Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops  (Read 11192 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline curiouscatholic23

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 388
  • Reputation: +0/-1
  • Gender: Male
Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
« on: December 11, 2011, 04:46:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Does anyone know of any sedevacantist bishops who state the absolute need for water baptism?

    Offline pax

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 408
    • Reputation: +42/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
    « Reply #1 on: December 11, 2011, 04:51:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am not a bishop but I would never bend Christ's words to Nicodemus into some kind of a metaphor.
    Multiculturalism exchanges honest ignorance for the illusion of truth.


    Offline curiouscatholic23

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 388
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
    « Reply #2 on: December 11, 2011, 04:53:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cupertino
    Quote from: curiouscatholic23
    Does anyone know of any sedevacantist bishops who state the absolute need for water baptism?


    Why ask that question when Rome as said that someone can be saved if they obtain baptism of desire when it is morally impossible for them to be baptized with water? The Catechism of the Council of Trent said that one can be saved if he dies by accident without being baptized by water. All sedevacantist bishops that I know of accept this teaching. I am sorry if you reject it yourself.


    Well I am reading MHFM book "Outside the Church There is No Salvation" and it seems like BOD is an interpretation of man, not God. The Council of Trent has been wrongly interpreted it seems.

    I havent finished the book, I am on page 200 but I am already convinced. I am wondering what bishops are out there in case I am certain I had a vocation. I am leaning in that direction it seems.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14678
    • Reputation: +6046/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
    « Reply #3 on: December 11, 2011, 05:04:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cupertino
    Quote from: curiouscatholic23
    Does anyone know of any sedevacantist bishops who state the absolute need for water baptism?


    Why ask that question when Rome as said that someone can be saved if they obtain baptism of desire when it is morally impossible for them to be baptized with water? The Catechism of the Council of Trent said that one can be saved if he dies by accident without being baptized by water. All sedevacantist bishops that I know of accept this teaching. I am sorry if you reject it yourself.


    The catechism says no such thing.

    Read what it says, not what you want it to say and you will see that it says no such thing.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Canute

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 201
    • Reputation: +143/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
    « Reply #4 on: December 13, 2011, 12:38:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: curiouscatholic23
    Does anyone know of any sedevacantist bishops who state the absolute need for water baptism?


    I think this is unlikely. A traditionalist priest once told me that "Feeneyism is a lay heresy" because any priest who had a proper seminary education in theology would know that all the catechisms couldn't be wrong about baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

    Here are some priests who have written against Feeneyism. I have all of these, and I recommend them.

    Father Rulleau:
    http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/6722/baptism-of-desire

    Father Laisney:
    http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/3093/is-feeneyism-catholic

    Father Cekada:
    http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
    http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2



    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5106
    • Reputation: +3896/-48
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
    « Reply #5 on: December 13, 2011, 12:40:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am a sedevecantist feeneyite bishop.

    I make youtube videos. Believe me.

     :rolleyes:

    Offline Canute

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 201
    • Reputation: +143/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
    « Reply #6 on: December 13, 2011, 01:40:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: s2srea
    I am a sedevecantist feeneyite bishop.

    I make youtube videos. Believe me.

     :rolleyes:

    Sorry, but I don't believe you. On an internet forum you can pretend to be anything or anyone.

    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5106
    • Reputation: +3896/-48
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
    « Reply #7 on: December 13, 2011, 02:07:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Canute
    Quote from: s2srea
    I am a sedevecantist feeneyite bishop.

    I make youtube videos. Believe me.

     :rolleyes:

    Sorry, but I don't believe you. On an internet forum you can pretend to be anything or anyone.


    lol Canute- that's good you don't! I was being facetious.

    Some people on this forum, (ie the OP) seem to believe anything they're told on the internet. I was trying to make a point.


    Offline Canute

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 201
    • Reputation: +143/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
    « Reply #8 on: December 13, 2011, 03:44:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :laugh1:
    If I could have figured how to embed an image, I would have put up the cartoon about how on the internet, no one knows you're a dog!

    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5106
    • Reputation: +3896/-48
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
    « Reply #9 on: December 13, 2011, 03:48:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14678
    • Reputation: +6046/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
    « Reply #10 on: December 13, 2011, 07:14:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cupertino
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: Cupertino
    Quote from: curiouscatholic23
    Does anyone know of any sedevacantist bishops who state the absolute need for water baptism?


    Why ask that question when Rome as said that someone can be saved if they obtain baptism of desire when it is morally impossible for them to be baptized with water? The Catechism of the Council of Trent said that one can be saved if he dies by accident without being baptized by water. All sedevacantist bishops that I know of accept this teaching. I am sorry if you reject it yourself.


    The catechism says no such thing.

    Read what it says, not what you want it to say and you will see that it says no such thing.


    Same to you, Stubborn.


    Please post what it says and I will.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Sunbeam

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 246
    • Reputation: +277/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
    « Reply #11 on: December 14, 2011, 04:48:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's what the Roman Catechism says:-

    [35. Adulti quomodo ante Baptismum instruendi sint.]

    Diversam vero rationem in iis servandam esse, qui adulta aetate sunt, et perfectum rationis usum habent, qui scilicet ab infidelibus oriuntur, antiquae ecclesiae consuetudo declarat. Nam christiana quidem fides illis proponenda est, atque omni studio ad eam suscipiendam cohortandi, alliciendi, invitandi sunt. Quod si ad dominum Deum convertantur, tum vero monere oportet, ne, ultra tempus ab ecclesia praescriptum, baptismi sacramentum different. Nam cuм scriptum sit: Non tardes converti ad Dominum, et ne differas de die in diem; docendi sunt perfectam conversionem in nova per baptismum generatione positam esse. Praeterea, quo serius ad baptismum veniunt, eo diutius sibi carendum esse ceterorum sacramentorum usu et gratia, quibus christiana religio colitur, cuм ad ea sine baptismo nulli aditus patere possit: deinde etiam maximo fructu privari, quem ex baptismo percipimus; siquidem non solum omnium scelerum, quae antea admissa sunt, maculam et sordes baptismi aqua prorsus eluit ac tollit, sed divina gratia nos ornat, cuius ope et auxilio in posterum etiam peccata vitare possumus, iustitiamque et innocentiam tueri: qua in re summam christianae vitae constare facile omnes intelligunt.

    [36. Adultis baptismum differendum esse demonstratur.]

    Sed quamvis haec ita sint, non consuevit tamen ecclesia baptismi sacramentum huic hominum generi statim tribuere, sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet; cuм illis, qui rationis usu praediti sunt, baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint. Contra vero haec dilatio aliquas videtur utilitates afferre. Primum enim, quoniam ab ecclesia diligenter providendum est, ne quis ad hoc sacramentum ficto et simulato animo accedat, eorum voluntas, qui baptismum petunt, magis exploratur atque perspicitur: cuius rei causa in antiquis conciliis decretum legimus, ut qui ex iudaeis ad fidem catholicam veniunt, antequam baptismus illis administretur, aliquot menses inter catechumenos essent: deinde in fidei doctrina, quam profiteri debent, et christianae vitae institutionibus erudiuntur perfectius. Praeterea, maior religionis cultus sacramento tribuitur, si constitutis tantum paschae et pentecostes diebus, solemni caeremonia baptismum suscipiant.

    Ref: Catholic Church (1566) Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos Pii Quinti Pont. Max. Iussu Editus. (Rome: Manutius) pp.197-198.
    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ
    Headings from the 1845 Rome edition. p.108 ff.


    Here's my translation:-

    [35. How adults should be instructed before baptism.]

    The custom of the early Church testifies that a truly different method is to be kept for those who are at a  mature age and have the complete use of reason, and for those who undoubtedly descend from infidels.  For instance, the Christian faith is at least to be proposed to them, and they are also to be exhorted, drawn and invited to take it up with all zeal.  If they are converted to the Lord God, then truly it is proper to advise them not to put off receiving the sacrament of baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church; for seeing that it is written: Do not delay to convert to the Lord, and do not postpone it from day to day, they should be taught that complete conversion, by a new coming into being through baptism is, to be highly valued; in addition, those who come late for baptism, still further lose for themselves the advantage and the grace of the other sacraments with which the Christian religion is adorned, since, without baptism, no one can be permitted to approach them [= the other sacraments]; then also they are deprived of the chief reward which we secure from baptism; because not only does the water of baptism wash off and entirely take away the stain and uncleaness of every evil deed which they had previously committed, but it adorns us with divine grace, by whose power and assistance we are also able to avoid sins in the future and to safeguard [our] righteousness and innocence; which, in reality, all easily understand to be the chief point of the Christian life.

    [36. It is shown that the Baptism of adults is to be delayed.]

    But nevertheless the Church has not been accustomed to bestow the sacrament of baptism at once upon this kind of person, whomsoever they might be, but has appointed that it should be deferred to a fixed season.  Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness [of baptism to be granted to them], if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.  Indeed, on the contrary, this delay seems to bring certain advantages.  In the first place, in fact, because it is carefully provided for by the Church that, lest anyone approach this sacrament with a feigned and simulated spirit, the desire of those who seek baptism is, to a greater extent, investigated as well as observed, on account of which we read in ancient decrees of the Councils that those who come to the Catholic faith from the Jews, shall spend several months amongst the catechumens before baptism is administered to them.  Then, they are to be completely instructed in the doctrine of the faith which they ought to profess, and in the institutions of the Christian life.  Moreover, a greater degree of reverence is shown towards the sacrament, if it be arranged that, they receive baptism with solemn ceremony only on the days of Easter and Pentecost.

    In brief, the Roman Catechism DOES teach what has since acquired the term "baptism of desire", but only in respect of adult catechumens who die before being baptised at the proper season for receiving the sacrament.  See the part that I have underlined.

    Offline Sunbeam

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 246
    • Reputation: +277/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
    « Reply #12 on: December 14, 2011, 06:11:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • CORRECTION

    The Page numbers I gave in the previous post are for the 1566 octavo edition of the Roman Catechism, whereas the URL was for the 1566 quarto edition.

    So to start afresh with the references:

    The 1566 octavo edition is here:
    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nDU8AAAAcAAI (see pp.197-198)

    The 1566 quarto edition is here:
    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ (see pp.109-110)

    The 1845 Rome edition is here:
     http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kWUuAAAAYAAe (see pp.109-110)

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14678
    • Reputation: +6046/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
    « Reply #13 on: December 14, 2011, 08:15:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks for posting that Cupertino. Your translation looks the same as others that I've seen.

    Now, per your quote below, you said that the catechism says that BOD can save the unbaptized who dies by accident before getting baptized - but that is not at all what it says as I will elaborate.

    Quote from: Cupertino

    Why ask that question when Rome as said that someone can be saved if they obtain baptism of desire when it is morally impossible for them to be baptized with water? The Catechism of the Council of Trent said that one can be saved if he dies by accident without being baptized by water. All sedevacantist bishops that I know of accept this teaching. I am sorry if you reject it yourself.


    Your translation of the catechism: for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness [of baptism to be granted to them], if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.

    1) No where does the catechism say salvation will be granted - only that BOD would suffice for grace and the righteousness. "Grace and righteousness" is not salvation.

    2) The catechism also makes repentance for a life badly spent an additional requirement for an unbaptized person to be placed in the state of grace and the righteousness. Not salvation. So per the catechism, one who is unbaptized must not only have the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism aka "desire", one must also repent for their life badly spent.

    3)Some sudden accident means what it says - - -  what it does *not* say is "accidental death". As much as folks read "accidental death" into it, it's not in there anywhere, that is not what it says. That is not what it means - if they meant to say "accidental death", then why didn't they? Are we to presume that they were incapable of their duties, incapable of saying exactly what they meant? Nowhere in Trent or it's Catechism will you find "accidental death".  

    If the sudden accident impedes ("impedes", per Webster's dictionary = Delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them; hinder.) once the obstruction has been cleared, that unbaptized person will need to be washed in the water of salvation not only to attain salvation from the water of salvation, but also to receive the other sacraments. It is called the water of salvation, not "the water of grace and righteousness." The two are not the same thing.

    4) The catechism does not even guarantee or assure grace and righteousness, rather it says that "desire" + repentance" only "would suffice".

    5) To conclude, I said Read what it says, not what you want it to say and you will see that it says no such thing. so hopefully it is now clear that  no where does Trent or the Catechism of Trent teach that one can be saved if he dies by accident without the sacrament of Baptism.

    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +0/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantist " Feeneyite " Bishops
    « Reply #14 on: December 16, 2011, 02:10:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Well I am reading MHFM book "Outside the Church There is No Salvation" and it seems like BOD is an interpretation of man, not God. The Council of Trent has been wrongly interpreted it seems.


    Wrongly interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church? Well, this is what seemed to me unfortunate about Fr.Feeney, his disavowal of the Church's teaching authority, the consensus of her theologians, and, ironically, the visible membership in the Church he so vigorously defended as necessary, and rightly so.

    In 1863, Bl.Pope Pius XI in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore stated,

    Quote
    There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.


    There is also the matter of a 1911 Catechism of Pope St.Pius X and the 1949 letter from the Holy Office of 1949 under Pope Pius XII, though I'm aware Feeneyites have some explanation for the two of these, in terms of doubting their authenticity.

    But more importantly, there simply is no precedent in the Church's Tradition for saying that "grace and righteousness" somehow still excludes salvation. For those who die in a state of grace are saved as surely as those who die without it are lost. The Angelic Doctor is plain in his equivocation of the two:
    Quote
    "Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification."


    Further, the Catechism of Trent states plainly that baptism is sometimes delayed in the case of adults, which is inexplicable on the Church's part if salvation is thereby not attained.

     None of this means that any sort of desire suffices but, as Pope Pius XII taught, only one that is animated by perfect charity and illuminated by the supernatural light of faith, what St.Paul calls "faith working love", both supernatural virtues, not merely through one's natural means, or without divine action. The soul must seek His will and be ready to obey all that God requires. Some theologians have held that the faith that suffices for justification would be merely, from St.Paul, "that God is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him".

    Others, following St.Thomas, hold that explicit knowledge of the mysteries of Faith relating to God's nature, like the Trinity and the Incarnation, is necessary for salvation, for the life and salvation of man is to know God, and no one can know God who holds a heretical opinion about Him. To the upright pagan, then, God would either send an Angel, or by an internal enlightenment of His own free action, confer the dispositions necessary for baptism and salvation. Still others, following St.Alphonsus, hold that the desire for baptism must needs be explicit, as in the case of catechumens.

    I've read some Feeneyite publications, and it seems to me, what they most rage against is the novel idea that just about everyone will be saved, which is obviously false. But baptism of desire as such is taught by the Church, with her making no pronouncement that it has been applied in any individual case.

    What seems plain to me is that no one can hold that baptism of desire is heretical. And in all probabilty at least catechumens and a few others, if indeed such sincere souls as described do exist, are saved through such extraordinary means of baptism God has provided, for He has bound salvation to the sacraments administered through ordinary means, but He is not Himself bound to them and remains free to confer those same graces that He gives us in water baptism through His own free action without it.

    It is possible, though, to hold that nonetheless, no one is in practice saved by it, for God has never promised to do so, so long as one does not teach this as dogmatically certain. It is in holding to this sense, I believe, that Fr.Feeney was finally and thankfully reconciled to the Church and died in her communion, although that will be disputed by those of his followers who are sedevacantists, of course.

    Everything said does not excuse our strict responsibility to evangelize every single soul in our power, and pray for those outside it, and always to presume that those dying without baptism are perishing, for we do not and cannot the hidden ways of God, and have no strict right to think that He will act in any particular case.