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 32191 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #240 on: February 11, 2021, 04:31:25 AM »
BTW, Cekadism is the reason dogmatic sedes also happen to be the most dogmatic anti-Feeneyites.  Because Ludwig Ott had a couple lines in an imprimatured book about Baptism of Desire, that makes it a mortal sin to reject it ... effectively giving low-level theologians Magisterial authority.  It’s preposterous.  These same theologians ironically reject Cekadism.  So they reject having this authority ... with their authority, causing Cekadism to implode with internal contradiction.  I was told BTW that Fr. Cekada had poor grades at the seminary in dogmatic theology.  I was told this by one of his former colleagues in the priesthood.

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #241 on: February 11, 2021, 05:22:29 AM »
Of course I deny it.  I've denied it many times.  What's your authority, the Baltimore catechism?

Now, answer my question.  Do you hold that there's a dogmatic consensus of the Church Fathers in favor of BoD?
Then you deny what the Church teaches. You hold that the Church teaches error, what you believe will one day be condemned heresy. That is impossible. My authorities are the Popes, the Catechisms, the Saints and Doctors like St. Alphonsus and St. Robert, plus finally the Manuals that unanimously say Trent taught BOD.

Next Question: Please show us the Manuals, after Trent, that you claim referred to BOD as a disputed question.

I hold that: Baptism of Desire derives from Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Blood is explicit in Patristic Tradition. Baptism of Desire was a disputed question for a time, but is clearly taught by at least 4 to 5 Church Fathers. It was settled by the Church in the Middle Ages.

It wasn't a mortal sin to question it before it was settled, as for e.g. with Purgatory etc. It would be a mortal sin to deny them today.

Let me cite 5 sources that teach Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire was also called "Baptism by fire" at the time.

·     St. Hippolytus of Rome (3rd century): Canons of Hypolytus, Can. XIX: Concerning Catechumens: "Catechumens, who by the unbelievers are arrested and killed by martyrdom, before they received baptism, are to be buried with the other martyrs, for they are baptized in their own blood."
 

·     Constitutions of the Holy Apostles. Book V, Sec I, Concerning the Martyrs, para 6: (3rd-4th Century): (A compilation of writings from the Apostles and their immediate successors) "But let him who is vouchsafed the honour of martyrdom rejoice with joy in the Lord, as obtaining thereby so great a crown, and departing out of this life by his confession. Nay, though he be trot a catechumen, let him depart without trouble; for his suffering for Christ will be to him a more genuine baptism, because he does really die with Christ, but the rest only in a figure."

·     St. John Chrystostome, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Panegyric on St. Lucianus, "Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood."

·     St. Basil, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XV: "And ere now there have been some who in their championship of true religion have undergone the death for Christ's sake, not in mere similitude, but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood. Thus I write not to disparage the baptism by water, but to overthrow the arguments of those who exalt themselves against the Spirit; who confound things that are distinct from one another, and compare those which admit of no comparison."


·     Eusebius of Caesarea, Church Father (4th Century): The Church History of Eusebius, Book VI, Chapter IV: "And of women, Herais died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire, as Origen himself somewhere says."

There are many more citations at the http://www.baptismofdesire.com/ link. And 21 here: https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/baptism-of-blood-and-of-desire/ and here, including the Doctors, Manuals and Theologians. 

By the way, St. Augustine did not deny Baptism of Desire, but held that those who receive Baptism of Desire will also receive Baptism of Water. This was explained in the SBC Article by SBC, which holds the same thing. Fr. Haydock etc clearly teach BOD.


Online Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #242 on: February 11, 2021, 05:27:41 AM »
There are a lot of questions asked in this thread that the BODers owe answers to - don't hold your breath anyone.

ByzCat3000 said:  "So the Church "just went with" this for eight centuries, basically. Like even if originally it was based on not knowing Augustine retracted, still seems strange that God would allow a lie to basically go unchallenged for that long."

Please devote at least 3 to 4 minutes to learn this aspect of the workings of the Church, if you do this, you will receive a clear answer that should help you to understand why some issues go on so long.

In this interview of Fr. Wathen by pre-sede Michael Dimond they discuss this exact situation. The whole video is well worth the time to watch, but they start on a BOD at about the 16 minute mark, but if you only listen from about the 26:50 mark for a few minutes, you will learn why the Church, in her wisdom, allowed it for 8 centuries.


Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #243 on: February 11, 2021, 05:35:51 AM »
An honest question;

When would it ever be impossible for God to get the Sacrament of Baptism to a soul before they die?
And not just any Sacrament, but the one He requires for souls to be cleansed so they may enter into His Heavenly abode to be with Him forever?

Do some believe that God sits on His throne in Heaven letting everything on Earth happen on it’s own or by chance?
Hi Carissima. No, it would not be impossible for God to do that, if He had so chosen. The question is, what has God chosen to do?
A reason that opinion is scarcely held anymore is because (1) St. Ambrose already said Valentian was in Heaven, saved by Baptism of Desire. and (2) Pope Innocent III said a person who was invalidly baptized is now in Heaven (St. Cyprian had also said those who came to the Church without Baptism are now in Heaven - he believed the Baptism of heretics was invalid, and was speaking of those received into the Church without rebaptism. St. Cyprian's answer to this case, "that the Lord is able to save them" shows He believed God would grant the the Grace of Baptism). So, it is considered unlikely that there is now no one in Heaven who did not receive Baptism of Desire only. St. Alphonsus expressly cites the second case as evidence that "it is de fide that souls are also saved by Baptism of Desire."

Can you explain how the Church could have authorized this to be taught by Her Doctors for centuries, if it is harmful to souls? 

Now, if you hold, as it seems you do, that all who receive Baptism of Desire will also receive Baptism of Water, I would not call that heretical. It would be a theological speculation. I have read Feeneyites speculate that such would also receive Confirmation, Penance and the Eucharist - in both kinds! - because Our Lord said "Unless you eat My flesh and drink My Blood, you will not have life in you."

That could be considered unnecessary, as it seems to require God to work miracles, but would not be considered gravely erroneous. The Council of Trent teaches that those who die in Sanctifying Grace are certain of being saved, and nothing more is considered necessary for them to have fully satisfied the divine law than those works done in Grace, and that they are assured of being saved if they die in Grace. A person in Sanctifying Grace is a Child of God, a Heir to Heaven, is within the Church and on the Way to Salvation.

The manuals, the Doctors, the theologians, the Popes, Catechisms, etc, after Trent, so far as I have read, are unanimous in teaching all these three things, Baptism of Desire, Perfect Contrition as the voto of the Sacrament of Penance, and Spiritual Communion, as having been definitively and dogmatically settled by the Council of Trent. That would come under the Church's OUM, which is also Infallible.

God Bless.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #244 on: February 11, 2021, 05:38:41 AM »
Then you deny what the Church teaches.

No, what I deny is THAT the Church teaches BoD.  St. Alphonsus and St. Robert are NOT the Church.  Baltimore Catechism is NOT the Church.  You had the Irish catechism before Vatican I rejecting papal infallibility.  Common theological opinion is NOT Magisterial.  You appear to hold the same Cekadist errors that I call out earlier.  For 8 centuries, it was universally held that unbaptized infants went to hell and suffered some torments there.  This was then overturned by the Church, who made the doctrine of Limbo Infantium her own.  This mistaken teaching of St. Augustine was first challenged by Abelard, the same Abelard who also objected to Baptism of Desire.