Author Topic: Question for the Moderator(s) (Read 5943 times)

Mabel · « **Reply #15 on:** November 20, 2014, 01:38:15 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Matthew has in fact banned "dogmatic" Feeneyites, just as he has banned dogmatic sedevacantists (but not regular sedevacantists). So there's no inconsistency there.

Unlike yourself, Matthew has decided not to take it upon himself to decide who's Catholic and who isn't.

Nice try attempting to get us banned because you can't take the heat over at our little sub-forum there (which gets about 25 views per month).

Actually, most of the hostile enemies of Father Feeney's position on EENS are in fact dogmatic sedevacantists who are too cowardly to admit as such for fear of getting banned (LoT, Ambrose, Nado, etc.). As for myself, I have openly criticized dogmatic Feeneyism and repudiated the Dimond brothers for that opinion, to the point that the latter have sent me e-mails ripping me for it.

I've talked to both individuals and I have read their posts over the years. LoT and Ambrose differ on the sedevacantist issue, especially in regard to the naming of an undeclared heretic in the canon of the mass. For lack of better words, LoT holds the "una cuм" position, while Ambrose does not. Neither person thinks that one has to hold the sedevacantist position to be saved, I have not seen either state anything to support what you are saying. I would say that LoT is much closer to dogmatic sedevacantism than Ambrose, but still, as I have seen and conversed with both. Neither hold that exact position as described by Matthew many times.

Stubborn · « **Reply #16 on:** November 20, 2014, 02:06:59 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

The answer to why good Catholics fail to react to Baptsim of Desire and Baptism of Blood Deniers:

1. They have successfully clouded the issue.........

More pure prot BOD talk. Here are those who fulfill everything you preach with your truth rejecting prot version of salvation via NSAA. Actually, they do more than your version - does that make their reward greater?

And this is what YOU call Catholic teaching.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** November 20, 2014, 02:58:04 PM »

Quote from: Graham

Ladislaus, could you link to where you have openly repudiated dogmatic Feeneyism? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you have in the past come across like one.

I've never been dogmatic on the subject.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** November 20, 2014, 03:01:34 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

In short their PR campaign to promote their heretical denial of Baptism of Desire and Blood has been successful among Catholics.

:roll-laugh1:

You have got to be kidding. Maybe 5% of all Traditional Catholics don't think that we're in error. In fact, "Feeneyites" would be refused Communion by many if not most Traditional Catholic priests.

Stubborn · « **Reply #19 on:** November 20, 2014, 03:53:33 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose
The answer to why good Catholics fail to react to Baptsim of Desire and Baptism of Blood Deniers:

1. They have successfully clouded the issue.........

More pure prot BOD talk. Here are those who fulfill everything you preach with your truth rejecting prot version of salvation via NSAA. Actually, they do more than your version - does that make their reward greater?

And this is what YOU call Catholic teaching.

Surely one of you BODers who preach salvation via NSAA can explain what the difference is between your version of a BOD and the BOD recorded live in my quote above - per all the squawking your BODers have done, it looks like the video exceeds the requirements you all preach for a person to be saved via a BOD / implicit faith / belonging to the Church by desire.

Here is the link to youtube demonstrating implicit faith / a BOD as taught by Ambrose and pretty much every other BODer on CI.

2Vermont · « **Reply #20 on:** November 20, 2014, 04:34:50 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Graham
Ladislaus, could you link to where you have openly repudiated dogmatic Feeneyism? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you have in the past come across like one.

I've never been dogmatic on the subject.

Haven't you called posters such as Ambrose and LoT heretics?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** November 20, 2014, 05:37:05 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Graham
Ladislaus, could you link to where you have openly repudiated dogmatic Feeneyism? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you have in the past come across like one.

I've never been dogmatic on the subject.

Haven't you called posters such as Ambrose and LoT heretics?

Absolutely. But that's because they are Pelagians. They also reject the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.

Nishant, for instance, believes in BoD in a Catholic sense, and I have zero problem with him; he in fact defends EENS, defends the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and defends the dogma that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary by a necessity of means for salvation. I have called out the Dimond brothers as schismatic for saying that anyone who believes in BoD, even in Catholic terms, is a heretic. If someone wants to believe in a Catholic version of BoD, I have absolutely no problem with that.

2Vermont · « **Reply #22 on:** November 20, 2014, 05:43:08 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Graham
Ladislaus, could you link to where you have openly repudiated dogmatic Feeneyism? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you have in the past come across like one.

I've never been dogmatic on the subject.

Haven't you called posters such as Ambrose and LoT heretics?

Absolutely. But that's because they are Pelagians. They also reject the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.

Nishant, for instance, believes in BoD in a Catholic sense, and I have zero problem with him; he in fact defends EENS, defends the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and defends the dogma that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary by a necessity of means for salvation. I have called out the Dimond brothers as schismatic for saying that anyone who believes in BoD, even in Catholic terms, is a heretic. If someone wants to believe in a Catholic version of BoD, I have absolutely no problem with that.

But you believe the Catholic version is the Feeneyite version.

Ambrose · « **Reply #23 on:** November 20, 2014, 10:33:08 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Graham
Ladislaus, could you link to where you have openly repudiated dogmatic Feeneyism? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you have in the past come across like one.

I've never been dogmatic on the subject.

Haven't you called posters such as Ambrose and LoT heretics?

Absolutely. But that's because they are Pelagians. They also reject the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.

Nishant, for instance, believes in BoD in a Catholic sense, and I have zero problem with him; he in fact defends EENS, defends the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and defends the dogma that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary by a necessity of means for salvation. I have called out the Dimond brothers as schismatic for saying that anyone who believes in BoD, even in Catholic terms, is a heretic. If someone wants to believe in a Catholic version of BoD, I have absolutely no problem with that.

Then why don't you be consistent and call Pius XII and the Holy Office Pelagians.

To your other point, Trent does not teach want you pretend it does. It teaches that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, AND it teach Baptism of Desire. These two teachings are not opposed to each other as Feeneyites pretend.

Ambrose · « **Reply #24 on:** November 20, 2014, 10:38:53 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
In short their PR campaign to promote their heretical denial of Baptism of Desire and Blood has been successful among Catholics.

:roll-laugh1:

You have got to be kidding. Maybe 5% of all Traditional Catholics don't think that we're in error. In fact, "Feeneyites" would be refused Communion by many if not most Traditional Catholic priests.

Among Priests who are better educated than most laity in logic and dogmatic theology, they almost always spot the very clever but noticable tricks used by the Feeneyites. Very few priests fall for Protestant sophistries as well.

Feeneyism and Dimondism prey on those (most of the laity) who are poorly educated in their Faith, or if they have some education, it preys on the proud who think they know theology better than the Doctors of the Church and the theologians.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #25 on:** November 21, 2014, 08:44:13 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Graham
Ladislaus, could you link to where you have openly repudiated dogmatic Feeneyism? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you have in the past come across like one.

I've never been dogmatic on the subject.

Haven't you called posters such as Ambrose and LoT heretics?

Absolutely. But that's because they are Pelagians. They also reject the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.

Nishant, for instance, believes in BoD in a Catholic sense, and I have zero problem with him; he in fact defends EENS, defends the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and defends the dogma that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary by a necessity of means for salvation. I have called out the Dimond brothers as schismatic for saying that anyone who believes in BoD, even in Catholic terms, is a heretic. If someone wants to believe in a Catholic version of BoD, I have absolutely no problem with that.

But you believe the Catholic version is the Feeneyite version.

I do not 100% follow Father Feeney on everything. I am in line with Father Feeney in that I hold that there's no such thing as BoD, and I hold it as a personal opinion. That's also a distortion of Father Feeney, to make him be all about BoD itself. Father Feeney held his position on BoD as a matter of personal opinion ... just like I do. His battle was against the people who were promoting the heresies I detailed above, against the likes of "Cardinal" ("No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense.") Cushing. I do not agree that the Church has ever defined BoD but that, rather, she has tolerated it. But I consider this only a friendly disagreement among Catholics if I discuss it with Nishant, for instance. Nishant believes in BoD. I do not consider any of his positions the least bit tainted with error or heresy. He is careful to say that in BoD people receive Baptism in voto vs. in re or in actu. Nishant also believes that explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are essential for salvation. As did St. Thomas, St. Robert, St. Alphonsus, etc.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #26 on:** November 21, 2014, 08:49:05 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Graham
Ladislaus, could you link to where you have openly repudiated dogmatic Feeneyism? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you have in the past come across like one.

I've never been dogmatic on the subject.

Haven't you called posters such as Ambrose and LoT heretics?

Absolutely. But that's because they are Pelagians. They also reject the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.

Nishant, for instance, believes in BoD in a Catholic sense, and I have zero problem with him; he in fact defends EENS, defends the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and defends the dogma that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary by a necessity of means for salvation. I have called out the Dimond brothers as schismatic for saying that anyone who believes in BoD, even in Catholic terms, is a heretic. If someone wants to believe in a Catholic version of BoD, I have absolutely no problem with that.

Then why don't you be consistent and call Pius XII and the Holy Office Pelagians.

Because Pius XII had nothing to do with the heretical Suprema Haec ... as I have detailed many times before. That heretical Suprema Haec is the foundation for ALL THE VATICAN II ECCLESIOLOGY. Lumen Gentium cites it as the foundation for its novel ecclesiology. If Suprema Haec is Catholic teaching, my friend, then so is Vatican II, and you are in schism.

Quote

To your other point, Trent does not teach want you pretend it does. It teaches that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, AND it teach Baptism of Desire. These two teachings are not opposed to each other as Feeneyites pretend.

Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire. But to address your actual point, TRUE CATHOLIC BAPTISM OF DESIRE AS HELD BY ST. THOMAS, ST. ROBERT, and ST. ALPHONSUS are not indeed intrinsically incompatible with the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. St. Robert, after Trent, was VERY CAREFUL to say that people in BoD scenarios RECEIVED BAPTISM, just that they received it IN VOTO vs. IN RE. 99% of modern BoDers claim that people are saved WITHOUT BAPTISM, that "CHARITY" is all that's required. That's heretical.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #27 on:** November 21, 2014, 08:53:03 AM »

Unlike most modern BoDers who DISCREDIT the BoD position by lacing it with heresy, Nishant is actually a credible proponent, advocate, and ambassador for the concept. When Nishant writes about BoD, I listen ... because he does not try to make me swallow a bag of heretical manure in the package. You guys try to force us to swallow this heretical manure by putting it in a brown bag simply labelled "BoD". We smell it and reject the entire thing. But Nisant serves up genuine BoD, the kind that wouldn't poison you with heresy to accept, and I'm all ears. So, despite setting yourselves up as proponents of BoD, you are in fact its greatest enemies because of the heresy you invariable conflate with it and which renders the concept entirely unpalatable to any Catholic with faith in EENS.

Jehanne · « **Reply #28 on:** November 21, 2014, 09:48:14 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

I see a Feeneyite debate here; nothing new here.

So true, which is why I am beginning not to participate anymore. But, "facts are facts," as they say:

1) Father Feeney died in full communion with the Pope of his day, Pope Paul VI.

2) Father Feeney received a public Mass of Christian Burial presided over by his bishop.

3) Father Feeney never "recanted" his (alleged) "heresies."

4) Many of Father Feeney followers are in "full communion" with Rome.

5) All censures, "if there were any", were expunged by Pope Paul VI, who personally sought the reconciliation of Father Feeney.

6) Sedevacantism is just a theological opinion, nothing more. No one can "bind" anyone to believe, let alone profess, that the Chair of Peter is vacant.

7) The SSPX allows known "Feeneyites" to receive all of the Sacraments in their chapels; written agreements exist for this.

8) We ought to never presume and/or assume the salvation of any non-Catholic and/or that person does not need the Sacraments. Pope Pius IX explicitly condemned any such presumptions, as did Saint Pope Pius X.

9) Time & Eternity will tell if there are any truly "invincibly ignorant" individuals or not.

10) Time & Eternity will tell if there was any "salutary repentance at "death's door" and how often that occurred.

Until then, it is probably better to "agree to disagree."

11) I do not wish to be a "combatant".

Cantarella · « **Reply #29 on:** November 21, 2014, 12:26:09 PM »

Dogmatic "feeneyism" would be to say that all who believe in the Baptism of Desire are heretics and damned to Hell on that account. A person is not a heretic if he/she believes in Baptism of Desire as previously taught by the Church: This is for sincere CATECHUMENS ONLY. A Catholic is free to believe in BOD and does not cease to be a Catholic if does so.

The heresy is distorting the original BOD and transforming it into "Faith by Desire", "Salvation by Justification Alone", "Salvation by Implicit Desire" "Salvation with no Sacraments" etc etc...and the like (basically all modernist versions of BOD) that apply to non Catholics who are even ignorant of the basics of the Faith.