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

Author Topic: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy  (Read 32154 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #285 on: February 14, 2021, 10:29:23 AM »
Quote
"God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses", that the sacraments and the Church are not necessary.



Xavier responded:
I stand by what I wrote in the bolded. The non-bolded is your own non sequitur. Baptism is so necessary for salvation that no one can obtain salvation without at least receiving Baptism in voto. The same for belonging to the Church. He must belong to the Church in voto in order to be saved. I proved what I wrote from St. Alphonsus and St. Pius X. By an act of perfect love of God or contrition, a person can be justified. If he perseveres, he will receive the whole Faith and be saved.No one will be saved without explicit faith in Christ, i.e. in the Trinity and Incarnation. Your other claim that you impute to me is thus also a strawman. I don't believe Muslims will be saved as Muslim
What I added is what the writer above believes deep down, but he is scared to admit it now because he will lose many people.  Baptism of desire is not a sacrament. Implicit Faith is not a sacrament. He is teaching that people can be saved without the sacrament of baptism. His original response above was in the context and in replying to our objections to baptism of desire, he was basically responding that God can do anything, even provide the "baptism" of desire, and now he again makes another unwitting admittance, by calling baptism of desire a sacrament. He keeps sinking himself deeper into the mud. 



Simple Question: Does the writer absolutely reject the teaching of salvation by Implicit Faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards? Yes or no?


Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #286 on: February 14, 2021, 11:12:11 AM »
You're welcome. Now, can you answer my example: "Now, I gave you an example for this: If I say that my thirst cannot be quenched without water, or at least without some juice, then a logical inference is that the juice can substitute for the water.
No argument from me here. Yet, if you have no water, juice or any other substitute for the water, then you will never have anything to drink and your thirst simply will never get quenched.


Quote
And this is how the authorized and qualified Doctors, unlike you, a layman not authorized by the Church, interpret Trent: The Desire can sometimes supply for the Water. And note that the desire of them is in the Plural. That means that there are Two Sacraments at least for which the Desire of the Sacraments obtains Justification. Those can only be Baptism and Penance.

The First Vatican Council condemns anyone from interpreting dogma, and they decree that dogmas always mean exactly what they say and always will: "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".

So now I have shown you what Trent actually said, given you infallible proof from V1 that Trent means exactly what they said, and that interpreting dogma is forbidden.

No matter who says it, it is simply wrong to say Trent taught a BOD when Trent clearly condemns with anathema anyone that says without the sacraments or without the desire for the sacraments, men obtain, through faith alone, the grace of justification. It is impossible, literally impossible to get any version of a BOD out of Trent.  


Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #287 on: February 14, 2021, 11:16:03 AM »
What I added is what the writer above believes deep down, but he is scared to admit it now because he will lose many people.  Baptism of desire is not a sacrament. Implicit Faith is not a sacrament. He is teaching that people can be saved without the sacrament of baptism. His original response above was in the context and in replying to our objections to baptism of desire, he was basically responding that God can do anything, even provide the "baptism" of desire, and now he again makes another unwitting admittance, by calling baptism of desire a sacrament. He keeps sinking himself deeper into the mud.


Simple Question: Does the writer absolutely reject the teaching of salvation by Implicit Faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards? Yes or no?
You evidently lack reading comprehension, yet imagine yourself to have mind-reading capabilities.

I have explained clearly what I believe. Your denial that BOD justifies places you in objective heresy.

I have cited authorities for what I believe word-for-word. Your argument is not with me but with them.

I answered your question above, yet your selective reading tendency did not allow you to see it.

Here it is in bold, so that even you do not miss it this time. I stand with St. Athanasius, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus.

"No one will be saved without explicit faith in Christ, i.e. in the Trinity and Incarnation."

Now, go back and answer the authorities I cited. Nor did I say Baptism of Desire is a Sacrament.

First Authority: "St. Alphonsus: On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament." http://www.baptismofdesire.com/

Second Authority: Also St. Alphonsus: Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.” (The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11) https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/st-alphonsus-liguori-on-st-thomas-on-the-necessity-of-explicit-faith-in-the-trinity-and-the-redeemer/

Third Authority: H.H Pope St. Pius X: "17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."


What the Popes have said of St. Alphonsus and Moral Theology (where the Doctor teaches BOD is de fide after Trent) in particular: 

"(Unique position) “In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI had «decreed it safe to follow St. Alphonsus’ opinioneven if you do not know the reason behind it – a badge of honour Rome has given no other saint” (Joseph Maier C.SS.R. in ‘The Priest’, Vol. 19, Sept., 1963).” (Source: Thirty-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 623)"



Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #288 on: February 14, 2021, 12:17:08 PM »
You evidently lack reading comprehension, yet imagine yourself to have mind-reading capabilities.

I have explained clearly what I believe. Your denial that BOD justifies places you in objective heresy.

I have cited authorities for what I believe word-for-word. Your argument is not with me but with them.

I answered your question above, yet your selective reading tendency did not allow you to see it.

Here it is in bold, so that even you do not miss it this time. I stand with St. Athanasius, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus.

"No one will be saved without explicit faith in Christ, i.e. in the Trinity and Incarnation."

Now, go back and answer the authorities I cited. Nor did I say Baptism of Desire is a Sacrament.

First Authority: "St. Alphonsus: On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament." http://www.baptismofdesire.com/

Second Authority: Also St. Alphonsus: Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.” (The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11) https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/st-alphonsus-liguori-on-st-thomas-on-the-necessity-of-explicit-faith-in-the-trinity-and-the-redeemer/

Third Authority: H.H Pope St. Pius X: "17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."


What the Popes have said of St. Alphonsus and Moral Theology (where the Doctor teaches BOD is de fide after Trent) in particular:

"(Unique position) “In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI had «decreed it safe to follow St. Alphonsus’ opinion, even if you do not know the reason behind ita badge of honour Rome has given no other saint” (Joseph Maier C.SS.R. in ‘The Priest’, Vol. 19, Sept., 1963).” (Source: Thirty-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 623)"

Leo XIII said the same thing about St Thomas's Summa despite it teaching against the Immaculate Conception. Not sure how this helps you to turn around and call people like Stubborn and Lad heretics. 
How about you answer my question about the Angelus Press book of the SSPX? What does ABSOLUTELY mean?

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #289 on: February 14, 2021, 12:37:13 PM »
I stand with St. Athanasius, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus.

"No one will be saved without explicit faith in Christ, i.e. in the Trinity and Incarnation."
In that belief, the writer above stands with all the Fathers, Doctors and Saints (and also stands with all who do not believe in baptism of desire of the catechumen, or implicit baptism of desire, or implicit faith)

Now would the writer also answer my simple question from before:

Simple Question: Does the writer absolutely reject the teaching of salvation by Implicit Faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards? Yes or no?