Author Topic: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy (Read 32357 times)

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #220 on:** February 10, 2021, 05:35:34 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on February 10, 2021, 05:10:29 PM

You seem to be suggesting that taking more than a sentence or two to explain something indicates that explanation is wrong.

I am saying that if the question is simple, the answer is simple and short. It takes months and having to tolerate reams of runarounds to get the "non-Catholics can be saved" believers to admit their true belief. Example - Simple question, are you an believer in salvation by implicit faith in a God that rewards, the belief that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jҽωs etc, can be saved without conversion? It is rare to have an implicit faith'er simply answer yes.

The more a person knows about a subject the more succinct he can state it. "I would have written a shorter letter, if I have had more time"(Mark Twain)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #221 on:** February 10, 2021, 05:56:39 PM »

BoD is also implied Pelagianism, which St. Augustine realized after battling the Pelagians.

Is the desire itself salvific? Is it meritorious unto salvation? No; to say so would be Pelagian heresy. God gives salvation freely. So what exactly is the role of this desire vis-a-vis the reception of the Sacrament? In point of fact, it's nothing but a SIGN that the soul appears to be cooperating with the will of God. Presumably God will give the Sacrament if the soul perseveres in this cooperation. This implication that it would be unjust of God not to save someone who had the desire for Baptism, it implies that this desire is meritorious or efficacious in and of itself unto salvation. That's Pelagianism pure and simple. To imply that it would be unjust, or unmerciful, for God to withhold salvation from someone who appears to be so cooperating is to pretend that one can see into the internal forum. "Look at that devout catechumen, who wanted so much to be baptized, and yet was cut down before receiving the Sacrament." [how do you know the internal forum state of that person?] vs. "that scoundrel lived a sinful life but was baptized on his deathbed." This is the "thinking" (aka emoting) that led to people beginning to theorize about BoD during the time of St. Augustine, and he rejected this reasoning as leading to a "vortex of confusion" ... which is most certainly is because it's extrapolating from a presumed knowledge of the internal forum to theological speculation.

"What if there were such a devout soul, ...." Well, what if? We don't know that there EVER has been one whom God did not bring to the Sacrament.

BoD is a vortex of nonsense and confusion, which has never brought any good fruits, only bad ones. Our Lord taught that we would know things by their fruits, and the fruits of BoD theory are absolutely pernicious. There's no need for it, no proof that anyone was ever saved by it, leads very easily into the heresies of 1) Pelagianism, 2) denying the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, 3) invisible Church ecclesiology, and 4) effective denial of EENS.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #222 on:** February 10, 2021, 06:06:54 PM »

Quote from: JoeZ on February 09, 2021, 06:57:19 PM

No, the saint may be simply mistaken but most probably the chronicler has something wrong or your will blocks your intellect and you can't see alternatives to your own narrative.

As an example during the funeral oration, St Ambrose assured the grieving crowd that Valentinian received what he asked for. This does allow for a BOD but can’t prove it because another possibility exists and is more likely. St Ambrose was privy to the circuмstances of Valentinian’s murder, knew the emperor was actually baptized before it happened but because it was a state secret, St Ambrose could not reveal he knew because he would then be forced to reveal the identity of the murderers and a cινιℓ ωαr could ensue. Also remarkable is that the faithful were mourning Valentinian because they thought he was not baptized and therefore lost. They would not believe this way if St Ambrose had previously taught them BOD.

Another example is the Venerable Bede and his relaying of the story of St. Albanus and his companion. As St. Albanus ascended the hill he stopped to pray and a spring of water was miraculously produced. Here Bede claims the purpose of the spring was refreshment but we see there is means (water and a minister), motive (St. Albanus is a Christian who knows baptism is a necessity for salvation), and opportunity (the soldiers allowed a stoppage in the process of execution). Means, motive, and opportunity is proof enough beyond a reasonable doubt for any prosecution. The same goes for the 40 martyrs on the frozen lake. The means (there is another person available to minister to the soldier and they are on a lake), motive (they are Christians who believe in the necessity of baptism), and opportunity (freezing to death takes time) are all supplied by Providence which is why St. Augustine says “Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mєdιαtor”. In sum, these stories are sometimes misunderstood by us or by their own authors, in which case proponents of BOB detract from the author’s reputation by continuing their error.

I hope this helps.

Well, the oration cold also be ambiguous in this sense, offering a consolation that everyone receives what he asks for, which simply implies that if Valentinian didn't receive Baptism, it was because he didn't ask for it (with the proper dispositions). Another answer is the Baptism of Blood answer. And you're right, i forgot this most obvious interpretation. Back then news didn't travel quickly ... before the days of the internet or even radio or newspapers. I'm sure the details surrounding his murder were fuzzy. Could it possibly have happened that one of his attendants conferred emergency Baptism on him as he lay dying? That detail would likely have come after the general news of his death.

This absolutely cannot be cited as any proof of BoD, and someone just posted the quotes from elsewhere in St. Ambrose where he appears to reject BoD.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #223 on:** February 10, 2021, 06:16:41 PM »

No, it's quite clear that there was no unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers with regard to Baptism of Desire. More of them rejected it than supported it, and most didn't mention it at all.

So zero proof here that BoD has been revealed God.

St. Gregory nαzιanzen (aka Gregory the Theologian): REJECTED
St. Gregory of Nyssa: REJECTED
St. Fulgentius: REJECTED
St. Ambrose: ambiguous at best one time and in some places REJECTED
St. Augustine: tentatively theorized at first, then later REJECTED

Some Fathers who believed in BoB implicitly reject BoD in stating that absolutely the only way outside the normal Sacrament to be saved is martyrdom.

So we have the ambiguous statement of St. Ambrose (while elsewhere rejecting it) and the early immature theorizing of St. Augustine ("after having considered it over and over again, I find that ...") [note, not I teach this with the authority of the Apostles, but I FIND] which he later rejected, issuing the strongest anti-BoD statements on record anywhere. THAT is your "dogmatic consensus" of the Fathers.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #224 on:** February 10, 2021, 06:20:27 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 10, 2021, 11:53:44 AM

I don't care what Rahner says. I care what real scholars like St. Robert Bellarmine say.

. St. Robert agrees with Rahner that the early Fathers had no consensus on BoD. All Rahner is saying is that by and large the Fathers rejected BoD. It's not a question of whether you "care". If he's wrong, then cite the Fathers who promoted BoD so as to refute his contention.

Ironically, Archbishop Lefebvre is a Rahnerian when it comes to soteriology. Rahner proposed αnσnymσus Christianity. He was actually attacked for this by the more rabid Modernist heretics, because Rahner continued to hold that those who were saved were saved BY MEANS of Jesus Christ even if they didn't know it. Well, shucks, that's EXACTLY the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre. So maybe you SHOULD care about Rahner's soteriology.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy (Read 32357 times)

Last Tradhican

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Ladislaus

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Ladislaus

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Ladislaus

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Ladislaus

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy