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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64 65 ... 69

Author Topic: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy  (Read 33293 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #310 on: February 17, 2021, 10:58:52 AM »
Quote from: Joe Cupertino on February 15, 2021, 02:34:35 PM
The first is the passage in the preparatory draft, and the second is the passage in the final draft.  The Acta Authentica SS. Oecuмenici Concilii Tridentini in the link above contains the preparatory and final drafts.

Latin
Preparatory:  "...quae translatio post evangelium promulgatum lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto efficitur..."
Final:   "...Quae quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto fieri non potest...""


English
Preparatory:  "...this translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, is effected by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."
Final:  "...This translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."

This change in indicative of a specific theological point being made.  For some reason the original formulation was considered unsatisfactory.  Here, the change turns an expression which indicates sufficient cause into one that indicates necessary (but not sufficient) cause.  In a different text, the original stated that perfect contrition alone sufficed to restore a soul to justification, but the Pope directly intervened and ordered that it be added that the will/intention to go to Confession must also be there.  This demonstrates that the "cannot ... without" phraseology was very deliberately and meant to communicate something specific.
Logged

Offline Nishant Xavier

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #311 on: February 18, 2021, 09:00:54 AM »
Last Tradhican, you did not answer my question either: you said you denied Baptism of Desire, even of the catechumen, the idea of the Dimonds. I showed you five sources, (1) St. Luke, (2) St. Peter, (3) St. Augustine, (4) St. Thomas (5) Fr. Haydock that said plainly that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit, Baptism of Desire, before his Water Baptism. How do you explain this? I can also show St. Alphonsus, and St. Robert, beside other Theologians, who teach the same. The plain sense of Scripture itself indicates it, and it is very clear.

I post only Fr. Haydock again below: "Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament" https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment105.shtml

Do you deny Acts 10:47? Or do you interpret it contrary to the authorized official interpretation of the Catholic Church?

To your question, what I agree with is the below declaration by Bp. Athanasius and Cardinal Burke, which the SSPX has endorsed, and which I've promoted many times, including on CI: "“After the institution of the New and Everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ, no one may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses alone without faith in Christ as true God and the only Savior of humankind” (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16)." https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/two-cardinals-and-three-bishops-remember-catholic-doctrine-48875

Dimond-disciples and Fr. Feeney followers have confused the issue by focusing on Baptism of Desire, which all the manuals teach. Those same manuals, including St. Alphonsus' Moral Theology, teach that the REAL QUESTION is "EXPLICIT vs IMPLICIT FAITH". I am with St. Alphonsus, Fr. Mueller, Msgr. Fenton etc in believing explicit faith is a necessary means for salvation in the NT. Even Fr. Laisney in the article I cited earlier said, "We can concede that if a point of doctrine is not yet defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance or may be allowed to discuss some precision within the doctrine. In the case of baptism of desire, for instance, we are allowed to discuss how explicit the Catholic Faith must be in one for baptism of desire. But one is not allowed to simply deny baptism of desire and reject the doctrine itself. Rigorism always tends to destroy the truth."

Since all Catholics can safely follow St. Alphonsus, per the Popes, they can hold what he taught both on BOD and on Explicit Faith.

No, Pax Vobis, it's not me who is in the vortex of confusion. You reject the clear declaration of Trent, as explained by a Priest who is competent in Latin and quotes the Council to prove his point. Why do you appeal to Doctors, when you're going to reject them anyway?

Here is St. Alphonsus, a Doctor like you asked: "Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" Other readers will notice how the Doctor practically equates justification and salvation, knowing well, as Fr. Laisney said, and as Trent had taught, that nothing more is required for salvation after justification than perseverance. St. Benedict's Centre concedes someone who now dies in grace will certainly be saved and the opposite is heretical. Do you agree with St. Alphonsus?

Yes, it is interesting to see that, Joe Cupertino. Thanks for posting. I would say the first indicates Baptism or its Desire Justifies, whereas the second indicates that Baptism, or its desire, since the promulgation of the Gospel, is the only means of Justification. A subtle difference, but an important one nonetheless. Still, even the original draft would have been prepared by competent and orthodox Catholic Bishops among the Tridentine Fathers.

Now, let's look at where we are. Trent says: "Without Baptism, or Without its Desire", there is no Justification. It can also be stated as

Trent: "Baptism, OR ITS DESIRE, is necessary for justification/salvation" [since justification is necessary for salvation].

Thus, Canon Law summarizes the Tridentine dogma in this way:

Canon Law: "Baptism, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto all for salvation".

Dimond: "Baptism, BUT NOT ITS DESIRE, is necessary for both justification and salvation"

SBC: "Baptism, OR ITS DESIRE, is necessary for justification. Baptism is necessary for salvation".

St. Robert: "The Council of Trent declared Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire".

St. Alphonsus: "It is de fide that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire ... in virtue of the Council of Trent ... where it is said no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it"

Pope St. Pius X: "Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation ... the absence of Baptism can be supplied by ... Baptism of Desire."

Pope St. Pius V also implied Baptism of Desire, in two dogmatic infallible condemnations. If you reject them, you may as well hold to Calvinism or Jansenism, like the Jansenist Michael Baius whom Pope St. Pius V infallibly condemned.

Catholic Encyclopedia: "The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius."

Pope St. Pius V condemned: "Charity can be in both Catechumens and Penitents without the Remission of sins"
Therefore, the dogmatic Truth: "Charity in both Catechumens and Penitents obtains the Remission of sins"

Pope St. Pius V condemned: "That Charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the Remission of sins"
Therefore, the dogmatic Truth: "That Charity which is the fullness of the law IS always connected with the Remission of sins."

Charity or Contrition, in which the desire for the Sacrament is implicit, obtains the remission of sins both before and after Baptism.
Logged

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #312 on: February 18, 2021, 09:30:30 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on February 15, 2021, 08:09:54 AM
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 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."

Br Peter Dimond isn't rejecting Church authority.  If you follow MHFM's material you will see that they organize their position according to a hierarchy of Church authority.  So that the highest authority is Sacred Scripture, Tradition and ex cathedra pronouncements from the popes as well as universal ordinary magisterium doctrines (dogmas) which are approved by the popes with the bishops by their constant teaching.  But MHFM does not reject the teaching of fathers, doctors and theologians when those doctrines are consistent with the highest authority.  I would say that their approach is the same approach that Catholic theologians have always used with the exception that after Vatican I, the authority of the popes teaching ex cathedra is much more clear and compelling.  We could never use St Augustine or St Thomas to contradict a dogma promulgated by a pope regardless of how much we esteem the teaching of those doctors.  Also, we can't use St Augustine or St Thomas as a lens through which to interpret the dogmas of the popes.  We are bound by the literal meaning of the dogma, not by interpretations of it.  Sometimes the terms of the pronouncement need to be explained to the unlearned but once the terms are known, the dogma itself should be clear.  That's the whole point of defining dogmas in the first place.  Sacred Scripture was authored by God Himself, and He spoke often in parables that need to be explained.  He gave us the pope to explain how we should understand Sacred Scripture (His Word).  Dogma is the pope's explanation.  We don't need to interpret it.  We can't interpret it.  We are bound by the literal meaning.

Also, accepting the Conciliar hierarchy as the legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church is a total fail.  You will never understand the doctrines of the Church as long as you accept the leaders of a heretical, schismatic sect as the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
Logged

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #313 on: February 18, 2021, 09:45:53 AM »
Quote from: XavierSem on February 15, 2021, 10:15:13 AM
I already said I don't consider St. Benedict's Centre's position to be heretical, but an acceptable Catholic position. Dimonds' is heretical.
In charity, you have to identify the dogma (as well as where that dogma was defined) which you believe has been denied.  There is not even a consensus on the theological note to be given BOD so I think you are falsely overstating your case.  St Alphonsus was never the pope and was never infallible.  His statement that BOD is de fide is wrong.  Ott admits that BOD is NOT de fide.  At best, Trent referred to BOD in Session 6, Ch 4.  But Trent never defined BOD.  So therefore, there has never been a formal definition of BOD and that means BOD is certainly not de fide.  But in fact, there is good reason to believe that Trent was not even referring to BOD in S 6, C 4.  See the MHFM video referenced above.
Logged

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #314 on: February 18, 2021, 10:18:01 AM »
Quote from: XavierSem on February 15, 2021, 10:15:13 AM
Trent did not say "WITHOUT BAPTISM AND WITHOUT ITS DESIRE" as the Dimonds absurdly and heretically teach, to their own perdition, and those who follow them.

That's a mischaracterization of the MHFM position.  The Latin text is, "sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto".  This is correctly translated as "without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it".  The Latin preposition sine takes the ablative case and both lavacro and voto are in the ablative case.  Logically sine acts as a negation of the clause.  In mathematical logic (which reflects the same principles as philosophical logic), it would be NOT (laver OR desire).  But the logical NOT has the commutative property and the statement can be rewritten as NOT laver AND NOT desire.  When you commute the NOT, the logical OR must be converted to logical AND in order to preserve the meaning of the statement.  For a thorough treatment of the entire S.6,C.4 case, see https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#Sess6chap4

Quote from: XavierSem on February 15, 2021, 10:15:13 AM
Vatican I condemned your idea that the Church can misunderstand Her own dogmas for 500 years before folks like the Dimonds come along and correct Her. The Church's traditional understanding of Dogma is Infallible.

The Church has not misunderstood the dogma at any time.  Theologians have been in error concerning BOD, but theologians are not the Church.  Where Peter is, there is the Church.  And Peter (the popes), have never defined nor taught BOD in a binding manner.  On the other hand, the popes HAVE bound us to believe that there is no salvation outside the Church, that the Sacraments are absolutely necessary for salvation, that the Sacrament of Baptism in particular is absolutely necessary as a necessity of means for salvation, that justification is not possible without the Sacrament of Baptism after the creation of the Church, that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity, the incarnation and the necessity of incorporation into the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation.  All these things have been effectively denied by some theologians at one time or another.  The theologians must give way to the popes.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64 65 ... 69
« previous next »