Author Topic: Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops (Read 14894 times)

Sunbeam · « **Reply #25 on:** December 21, 2011, 06:14:50 PM »

Stubborn,

Without providing any supporting references, you assert: “The Old Testament saints were full of grace and righteousness yet were not rewarded salvation when they died.................they were not baptized.”

Contrariwise, Pope Benedict XII (1334 – 1342) taught:

Quote

By this edict which will prevail forever, with apostolic authority we declare:
that according to the common arrangement of God,
- souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ;
- also of the holy apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, virgins, and the other faithful who died after the holy baptism of Christ had been received by them,
in whom nothing was to be purged, when they departed, nor will there be when they shall depart also in the future; or if then there was or there will be anything to be purged in these when after their death they have been purged;
- and the souls of children departing before the use of free will, reborn and baptized in that same baptism of Christ, when all have been baptized, immediately after their death and that aforesaid purgation in those who were in need of a purgation of this kind, even before the resumption of their bodies and the general judgment after the ascension of our Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, into heaven,
have been, are, and will be in heaven, in the kingdom of heaven and in celestial paradise with Christ, united in the company of the holy angels, and after the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ have seen and see the divine essence by intuitive vision, and even face to face, with no mediating creature, serving in the capacity of an object seen, but divine essence immediately revealing itself plainly, clearly, and openly, to them, and seeing thus they enjoy the same divine essence, and also that from such vision and enjoyment their souls, which now have departed, are truly blessed and they have eternal life and rest;
- and also [the souls] of those who afterwards will depart, will see that same divine essence, and will enjoy it before the general judgment;
and that such vision of the divine essence and its enjoyment makes void the acts of faith and hope in them, inasmuch as faith and hope are proper theological virtues; and that after there has begun or will be such intuitive and face-to-face vision and enjoyment in these, the same vision and enjoyment without any interruption [intermission] or departure of the aforesaid vision and enjoyment exist continuously and will continue even up to the last judgment and from then even unto eternity.

Ref: Benedict XII. Edict “Benedictus Deus”, 29th January 1336.
(Denz. 530. “The Beatific Vision of God and the Last Days”) My formatting.

* * *

Me: “So he who presumes to dispute the teaching of the Catechism, also contends against Saint Thomas.”
You: “Well now, what about when St. Thomas presumed to contradict St. Augustine?”
= A non sequitur! I was alluding to the fact that, in the matter under discussion here, the teaching of Saint Thomas corresponded in substance with the teaching of Catechism. I say “in substance”, not “in authority”.

Furthermore, as regards the teaching authority of Saint Augustine, Pope Pius XI warned against elevating it above that of the Church:-

Quote

We would note, for the benefit of all, that the lavish praises bestowed on our Saint by the writers of antiquity are to be understood in a proper sense, and not – as some, who do not share the Catholic sense, have thought – as though the weight of Augustine's word were to be set ahead of the very authority of the teaching Church.”

Pius XI. Encyclical “Ad salutem”, 22nd April 1930, n.6.

Thus, it would not have been presumptious for Saint Thomas to contradict the substance of Saint Augustine's teaching, if he had legitimate grounds for doing so. In fact, in such circuмstances, Saint Thomas, as an approved theologian, would have had a duty to do it, but in disputing the teaching of Saint Augustine, he would not have been attacking the content or the authority of the Church’s teaching on faith and morals.

It is quite a different thing for laymen to be disputing the teaching of the Catechism.

* * *

You: “Funny how the Universal Ordinary Magisterium [sic] presume to dispute each other hey? - yet we are bound to believe as de fide their teachings?”
1) Neither Saint Augustine nor Saint Thomas equate to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
2) We are bound to take the teachings of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas as de fide only insofar as they correspond with the de fide teachings of the Church.

* * *

You: “St. Augustine even speaks about the theoretical sudden accident scenario.”
Or something like it...

Quote

Saint Augustine. City of God. Book XIII. Chap. 7.
OF THE DEATH WHICH THE UNBAPTIZED [1] SUFFER FOR THE CONFESSION OF CHRIST.

“For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,”[2] made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;”[3] and in another place, “Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.”[4] And this explains the verse, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.”[5] For what is more precious than a death by which a man’s sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out, have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism. And even had they denied Him under pressure of the fear of death, this too would have been forgiven them in that baptism, in which was remitted even the enormous wickedness of those who had slain Christ. But how abundant in these men must have been the grace of the Spirit, who breathes where He listeth, seeing that they so dearly loved Christ as to be unable to deny Him even in so sore an emergency, and with so sure a hope of pardon! Precious, therefore, is the death of the saints, to whom the grace of Christ has been applied with such gracious effects, that they do not hesitate to meet death themselves, if so be they might meet Him. And precious is it, also, because it has proved that what was originally ordained for the punishment of the sinner, has been used for the production of a richer harvest of righteousness. But not on this account should we look upon death as a good thing, for it is diverted to such useful purposes, not by any virtue of its own, but by the divine interference. Death was originally proposed as an object of dread, that sin might not be committed; now it must be undergone that sin may not be committed, or, if committed, be remitted, and the award of righteousness bestowed on him whose victory has earned it.”

Footnotes
1. Literally, unregenerate.
2. John iii. 5.
3. Matt. x. 32.
4. Matt. xvi. 25.
5. Ps. cxvi. 15.

Ref: Philip Schaff, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Vol. II St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, LL.D. (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Co., 1887).
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/2053

Sounds very much to me like Saint Augustine was teaching Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood after all!

Stubborn · « **Reply #26 on:** December 22, 2011, 06:44:52 AM »

Looks like formatting took a day off again - sorry.

Quote from: Sunbeam

Stubborn,

Without providing any supporting references, you assert: “The Old Testament saints were full of grace and righteousness yet were not rewarded salvation when they died.................they were not baptized.”

I obviously did not communicate my thoughts properly...........

"..He descended into hell, the third day He rose again......" The creed is enough of a supporting reference no? They (OT saints) died with grace and righteousness but were not rewarded salvation when they died. There is no need to dispute where they are now, certainly in heaven.

Quote from: Sunbeam

Contrariwise, Pope Benedict XII (1334 – 1342) taught:
Quote
By this edict which will prevail forever, with apostolic authority we declare:
that according to the common arrangement of God,
- souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ;
- also of the holy apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, virgins, and the other faithful who died after the holy baptism of Christ had been received by them...

Again, Pope Benedict XII declares the necessity of the Sacrament - this was 700 years ago.

Quote from: Sunbeam

Me: “So he who presumes to dispute the teaching of the Catechism, also contends against Saint Thomas.”
You: “Well now, what about when St. Thomas presumed to contradict St. Augustine?”
= A non sequitur! I was alluding to the fact that, in the matter under discussion here, the teaching of Saint Thomas corresponded in substance with the teaching of Catechism. I say “in substance”, not “in authority”.

I do not agree that it is A non sequitur. IF we are still dealing with a syllogism, then St. Augustine + Pope Benedict XII = Sacramental Baptism necessary. . . . . . . . which in turn means St. Thomas contradict St. Augustine/Pope Benedict XII.

Again, nowhere does the catechism teach salvation without the sacrament, only grace and righteousness are possible, which agrees with St. Augustine/Pope Benedict XII. All these equate to St. Thomas as being wrong on this particular subject, not right. Use your syllogism and it helps clear things up nicely!

Quote from: Sunbeam

Quote
Saint Augustine. City of God. Book XIII. Chap. 7.
OF THE DEATH WHICH THE UNBAPTIZED [1] SUFFER FOR THE CONFESSION OF CHRIST.

“For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,”[2] made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;”[3] and in another place, “Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.”[4] And this explains the verse, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.”[5] For what is more precious than a death by which a man’s sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out, have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism. And even had they denied Him under pressure of the fear of death, this too would have been forgiven them in that baptism, in which was remitted even the enormous wickedness of those who had slain Christ. But how abundant in these men must have been the grace of the Spirit, who breathes where He listeth, seeing that they so dearly loved Christ as to be unable to deny Him even in so sore an emergency, and with so sure a hope of pardon! Precious, therefore, is the death of the saints, to whom the grace of Christ has been applied with such gracious effects, that they do not hesitate to meet death themselves, if so be they might meet Him. And precious is it, also, because it has proved that what was originally ordained for the punishment of the sinner, has been used for the production of a richer harvest of righteousness. But not on this account should we look upon death as a good thing, for it is diverted to such useful purposes, not by any virtue of its own, but by the divine interference. Death was originally proposed as an object of dread, that sin might not be committed; now it must be undergone that sin may not be committed, or, if committed, be remitted, and the award of righteousness bestowed on him whose victory has earned it.”

Footnotes
1. Literally, unregenerate.
2. John iii. 5.
3. Matt. x. 32.
4. Matt. xvi. 25.
5. Ps. cxvi. 15.

Ref: Philip Schaff, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Vol. II St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, LL.D. (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Co., 1887).
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/2053

Sounds very much to me like Saint Augustine was teaching Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood after all!

Well, you can post your quote from St. Augustine supporting BOD and I'll post mine from St. Augustine - which came after yours - condemning it - certainly sounds very much like he was teaching the necessity of the Sacrament....... From St. Augustine's book: "Retractions" - 400: Or how can they fail to be saved by water… the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.‘ If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. …nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water.

St. Augustine, 416: How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God‘s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! …For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.

The point of this is that Saints and Doctors, as much as we need them and as much good as they do for the Church, can and do contradict each other - even themselves on in this instance.

BTW, if you read up on St. Augustine's book Retractions (Retractiones) you'll find it named appropriately - this book was corrections or "retractions" of things he previously taught.

Sunbeam · « **Reply #27 on:** December 22, 2011, 06:06:29 PM »

Stubborn,

It looks like we are not going to be in agreement on this any time soon.
As there are other things now demanding my attention I am not going to pursue this much further for the present.
But I may return to the topic later, because I think it important to expose what is at the root of the divergent views about it.
In any case, we have moved away from the question raised in the OP, so it might be better to start a fresh thread in the New Year.

Meanwhile, here is something of an interim summary:

In my view, the difference between us boils down to whether there is provision within the Deposit of Faith for what are termed “Baptism of Blood” and “Baptism of Desire”.

You deny.
I affirm.

My position is based upon these facts:
(a) BOB/BOD was included in the instruction that I received prior to reception into the Church (before Vatican II).
(b) There is wealth of Church-approved evidence which clearly supports belief in BOB/BOD, such that they appear to qualify as teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
(c) The Church has never issued a condemnation against the teaching of BOB/BOD.

In holding this position, I do not deny the necessity of Baptism in the ordinary course of events, and I do not consider Baptism to be optional.

At the same time, since Saint John draws his Gospel towards a close with the advice: “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book” (20:30), I do not presume to think that what he recorded at 3:15 is necessarily the limit of what our Lord taught the Apostles about the means of salvation. I deny that our unaided intellects are sufficient for discovering the meaning of Holy Scripture. I hold that the right and duty to explain the meaning of Holy Scripture belong to the Church’s Magisterium

With particular reference to the relevant teaching found in the Roman Catechism, my position is this:
I believe that our Lord has revealed Himself as being merciful towards those who, with a contrite heart, have faith in Him and do all that they can to conform to His will (as surely was the case with the Saints of the Old Testament). Therefore, I am more willing to believe than to deny, that He would not condemn to eternal punishment the catechumen whose desire to receive baptism is frustrated by events that are outside of his control. Everything that I have come across in approved catechisms has reinforced my view on this.

I will leave it to you to summarise the basis of your belief in the matter, and to say who has taught it to you.

And now I will pause and wish you, and whoever else might read this, all the blessings of a Holy Christmas.

Stubborn · « **Reply #28 on:** December 23, 2011, 06:40:44 AM »

Sunbeam,
I agree it best to start a fresh thread and I'll thank you upfront for the civil and enjoyable debate you've presented on this subject!

Please watch about the first minute and a half to see what I consider the premo example of a BOD. This video perfectly exemplifies God's Mercy being personally fulfilled.

To me, the real issue is not BOD per se, the real issue is the neglect and/or misunderstanding of Divine Providence on the part of those who believe in BODVUAD (BOD Via the Unforeseen Accidental Death) in the matter.
So to that end is why I posted the above video, namely, because God will get the water to whoever certainly desires it - that is how God Provides. That is what the Church has always taught. That is what Scripture has always taught. I could go on but for the sake of brevity here, I won't go on about that, I may start a thread on Divine Providence under the General section.

Make no mistake about it, under the usual conditions, in order for one who desires baptism to be saved via BOD, one must also enjoy dieing unbaptized by accident, suddenly or in some other unexpected manner. (IOW, the BOD person will die the same way as the rest of us baptized folks.)

If that's not enough, they must also die in such a fashion which would make it impossible to receive the Sacrament- this not only directly contradicts Divine Providence, it also contradicts Scripture For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.. . . . and . . . . Watch ye therefore, because ye know not what hour your Lord will come. to name only two.

I was taught to always be ready precisely because if we die and we're not ready, we go to hell forever. BOD makes this concern a non issue for those who *should* be most concerned.

BOD conveniently settles the inner hidden fear God put in us all that we are all born with - the fear of not knowing when or how we'll die. The Church teaches the above scripture means that we all are supposed to be ever expecting it, and ever watchful. There are no proviso's to anyone - BOD makes an exception only for those who should be most diligent of all expecting death and watchful for it.

In a nutshell, BOD contradicts things the Church has always taught. Why saints and others believe otherwise I cannot say, but when it comes right down to it, that is the truth of the matter.

For the life of me I fail to understand what goes through the mind of any one who can say that "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." . . . . and. . . . . Baptism of desire is sufficient for salvation, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. are not an obvious contradiction.

So there it is in a nutshell. My issues with BOD lie mainly in the fact that it outright contradicts not just some, but all Scriptural and De fide teachings while claiming it does not. It is this claim that BOD Catholics support in favor over that which certainly is De fide.

At any rate, I've learned this stuff some from Fr. Feeney, some from Fr. Wathen, some from various trad priests as well as books, papal bulls, etc. - but I'd have to say I learned most by relating it all back and confirming with my own eyes by watching the Church actually fall apart by permitting BOD to be allowed to reach it's ultimate fulfillment - universal salvation.

And a Blessed and Holy Christmas to you as well!

Prosologion · « **Reply #29 on:** May 23, 2012, 02:20:51 AM »

I find it funny when someone quotes the Catechism of the Council of Trent in an attempt to defend "baptism of desire" and deny the absolute necessity of water Baptism. They are absolute liars and highly dishonest individuals indeed.

They quote the one sentence that was quoted here (“should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for an adult to receive baptism, his intention and determination to receive baptism will avail him to grace and righteousness.”) but find it convenient to leave out these clear-cut statements:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divine and admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark that all are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the same.

Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind. The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”

Funny right? Here's more, "for good measure":

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism, pp. 176-177: “If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE LAW OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”