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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 23

Author Topic: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy  (Read 21443 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nishant Xavier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2873
  • Reputation: +1894/-1751
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #180 on: February 09, 2021, 10:18:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • St. Ambrose taught Valentian was saved by Baptism of Desire. St. Augustine taught Cornelius was justified by Baptism of Desire. Not sure about St. Chrysostom. Anyway, the Church settled the question in the Middle Ages only, through two Papal decrees. Can you explain why St. Alphonsus says it is now, after the Council of Trent, de fide that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire, and why the Church has said Catholics can safely follow St. Alphonsus. I could cite other Doctors like St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas etc.

    Stubborn, the Church has taught in many place, after the Council of Trent, the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, including Trent's Catechism. See: http://www.baptismofdesire.com/

    "·     Baltimore Catechism (19th and 20th centuries): Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

    Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church? A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.

    [Note: The Baltimore Catechism was issued by the Third Council of Baltimore in 1884, and was approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885 as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States, where it remained the standard for nearly a century. Even after extreme scrutiny and corrections after being published, the content on the threefold baptism has remained in the catechism to this day.]
     
    ·     St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century): Catechism of Christian Doctrine (Catechism of St. Pius X):

    The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

    Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 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.
     
    ·     Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): Baptism: Substitutes for the Sacrament: “The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.”

    Baptism: The Baptism of Desire: “This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto)."

    If Trent did not intend to teach Baptism of Desire, it would not have used the word voto with respect to Baptism. But the Council did.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14632
    • Reputation: +6021/-901
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
    « Reply #181 on: February 09, 2021, 10:43:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: XavierSem on February 09, 2021, 10:18:26 AM
    St. Ambrose taught Valentian was saved by Baptism of Desire. St. Augustine taught Cornelius was justified by Baptism of Desire. Not sure about St. Chrysostom. Anyway, the Church settled the question in the Middle Ages only, through two Papal decrees. Can you explain why St. Alphonsus says it is now, after the Council of Trent, de fide that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire, and why the Church has said Catholics can safely follow St. Alphonsus. I could cite other Doctors like St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas etc.

    Stubborn, the Church has taught in many place, after the Council of Trent, the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, including Trent's Catechism. See: http://www.baptismofdesire.com/  ...

    If Trent did not intend to teach Baptism of Desire, it would not have used the word voto with respect to Baptism. But the Council did.
    We all know saints and catechisms have taught one version or another of a BOD, The Church  at Trent however says the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Trent infallibly said" no sacrament = no justification and no desire = no justification.

     How is it possible to take "no desire = no justification" to "desire = salvation"? Can you explain that?

    Why do you and all BODers disagree with the Church? What is it exactly that drives you to ignore Trent and place the saints and catechisms as having authority over Trent?

    All I asked for was one instance or condition where God could not provide the sacrament.
    Logged
    "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 Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1894/-1751
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
    « Reply #182 on: February 09, 2021, 11:01:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The Church has condemned your false interpretation of Trent. The Church has authorized St. Alphonsus teaching that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire. The Church and Her Popes have said any Catholic may safely repeat St. Alphonsus' teaching. That's what I'm doing.

    You are giving your own false interpretation, your personal "spin". Trent taught Baptism of Desire, Perfect Contrition and Spiritual Communion. It is a fact whether you accept it or not. If you won't hear it from the Church, you will hear it from God at the Judgment.

    God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He does. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses. And He does. The Church has spoken. The case is closed. Baptism of Desire exists. 
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46014
    • Reputation: +27097/-5007
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
    « Reply #183 on: February 09, 2021, 11:51:48 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: XavierSem on February 09, 2021, 11:01:09 AM
    The Church has condemned your false interpretation of Trent. 

    Nonsense.  Just because the Church authorized the teachings of St. Alphonsus doesn't mean that every teaching of his has Magisterial force.  We have a fair number of theologians who disagree with a fair number of things taught by St. Alphonsus.  Doctors disagreed with each other.

    There are theology manuals used in seminaries after Trent which characterized BoD as a disputed question.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46014
    • Reputation: +27097/-5007
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
    « Reply #184 on: February 09, 2021, 11:55:47 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: XavierSem on February 09, 2021, 10:18:26 AM
    St. Ambrose taught Valentian was saved by Baptism of Desire. St. Augustine taught Cornelius was justified by Baptism of Desire.

    Nope.  St. Ambrose' oration is ambiguous; it COULD mean Baptism of Desire, or it could mean nothing at all, or it could be a reference to Baptism of Blood since Valentinian was killed by Arians for being anti-Arian.  Elsewhere in his writing, St. Ambrose explicitly rejects the possibility of salvation for even devout catechumens who die before Baptism.  St. Augustine early on believed in BoD but then fiercely rejected it after his maturation in the faith, and some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence come from non other than the post-Pelagian Augustine.

    We have several Church Fathers who explicitly reject Baptism of Desire.

    Unlike you, Rahner has the honesty to admit this.

    BTW:  AT BEST, St. Ambrose taught that Valentinian MIGHT HAVE BEEN "saved by Baptism of Desire".  What, is he God that he knew for sure that Valentinian was saved?
    Logged

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1920
    • Reputation: +510/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
    « Reply #185 on: February 09, 2021, 12:14:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 09, 2021, 11:51:48 AM
    Nonsense.  Just because the Church authorized the teachings of St. Alphonsus doesn't mean that every teaching of his has Magisterial force.  We have a fair number of theologians who disagree with a fair number of things taught by St. Alphonsus.  Doctors disagreed with each other.

    There are theology manuals used in seminaries after Trent which characterized BoD as a disputed question.
    I still think Stubborn's mentality is super problematic though.  It basically amounts to "All these saints were just dumb and didn't read Trent."

    Its like Sola Scriptura with magisterial docuмents
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46014
    • Reputation: +27097/-5007
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
    « Reply #186 on: February 09, 2021, 12:24:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: XavierSem on February 09, 2021, 10:03:17 AM
    I do believe, with St. Alphonsus, that denying BOD itself is at least a mortal sin, and likely heretical in itself, since the Church has clearly taught it. 

    You can believe that, but I and many others believe you're dead wrong.  It's simply incorrect that the Church clearly taught it.  It's clear that the Church has tolerated various flavors of it, but it's not been defined or explained or proposed for belief Magisterially.  Finding a mere mention of it here or there is not the same as proposing it for belief.  Various expository narrative portions of Councils don't intend to define every word.  Again, Trent does nothing more than state that justification cannot happen without the desire for it.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2486
    • Reputation: +990/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
    « Reply #187 on: February 09, 2021, 12:54:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Apologies if this topic has already been broached earlier in the thread, since I know you guys discussed double predestination, but in a quick glance I didn't find an answer to this in particular:

    How does the death of an unbaptised infant not equate to double predestination? I saw it mentioned that the damnation of invincibly ignorant adults isn't double predestination because, through adhering to the natural law and corresponding to God's graces, they may be given a chance to convert. But an infant doesn't get that opportunity. I know they aren't sent to the Hell of the damned, but wouldn't such a child still have been predestined to not go to Heaven? I know Heaven is a reward and not a right, but it's still Biblical and Church teaching that God wills all men to be saved. So why would He bring into being a soul who had no opportunity to be? Even if an unbaptised infant is not damned, per se, they certainly aren't saved, nor had they any chance to be.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14632
    • Reputation: +6021/-901
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
    « Reply #188 on: February 09, 2021, 01:23:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: XavierSem on February 09, 2021, 11:01:09 AM
    The Church has condemned your false interpretation of Trent.
    The Church has condemned her own teaching is what you are saying.

    CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;... let him be anathema.

    I say Trent says that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW MY INTERPRETATION IS FALSE.


    the canon continues:

    and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

    I say Trent says without the sacrament there can be no justification and without the desire for the sacrament there can be no justification. Again - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW MY INTERPRETATION IS FALSE.

    If you cannot explain how my interpretation is false, stop making the false claim.

    Logged
    "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 Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46014
    • Reputation: +27097/-5007
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
    « Reply #189 on: February 09, 2021, 01:24:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on February 09, 2021, 12:54:20 PM
    Apologies if this topic has already been broached earlier in the thread, since I know you guys discussed double predestination, but in a quick glance I didn't find an answer to this in particular:

    How does the death of an unbaptised infant not equate to double predestination? I saw it mentioned that the damnation of invincibly ignorant adults isn't double predestination because, through adhering to the natural law and corresponding to God's graces, they may be given a chance to convert. But an infant doesn't get that opportunity. I know they aren't sent to the Hell of the damned, but wouldn't such a child still have been predestined to not go to Heaven? I know Heaven is a reward and not a right, but it's still Biblical and Church teaching that God wills all men to be saved. So why would He bring into being a soul who had no opportunity to be? Even if an unbaptised infant is not damned, per se, they certainly aren't saved, nor had they any chance to be.

    It's key that they are not sent to Hell.  Human beings not only have no right in justice to the Beatific Vision, but we even lack the natural capacity to enjoy it.  It's a free gift of God.  So there's no natural deprivation in Limbo, the same thing that accounts for their natural happiness.  I believe that this is an act of God's Mercy and that all infants who die without Baptism were likely headed to Hell, and it was an act of God's Mercy to give them eternal natural happiness instead.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14632
    • Reputation: +6021/-901
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
    « Reply #190 on: February 09, 2021, 01:26:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on February 09, 2021, 12:14:33 PM
    I still think Stubborn's mentality is super problematic though.  It basically amounts to "All these saints were just dumb and didn't read Trent."

    Its like Sola Scriptura with magisterial docuмents
    You guys have a reading comprehension problem. Read my post above and explain where exactly I am misquoting Trent.

    Before you go making false claims, you really should know what you are talking about first yourself.
    Logged
    "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 Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11946
    • Reputation: +7508/-2250
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
    « Reply #191 on: February 09, 2021, 01:36:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    It basically amounts to "All these saints were just dumb and didn't read Trent."

    Emotion and sentimentality can cloud the reason.  People, even Saints, can make "dumb" decisions that, from their point of view, seemed correct.  
    .
    Most of those who promote the super-BOD doctrine, start off with the sentimental mindset, "How can we define BOD to save the most souls?"  But that's just a humanized, over-exaggerated use of God's mercy.  God always balances His mercy with His justice....and He did so looooong ago, before earth was ever created, as Scripture says, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."  God knows from all eternity the circuмstances of our birth, our personality/nature and our entire life beforehand.  So He ordains His mercy + justice to correspond with the graces He knows we will accept.  It's an absolute mystery which none of us can comprehend. 
    .
    We aren't allowed to humanize salvation; all those who make it to heaven do so justly.  All those who don't make heaven, also is a matter of justice.
    Logged

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
    « Reply #192 on: February 09, 2021, 01:40:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: XavierSem on February 09, 2021, 11:01:09 AM
    God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He does. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses. And He does. The Church has spoken. The case is closed. Baptism of Desire exists.
    Unwittingly, the writer finally clearly reveals his real belief which is that "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. That is the foundational pillar of Implicit Faith'ers, but it is not taught by any saint or pope or council. That false "doctrine" is at the root of all the errors of Vatican II. That is how they rationalize their end run around all the saints, doctors, councils, popes, to teach that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jҽωs, indeed, that people in any religions can be saved.  
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11946
    • Reputation: +7508/-2250
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
    « Reply #193 on: February 09, 2021, 01:47:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. ...Baptism of Desire exists.

    Except BOD isn't a sacrament.  Trent says water is necessary for the sacrament.  Back to the "apparent" contradiction.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14632
    • Reputation: +6021/-901
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
    « Reply #194 on: February 09, 2021, 01:54:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 09, 2021, 01:36:47 PM
    Emotion and sentimentality can cloud the reason.  People, even Saints, can make "dumb" decisions that, from their point of view, seemed correct.
    It's not even that Pax, they quote the saints ad nausem and NEVER quote Trent, then when Trent is quoted for the purpose of  demonstrating what the Church actually teaches, all they say is it's being misinterpreted - without ever pointing out how or where the misinterpretation is, apparently because they do not know what Trent even does say, in this way they can just say it's misinterpreted and they can keep posting from catechisms and saints. 
    Logged
    "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
    Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 23
    « previous next »