Reply #826 on:** September 19, 2014, 06:40:30 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Stubborn,

Trent dogmatically defines that the sacraments that effect justification are necessary in fact or in desire, since no one obtains justification without them or without the desire of them - that is what re aut voto means. This canon infallibly proves that the desire of two sacraments effect the grace of justification, these two being baptism and penance.

No, you are wrong here.
Trent states that If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous - is anathema. It states this in canon IV Session 7.

The same canon further decrees that if any one saith that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

You are corrupting the infallible canon and making the sacraments superflous by saying Trent teaches that the sacraments that effect justification are necessary in fact or in desire because it explicitly decrees that whoever says what you just said is anathema.

Quote from: Nishant

The sense in which this dogma was once declared by the Church, and the sense in which the Church has always understood and understands Her dogma, do not and cannot contradict each other. Both are infallible ccording to Vatican I. Whoever denies either risks heresy or grave sin.

What is in contradiction is your heterodox and fallible understanding of this canon with the plain sense, evident in the Latin and to those who know what voto means in Catholic sacramental theology, of what it clearly says.

No, you are wrong because the Church understands dogma as it is declared - this is infallibly taught at Vatican 1: "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

You are attempting to abandon the dogma "as once declared" under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding, while saying the Church understands the dogma differently than once declared.

This is condemned Nishant, V1 condemned it as I posted above.

Quote from: Nishant

Your "commentary" on the Roman Catechism is utterly fanciful, but I will get back to that later.

It's only "utterly fanciful" when you replace what it teaches with your own ideas.

Cantarella · « **Reply #827 on:** September 19, 2014, 10:45:19 AM »

Quote

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 16: “… hence IT MUST BE BELIEVED THAT NOTHING MORE IS NEEDED FOR THE JUSTIFIED TO BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE FULLY SATISFIED THE DIVINE LAW, according to this state in life, by the deeds they have wrought in him and to have truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace)…”

Ok, once in the state of Grace (justification), man can truly merit an eternal reward because he has the principle of supernatural life in him. However, the obligation to tangibly receive the Sacraments remains; otherwise, all the dogmatic truths found in the canons about the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, would be a complete mockery.

Quote

Can. 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional , that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.

Can. 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.

Nishant · « **Reply #828 on:** September 20, 2014, 01:31:43 AM »

o, Stubborn, you are mistaken. It can never happen that the Church understands Her dogma in a sense otherwise than that in which She once declared it. You correctly say the sense in which it was once declared is infallible. You wrongly think the sense in which it was always understood before Fr. Feeney can be fallible. That is impossible. That both are infallible and therefore can never contradict is the dogmatic teaching of the Church, and this canon below clearly condemns your view.

Quote

If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

By the way, the whole Church at Vatican I where this infallible canon was declared understood and understands the dogma of EENs in the true and traditional sense. Namely, that no one attains salvation who dies culpably separated from the Church. That very fact suffices to prove you are mistaken, since the Church understood and understands Her dogma differently than you do, and if you think Fr. Feeney corrected Her after several centuries of Her misunderstanding the dogma, the above canon infallibly condemns you with anathema.

Quote from: Fr. Hardon

... the two docuмents of Pius IX on invincible ignorance were quoted in extenso and the essential terms were fully explained. “By the words, ‘those who labor in invincible ignorance’ is indicated the possibility that a person may not belong to the visible and external communion of the Church, and yet may attain to justification and eternal life.” (Acta Concilii Vaticani, Collectio Lacensis, vol. VII, col. 591) Moreover the saving clause on invincibility was incorporated into a proposed definition, namely, “It is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. However, those who labor in invincible ignorance of Christ and His Church are not to be punished for this ignorance with eternal pains, since they are not burdened with guilt on this account in the eyes of God, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny His grace to the person who does what he can, to enable him to attain to justification and eternal life. But this salvation no one attains, who leaves this life culpably separated from the unity of faith and communion of the Church.” (Ibid., col. 569) Consequently, although the doctrine of Pius IX remained part of the unfinished business of the Vatican Council and was not formally defined, it is certainly definable and may be called proxima fidei or “practically of faith.”

This historical fact is well known to a few Feeneyites, and related in any history of the acts of the First Vatican Council, but not known to most Feeneyites.

Since you simply don't understand what Trent declared in the first place, you are in no position to be claiming it is on your side. You wouldn't err in this obstinate way if you had even the slightest inkling of what voto means in Catholic sacramental theology before and after Trent. Since you believe in Sola Trent, I'm going to explain this from the Latin of the Council text itself and illustrate its meaning for you only once, so pay attention.

1.

Quote from: Trent on Penance

verum etiam eorundem sacramentalem confessionem saltem in voto et suo tempore faciendam, et sacerdotalem absolutionem; itemque satisfactionem per jejunia, eleemosynas, orationes et alia pia spiritualis vitæ exercitia; non quidem pro pœna æterna, quæ vel sacramento, vel sacramenti voto[/u] una cuм culpa remittitur

(but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,—at least in desire, and to be made in its season,—and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,—which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament[/u])

Docet præterea, etsi contritionem hanc aliquando caritate perfectam esse contingat, hominemque Deo reconciliare, priusquam hoc sacramentum actu suscipiatur, ipsam nihilominus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni sine sacramenti voto, quod in illa includitur, non esse adscribendam[/u].

(The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein[/u])

Trent clearly teaches the voto of the sacrament of penance remits the eternal punishment of sin, that when contrition is perfect by charity, and joined to the desire of doing all that God commands, it reconciles man to God before the sacrament is received, effected by the desire of the sacrament contained in that act of contrition.

Nishant · « **Reply #829 on:** September 20, 2014, 01:34:55 AM »

2.

Quote from: Trent on the Holy Eucharist

Quosdam enim docuerunt sacramentaliter dumtaxat id sumere ut peccatores; alios tantum spiritualiter, illos nimirum, qui voto propositum illum cœlestem panem edentes, fide viva, quæ per dilectionem operatur, fructum ejus et utilitatem sentiunt (For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit, sinners: others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them[/u], are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof)

Voto here clearly refers to a spiritual communion. It means the reception of the sacramental effect of the Eucharist in desire.

So voto never refers to a supposed disposition but always refers to the reception of the sacramental effect by way of desire.

3.

Quote from: Trent on Baptism

quæ quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest

(And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can not be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof)

By thus using voto to refer to Holy Baptism, Trent shows clearly that according to the plain meaning once declared, and the mind of the Council Fathers, the proper effect of Baptism, which is justification or this translation from sin to grace, can be received by the desire of the same.

4.

Quote from: Trent on the sacraments in general

Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novæ legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua; et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci[/u]; licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint: anathema sit (Canon IV.—If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification[/u];—though all [the sacraments] are not indeed necessary for every individual: let him be anathema. )

Again, this canon plainly teaches that the sacraments necessary for salvation are necessary in such a way that no one obtains justification "without them or without the desire of them" - that is the meaning of re aut voto. Therefore, the desire of not one but of two sacraments, where contrition is perfect by charity, effects the grace of justification, and these two are baptism and penance. Trent plainly teaches the effects of three sacraments can be received by way of desire, the Eucharist, Penance and Baptism and the voto of these three sacraments refer never to dispositions in receiving the actual sacraments but rather refer specifically to reconciliation or grace that can be received before the reception of the actual sacraments, namely, they refer to the Spiritual communion, the Act of Perfect contrition and the Baptism of Desire respectively.

Stubborn · « **Reply #830 on:** September 20, 2014, 06:37:54 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Again, this canon plainly teaches that the sacraments necessary for salvation are necessary in such a way that no one obtains justification "without them or without the desire of them" - that is the meaning of re aut voto. Therefore, the desire of not one but of two sacraments, where contrition is perfect by charity, effects the grace of justification, and these two are baptism and penance. Trent plainly teaches the effects of three sacraments can be received by way of desire, the Eucharist, Penance and Baptism and the voto of these three sacraments refer never to dispositions in receiving the actual sacraments but rather refer specifically to reconciliation or grace that can be received before the reception of the actual sacraments, namely, they refer to the Spiritual communion, the Act of Perfect contrition and the Baptism of Desire respectively.

First of all, "without the desire of them" is, according to this catechism, not a requirement at all. It plainly states that the person receives a BOD "even though the person has never even heard of the existence of the sacrament of baptism".

Now since according to all a BODers everywhere, all catechisms, being a part of the Universal teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, are infallible, as a BODer, you must accept this as dogma. You say that one place teaches the infidel must desire the sacrament, yet another place it teaches he does not.

This is one of the reasons I say that your dogma is so full of exceptions and variables that it rewards salvation to infidels, yet you deny prots salvation even when they explicitly perform all the proposed requirements of a BOD.

Binechi · « **Reply #831 on:** September 20, 2014, 05:13:38 PM »

Fr. Feeney said:

Quote

“There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you.” (Bread of Life, pg. 56

Here again your repeating the Error of Fr. Feeney. No matter how you try to present it differently ,,,,

There is no need for one to obtain Baptism if he is in the State of Justification. The Church teaches water Baptism puts one in the State of Justification.

No water , No State of Justification , No Salvation

Cantarella · « **Reply #832 on:** September 21, 2014, 12:25:03 PM »

Fr. Feeney did not believe that someone who dies justified (in state of grace) could be lost. What Fr. Feeney believed is that God WILL ensure that all those who are justified will also be given the grace of water baptism before dying. Basically, he held that all those who are justified before baptism, will not die in that state before receiving baptism, by the workings of Divine Providence. Since Baptism is the seal of Justification.

The controversial passage in Bread of Life about the hypothetical justified soul that dies before receiving the water Baptism was perhaps inadequately addressed and understood but Fr. Feeney teaching was not heretical as it has been demonstrated.

Cantarella · « **Reply #833 on:** September 21, 2014, 12:39:49 PM »

This is true, especially considering the Catholic doctrine of predestination:

Quote

"For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Rom 8:29-30)

God's foreknowledge of His elect will ensure that the sacrament that makes His chosen souls members of Christ's Mystical Body (water Baptism) will not be denied before death.

Binechi · « **Reply #834 on:** September 21, 2014, 12:43:44 PM »

Quote

. Basically, he held that all those who are justified before baptism, will not die in that state before receiving baptism, by the workings of Divine Providence. Since Baptism is the seal of Justification.

What your saying is that a Catechumen can be Justified (in the state of Santfying Grace), before receiving water Baptism. ? Is that correct ?

Cantarella · « **Reply #835 on:** September 21, 2014, 01:03:40 PM »

Quote from: Director

Quote
. Basically, he held that all those who are justified before baptism, will not die in that state before receiving baptism, by the workings of Divine Providence. Since Baptism is the seal of Justification.

What your saying is that a Catechumen can be Justified (in the state of Santfying Grace), before receiving water Baptism. ? Is that correct ?

No one who has been justified dies in that state without receiving Baptism of water and no one is justified without holding the Catholic Faith first.

Ambrose · « **Reply #836 on:** September 22, 2014, 02:29:22 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Director
Quote
. Basically, he held that all those who are justified before baptism, will not die in that state before receiving baptism, by the workings of Divine Providence. Since Baptism is the seal of Justification.

What your saying is that a Catechumen can be Justified (in the state of Santfying Grace), before receiving water Baptism. ? Is that correct ?

No one who has been justified dies in that state without receiving Baptism of water and no one is justified without holding the Catholic Faith first.

It is heresy to deny that justification does not happen with Baptism of Desire.

It is a separate heresy to deny that a justified soul through Baotism of desire cannot attain the Beatific Vision.

Stubborn · « **Reply #837 on:** September 22, 2014, 03:47:55 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Director
Quote
. Basically, he held that all those who are justified before baptism, will not die in that state before receiving baptism, by the workings of Divine Providence. Since Baptism is the seal of Justification.

What your saying is that a Catechumen can be Justified (in the state of Santfying Grace), before receiving water Baptism. ? Is that correct ?

No one who has been justified dies in that state without receiving Baptism of water and no one is justified without holding the Catholic Faith first.

It is heresy to deny that justification does not happen with Baptism of Desire.

It is a separate heresy to deny that a justified soul through Baotism of desire cannot attain the Beatific Vision.

But the catechism misinterprets Trent as teaching much the same as you, only it goes a step further and is much clearer in it's heresy.

You say the sacrament is not necessary (heresy in itself) but the desire for it is, but the catechism teaches that without the sacrament or without the desire for the sacrament means that neither the sacrament nor even the desire for the sacrament is necessary because it teaches that the person receives a BOD "even though they never even heard of the existence of the sacrament of baptism."

So you've been saying the person receives a BOD if he desires the sacrament - but "without them or without the desire thereof" means that neither the sacrament or the desire for it is necessary according to the catechism.

So now you will need to start saying that the sacrament is not necessary in either fact or desire from now on, because that is what is in the catechism, which according to you, is infallible.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #838 on:** September 22, 2014, 05:21:51 AM »

Create a separate thread for this, Director. That's why BoD is impossible to discuss. These threads from from one unrelated topic to another and start new topics on page 165. Ridiculous.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #839 on:** September 22, 2014, 05:27:14 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

It is heresy to deny that justification does not happen with Baptism of Desire.

False ... regardless of how many times you claim try to repeat this. Everyone knows your false opinion on this matter. It's just trollish behavior to pop in every few posts and say, "Denying BoD is heresy." without any further argument or elaboration that's relevant to the context of the discussion.