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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 [59] 60 61 ... 69

Author Topic: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy  (Read 32217 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nishant Xavier

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #290 on: February 14, 2021, 01:06:22 PM »
Quote from: XavierSem on February 14, 2021, 08:42:32 AM
Ledeg, to what you asked on "absolutely necessary", here is the Catechism of St. Pius X. The Pope first says that Baptism is necessary,

16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

And then immєdιαtely in answering the next question, the same Saintly Pontiff explains that BOD/B can supply its absence.

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.

Do you believe His Holiness Pope St. Pius X is contradicting himself from one question to the next? Or is teaching heresy here?
Ledeg, I answered your question in reply#284. Did you miss it? By way of further explanation, Baptism is said to be absolutely necessary because Baptism confers justification, and justification is absolutely necessary for salvation. Confirmation does not confer justification and thus is not absolutely necessary for salvation. But it confers many essential grace of the Holy Spirit and should be received when opportunity comes. That's what the SSPX source you cite means. The same SSPX site teaches both BOD and BOB.

St. Thomas also says the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, and in responding to this very objection says that this means, "Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man can not be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57). [Article 2: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm]

Dr. Ott also teaches that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. And elsewhere that this can be supplied by BOD/BOB.

BTW: The source I cited said Rome has given this same endorsement to no one else. What words of Pope Leo XIII are you thinking of?

P.S: I did not call anyone a heretic. Let's try to have charity for one another as we discuss. I did say the opposite opinion to what St. Alphonsus says is de fide is objective heresy, though. Per the Popes, I can safely hold to such an opinion, even without reasons.

Quote from: Last Tradhican
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)

Thank you for recognizing that. I also agree with what you underlined. I said earlier I respect St. Benedict's Centre.

Do you? I know and like Br. Andre Marie in particular, respecting his zeal to bring non-Catholics to the Faith.

They don't deny Baptism of Desire. They hold all who receive Baptism of Desire will also receive Baptism.

They also confess all who die in the State of Grace will be saved. Why do you not hold this more reasonable position also? I have no objection to that position and believe it is an acceptable Catholic position.

Someone who holds that does not need to begin by attacking Catechisms, Popes, and Doctors.

I reject Dimondism though (the opinion that Baptism of Desire does not exist, contradicted by St. Peter himself in Acts, see below). Dimond is only one step away from Ibranyi who called St. Alphonsus "a salvation heretic".

Quote
Simple Question:
Quote
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?

Yes, I reject it. I confess the Athanasian Creed, in the sense St. Athanasius, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus etc did.

Now, can you answer my question: Have you read Fr. Haydock's commentary on Acts 10?

St. Augustine, St. Thomas and Fr. Haydock say that Cornelius received Baptism of Desire.

St. Peter and St. Luke in the passage in Acts themselves clearly express the same.

I cited the sources earlier in this thread and can cite them again if necessary.

I assume you're familiar with them. If not, I'll cite them again later. God Bless.
Logged

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #291 on: February 14, 2021, 01:12:10 PM »
Quote
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?


Xavier answered: Yes, I reject it. I confess the Athanasian Creed, in the sense St. Athanasius, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus etc did.


Then do you reject these examples of salvation by implicit faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards?:

From the book  Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made.  Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.  There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.  It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”

Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned.  It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church:  ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’  When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell.  Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.  This must be preached.”

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)


Logged

Offline LeDeg

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #292 on: February 14, 2021, 11:53:46 PM »
Pope Leo XIII, Depuis le jour (#’s 22-23), Sept. 8, 1899: “Is it necessary to add that the book par excellence in which students may with most profit study scholastic theology is the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas? It is our wish, therefore, that professors be sure to explain to all their pupils its method, as well as the principal articles relating to Catholic faith."

This was after the IC was made offical dogma. 

As a reminder:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Pt. III, Q. 27, A. 2, Reply to Objection 2: “If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Savior of all.”

And


“Shortly before his death, viz., in June, 1914, Pope Pius X issued a docuмent imposing the obligation of using the Summa of St. Thomas as the text-book in all higher schools in Italy and the adjacent islands which enjoyed the privilege of conferring academic degrees in theology.” (Daniel Joseph Kennedy, the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, II. Specimen Pages from the Summa, pp. 3-4.)

And yet they knew St Thomas taught against the IC and these statements were made after it was made dogma. Did they not know of the error? Of course not. They were speaking in general terms, just like the quote you made of St Alphonsus. Otherwise it makes individual doctors appear to posses the charism of infallibility, which is of course not true.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #293 on: February 15, 2021, 08:09:54 AM »
Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 12, 2021, 12:57:00 PM
It was just called to my attention that MHFM has a relatively recent video on this topic:

https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/council-of-trent-did-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/

I recommend their videos.  You might want to watch it a couple of times because Br Peter moves rapidly through a lot of material.  And actually it is a perfect video for this thread because it is specifically targeted to many of the points that have been brought up in this thread without getting into the issues concerning the necessity of professing the Catholic faith.  We all agree here (even PPV and XS) that explicit Catholic faith is necessary (and must be professed according to the Athanasian Creed) for salvation.  But the above video goes into detail on why we must believe that Trent did NOT teach BOD and why BOD is not consistent with Church doctrine.

Peter Dimond makes a powerful argument on the reading of the disputed passage from Trent. But this is not the issue for me.

The issue, as often, comes down to authority. Has the Church - in catechisms, through approved teachings of its saints, doctors and theologians, in various non-infallible utterances - committed itself to the position that a desire for baptism without the actual receipt of the sacrament can be sufficient to open heaven to a "saint"?

The dynamics here  - though that will be denied - are similar to those at play regarding the Protestant conception of Sola Scriptura and who ultimately has the authority to say what Scripture means. No Prot recognizes ANYONE - no preacher, no pastor, no association or conference of pastors - as having the authority to determinatively resolved a dispute over a passage of Scripture. Each "saint" is subject to his lights and the guiding Spirit. The interpretive guides - pastors, the "Church" - are fallible, and their expressions regarding the infallible (Scripture) can be rejected if the Spirit and your judgment tell you it is fallacious or, worse, anti-Gospel (Galatians 1). Yet the interpretive guides are nonetheless recognized as lawful and even God ordained authorities, albeit thus constrained.

It seems to me that the same dynamic is going on here. The legitimate authority - popes, bishops, priests, Catholic theologians teaching and training those who will become the legitimate authority - can be rejected as interpreter when it speaks about the infallible authority, broadened for the Catholic to include de fide, infallible Magisterial statements as well as Scripture. The "Feeneyite" interpreting the broadened infallible authority is free to reject the otherwise legitimate authority when he reasons (with the Spirit's assistance?) that it is simply in error on a question, such as BOD.

The legitimate authority - the hierarchy of the Church - is only recognized as binding when it exercises that authority in a certain way, and yet, even "then," it may not be so - witness Vatican II and the problem of that ecuмenical council's rejected teachings, teaching ratified by a pope. Thus I think even Xavier's (and the SSPX and similar Trads) proper argument comes back to haunt him too - to the extent he rejects ecuмenically approved papal teachings (if he does, as many Trads do); he is danger of being  , and he is in danger of being hoisted by his own petard. His argument points a dagger at what I see as the issue of authority - for you, me, the Feeneyite, and I think himself included. 

Mind you, I say all of this while extremely sympathetic to the Feeneyite (e.g, Peter Dimond's in the video) position, and believing it to be, on its merits, quite persuasive. The problem I have with it is that is seems to support the Protestant position in that it bottoms the ultimate authority on the individual "saint," the believer guided by the Spirit, albeit the Catholic "saint" grants the Church a broader role in that he allows that it can create a greater body of things that bind (namely, extra-Scriptural, infallible, Magisterial statements) - of course only as interpreted by the Catholic "saint."

Sorry . . . I know I tend to throws flies in the ointment - I wish actually it were simply that. It appears to me that there are flies in the ointment, and you can't talk about the ointment apart from the flies, which again appear to be a part of it (well, at least I can't).

I think one side (the Protestant) has rejected the legitimate authority of the Church, the lawful Catholic pastors of Christ's Church, while the other side (many of our popes, bishops, theologians, etc., and us too in what we have accorded them) have thought a bit too much regarding the bounds of their legitimate authority while sitting in "Moses's seat" in the New Covenant Israel (cf. Matthew 23:2).
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #294 on: February 15, 2021, 09:04:30 AM »
Quote
It seems to me that the same dynamic is going on here. The legitimate authority - popes, bishops, priests, Catholic theologians teaching and training those who will become the legitimate authority - can be rejected as interpreter when it speaks about the infallible authority, broadened for the Catholic to include de fide, infallible Magisterial statements as well as Scripture.

There has been no infallible statement on the specific question of salvific BOD (a question that has been debated since St Augustine's time in the 300s).  (Arguably, but still not de fide) Trent says that a catechumen can be justified if they vow to be baptized.  But 1) This is not an infallible statement, but part of the commentary on justification, 2) Trent does not say (either infallibly or in the commentary) that this justification is adequate for salvation, because 3) Trent infallibly says later that "true and natural water" is necessary for baptism, which is necessary for salvation.
.
Summary:
1.  Infallible - The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
2.  Infallible - True and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of Baptism.
3.  Commentary - a catholic-in-training (i.e. catechumen) can possibly be justified if he sincerely vows to receive the sacrament.
4.  Not addressed - Trent does not discuss whether a justified, upbaptized person can enter heaven.
5.  Theological fact - Justification is not the same as salvation.  Justification does not impart the baptismal character.
.
Points #1 and 2 above are infallible and have been thrice repeated by councils and 100s of times repeated by Saints and other holy persons.  But points #3-5 are not "authoritative" teachings at all.  They are OPINIONS.  
.
The main logical flaw of BOD'ers is the assumption that a justified person gets to heaven.  The Church has never said this, in any official capacity.  No one has to believe this, even if St Augustine flip-flopped on the issue and St Thomas opined that they could be saved but would still have to go to purgatory (because they never received the sacrament) and St Bellarmine said that the idea that a justified but unbaptized person not getting to heaven was doctrinally logical, but "seems harsh".
.
Major - The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Minor - True and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of Baptism.
Conclusion - True and natural water is necessary for salvation.
.
Major - All catholics who die justified/in the state of grace, attain salvation.
Minor - A catholic-in-training catechumen can obtain justification if he sincerely vows to receive baptism.
Conclusion - A justified catechumen is not a catholic, therefore as Fr Feeney rightly said, "I don't know" what happens to one if he dies before receiving the sacrament.  The Church has not told us clearly.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 [59] 60 61 ... 69
« previous next »