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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 66 67 [68] 69

Author Topic: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy  (Read 32207 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nishant Xavier

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #335 on: February 18, 2021, 09:28:56 PM »
Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 18, 2021, 01:09:23 PM
re: Cornelius - He was baptised.  Why is the Sacrament of Baptism necessary for those who have supposedly had their sins remitted?
St. Thomas says it is necessary both for the complete abolition of all temporal punishment, and St. Robert for full incorporation into the Body of the Church. Both St. Thomas and St. Robert say Cornelius was within the Church, and would have been saved if he had died. But the obligation to receive the Sacrament of Baptism remains, and BOD does not confer the Sacramental Character, otherwise Baptism would not have been conferred on Cornelius, since the character cannot be impressed twice. Cornelius is a post-Resurrection example of justification by BOD. It shows the Church's teaching on BOD is accurate and is found in Scripture itself.


Quote
Because BOD by definition does not remit temporal punishment, does not confer the sacramental character, does not incorporate one into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church.  But we know also from the teaching of the popes that justification, since the promulgation of the Gospel (the founding of the Church) cannot be had without the Sacrament of Baptism.

Justification cannot be had, since the promulgation of the Gospel, "without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof".


Quote
re: St Mary Magdalene, the Good Thief, the Holy Innocents - all prior to the promulgation of the Gospel.  Not relevant. 

Why not? Where is the positive proof that BOD, if it justified prior to the promulgation of the Gospel, as you admit, ceased to justify after that? Even John 3 was prior to the promulgation of the Gospel, yet those who deny BOD claim it supports their view. John 14 was years after John 3, yet Our Lord there taught that those who love Him truly will receive the remission of our sins. There is no Scriptural basis for thinking that Love of God and Perfect Contrition ceased to justify after Christ's Resurrection.

Burden of proof is on those who claim BOD ceased to apply after the Resurrection to show it. And I gave one post-Resurrection example.

Quote
There is a tradition of the Church that even Our Lady was baptised.  But certainly St Mary Magdalene was baptised as were all the Apostles and disciples who lived before the founding of the Church and continued to live after the founding.
I agree Our Lady was baptized, though obviously She was sanctified right from Her Immaculate Conception. Ven. Mary of Agreda speaks of the great devotion with which She used to receive the Holy Eucharist, which She received after being baptized.

The issue is not that St. Mary Magdalene was not baptized. The issue is that she received the remission of sins immediately as a reward for her perfect love of God and contrition, as Christ said. Fr. Haydock and all the Catholic Commentaries teach this.

Quote
But if it is possible to be saved by BOD, wouldn't that extend to all Protestants, schismatics, and traditionalist "heretics"

Protestants are already Baptized, so BOD would not apply to them. It is possible to belong to the Soul of the Church if, for e.g. one is unjustly excommunicated. St. Robert says this, and says such a person belongs to the Soul of the Church inwardly, but not the Body.

Quote
who disagree with your interpretation of dogmas which, by the way, no one is permitted to interpret?  I assent to the literal meaning of all the dogmas of the Church.  Can you say the same?

If Trent had meant to say "Unlike Confession and the Eucharist, there is no voto for Baptism", it could have easily done so, and I would assent to it. What Trent did say is that we cannot be saved without Baptism or its desire. I assent to what Trent literally taught.

As I mentioned, Pope Bl. Pius IX told us we are bound to what Catholic Theologians hold to belong to the Faith. I do not believe there is a contradiction between what Trent taught and what the Doctors and Theologians teach. Baptism is necessary in re or in voto.

That is the Tridentine dogma, repeated in Canon Law, all Catechisms, all the Doctors and Saints post-Trent, all the Theology Manuals etc.

God Bless.

Logged

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #336 on: February 18, 2021, 09:38:39 PM »
This is what XavierSem believes and to which he mixes a personal picadillo of quotes, a house of cards, none of which by themselves even teach what he believes. My paraphrasing:


Quote
I XavierSem confess that those who die as infidels are lost, however, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God appeared to them. Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics, but whem God reveals Himself to them, they can convert and be saved without baptism.


He expects people to believe his Frankenstein personal false BOD, meanwhile he rejects clear dogmas, saying they do not mean what they say. He rejects the language of clear dogmas and expects people to follow his foreign  "language", his personal "dogmas".

Basically XavierSem is a fool with a keyboard.

Logged

Offline Incredulous

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #337 on: February 19, 2021, 05:56:27 AM »
Quote from: XavierSem on February 18, 2021, 09:28:56 PM
I agree Our Lady was baptized, though obviously She was sanctified right from Her Immaculate Conception. Ven. Mary of Agreda speaks of the great devotion with which She used to receive the Holy Eucharist,

My impression is that most BOD/BOB advocates won’t admit this.  

This fact has been purposefully suppressed in Church literature.  
I’ll bet is you ran a poll, 90% of Catholics don’t know this.

The “Immaculate Conception” was Baptized.  

Then, the“Gateway Sacrament” is exceedingly important.
Logged

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #338 on: February 19, 2021, 08:25:21 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on February 18, 2021, 04:48:44 PM
Clemens Maria,

Thank you for the specific reference to the video, which I had only watched some of, and agree that it is a well done.

But as to the argument about the "impious," I find the Dimond argument unconvincing. Session VI, Chapter 4 follows the description in Chapter 3 of men being "born unrighteous" and needing rebirth in Christ for justification, and that this rebirth involves a "translation" from the spiritual darkness incurred from Adam into the Kingdom of Light won by Christ.

Then Chapter 4 says that this "translation" cannot be accomplished without baptism "or the desire thereof." I see the context as manifestly including all men, since the injustice of all men by mere propagation after Adam's sin is the context. Of course, Session V on original sin spent some time talking about infants and their need of cleansing and expiation through remission of sin in Christ by virtue, again, of their merely being born as children of Adam. I think the context clearly includes children as the "impious" of Session VI, Chapter 4.

In Chapter 5, a distinction is introduced "for adults" or "in adults." They are of course a subset of the "impious" that require personal faith and preparation, etc.

If in fact children are "unrighteous" and have contracted "injustice as their own" (Session VI, Chapter III) through Adam it is not a stretch to call them "impious," especially in context.

The reference to Bellarmine is clever but strained and far from convincing (for me). If in fact "impious" cannot be used of "unrighteous" (etc.) children then I would think one could easily find a theological dictionary, commentary on Trent, or some other authority that indicates that - without having to resort to this reaching into a Bellarmine quote that does not prove the case.

By way of example, if I were to say, "the men were killed, but the children were sold into slavery" I am indeed distinguishing between the men and the children by using the word "men" to describe adult males but I am not saying thereby that children are not "men" in another sense (and of the class "men"): children are a distinct subset of men, and adults and children are distinguished subsets of men which, as Session VI goes on to indicate, requires different preparation and action for regeneration in adults (e.g. preparation and faith etc.), but both adults and children are "men" who are born unrighteous and in need of regeneration and translation into the kingdom of God in Christ, i.e. all likewise "impious" in the context of Trent.
I believe the use of the word "impius/impious" signals a change of context.  The Pope could have used other words to show he was referring to unjustified men in general.  The word impius has a precise theological meaning.
Logged

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #339 on: February 19, 2021, 09:02:49 AM »
Quote from: XavierSem on February 18, 2021, 09:28:56 PM
Quote
re: St Mary Magdalene, the Good Thief, the Holy Innocents - all prior to the promulgation of the Gospel.  Not relevant.

Why not? Where is the positive proof that BOD, if it justified prior to the promulgation of the Gospel, as you admit, ceased to justify after that? Even John 3 was prior to the promulgation of the Gospel, yet those who deny BOD claim it supports their view. John 14 was years after John 3, yet Our Lord there taught that those who love Him truly will receive the remission of our sins. There is no Scriptural basis for thinking that Love of God and Perfect Contrition ceased to justify after Christ's Resurrection.

Because Our Lord told us so.  "Jesus answered: 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." (John 3:5)

This quote from the Gospel of John is used by all theologians and popes as the basis for the dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary as a necessity of means for the salvation of each individual man.  And even Dr Ott admits that this is De fide.  After the promulgation of the Gospel anyone who has not entered into the Ark of Salvation shall not be saved.  And the only way to enter the Ark is to be incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ.  And the only way to be incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ is to receive the Sacrament of Baptism which alone imprints the sacramental character upon the soul.

I understand there is a difference between what Fr Feeney taught and what MHFM is teaching.  Fr Feeney believed that one could be justified by BOD but nevertheless it would be necessary to receive the Sacrament of Baptism in order to be saved.  He believed everyone who received BOD would subsequently be given the grace to receive the Sacrament as well.  MHFM cites the teaching of Pope Leo the Great (Letter to Flavian subsequently solemnly promulgated in the docuмents of Chalcedon in 451 AD), that teaches that justification cannot be separated from the water of baptism.  I agree with MHFM's analysis.  However, I don't see that Fr Feeney's position is heretical since Pope Leo did not rule out a separation in time.  e.g. Our Lady's baptism was after her justification in time (ignoring the fact that the only examples of this are people who were justified under the Old Testament and baptised under the New Testament).  But Fr Feeney believed that justification and baptism would not be separated in eternity.  It doesn't seem fitting to suppose that it would be necessary or desirable to justify someone if they were already guaranteed to be justified by the Sacrament at some future date (with the exception of those who were justified under the OT).

Quote from: XavierSem on February 18, 2021, 09:28:56 PM
Burden of proof is on those who claim BOD ceased to apply after the Resurrection to show it. And I gave one post-Resurrection example.

The example you gave is false.  See



Quote from: XavierSem on February 18, 2021, 09:28:56 PM
If Trent had meant to say "Unlike Confession and the Eucharist, there is no voto for Baptism", it could have easily done so, and I would assent to it. What Trent did say is that we cannot be saved without Baptism or its desire. I assent to what Trent literally taught.

Well, actually, that is precisely what Trent said.  Trent made explicit exceptions for the necessity of the sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion.  It did not make an explicit exception for Baptism.  If there was a specific exception for Baptism it would have been clearly stated.  The word voto cannot be interpreted to pack the entire BOD theory into it.  At least not without doing violence to the principle of non-contradiction.

Quote from: XavierSem on February 18, 2021, 09:28:56 PM
As I mentioned, Pope Bl. Pius IX told us we are bound to what Catholic Theologians hold to belong to the Faith. I do not believe there is a contradiction between what Trent taught and what the Doctors and Theologians teach. Baptism is necessary in re or in voto.

There is a contradiction and because of it we must take the ex cathedra pronouncements of the popes as the higher authority.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 66 67 [68] 69
« previous next »