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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 62 63 [64] 65 66 ... 69

Author Topic: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy  (Read 32268 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #315 on: February 18, 2021, 10:26:32 AM »
Quote from: XavierSem on February 15, 2021, 11:08:10 AM
Rereading Fr. Laisney's excellent article, it makes brilliant points...

Fr Laisney's book was completely refuted by Br Robert Mary of the NH MICM group.  See https://loretopubs.org/father-feeney-and-the-truth-about-salvation.html

Fr Laisney was also refuted by MHFM in Br Peter Dimond's book.  See https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation/
Logged

Offline Nishant Xavier

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #316 on: February 18, 2021, 10:45:47 AM »
Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 18, 2021, 09:45:53 AM
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.
Hi Clemens Maria. Can you give the citation from Dr. Ott?

Ok, let me ask you: if someone denied Perfect Contrition, the Voto of the Sacrament of Penance, obtained the Grace of Justification when it had been lost, how would you classify that error? Some would classify it as heretical, others as proximate to heresy. I usually say BOD is "Catholic Doctrine", following the CE, but it cannot be denied St. Alphonsus considered its denial heretical, or that the Popes said Catholics can safely follow St. Alphonsus. St. Alphonsus is not infallible, but his teaching on BOD is authorized by Popes.

Here is Trent on Perfect Contrition with reference to the Sacrament of Penance: "The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein." http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch14.htm

The Council of Trent is here explaining what it means by the Voto of the Sacraments. Not a natural desire but a supernatural desire perfected by charity, i.e. love of God or contrition, in which the Desire for the Sacraments is at least implicit. Thus, St. Alphonsus defined BOD as "Baptism of Desire is love of God or contrition along with explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of Water". The same definition is found in the Baltimore Catechism and that of Pope St. Pius X.

You said, where Peter is, there is the Church. Well, Peter has spoken. Hasn't he?

Trent also implies the Desire of Two Sacraments can obtain Justification in the way it just described. In such a way that the reconciliation is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire for the Sacrament therein. It said "without them, or without the desire thereof" (aut eorum voto), men cannot obtain Grace of Justification.

I don't know/am not sure, if the Catechism of St. Pius X makes BOD de fide. I would say it at least makes BOD Catholic Doctrine, if it wasn't already so, and thus an objective mortal sin to deny. The condemnation of St. Pius V also needs to be taken into account. The Catholic Encyclopedia, and many other Theologians, pointed out it dogmatically taught BOD. Did no one notice, for 400 years, that all these many approved and Imprimatured Catholic sources were in complete error?

I'll post what the Council of Trent taught about Spiritual Communion later. There too, if I recall, it explained the voto was the outcome of "faith that works by charity", which is the same as Contrition/Supernatural Desire.

Pope Bl. Pius IX said this in Tuas Libenter about what Theologians hold: "While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church.

For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dxm.htm

Baltimore Catechism says the Church has the conviction that Baptism of Desire or of Blood will save us, because Holy Scripture teaches Perfect Contrition can secure the remission of sins; and Our Lord promised salvation to those who lay down their life for Him or His Teaching. These Catechisms were universally taught. Do they not come under the OUM? Do they not propose what they teach as divinely revealed (the teaching of Holy Scripture)? Do not all Catholic Theologians, after Trent, hold that BOD belongs to the Faith, and is at least a mortal sin to deny, objectively speaking? Can you show me any who don't? I may change my opinion if you can.

God Bless. Edit: to give another example that just occurred to me, St. Athanasius is not infallible. But the Athanasian Creed is certainly dogmatic, since Popes have approved St. Athanasius' teaching on the subject, as the true summary of Nicaea-Constantinople etc. It is similar for St. Alphonsus' on Trent teaching BOD.

And I already answered Last Tradhican's question umpteen number of times. I can't help him if he doesn't want to read. I believe and teach what St. Alphonsus believed and taught, no one is saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ.
Logged

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #317 on: February 18, 2021, 10:48:01 AM »
Previously on at least two occasions, I made it clear to the Xaviersem my simple objective,

Quote
Quote
Last Tradhican asked: ....People's opinions are not so important to me. What is important is to pinpoint the big picture of what they believe. All I want to know is what you believe.

In order to pinpoint what he believes I gave him clear examples of the theory of implicit faith and asked him if he rejects them. That's simple enough to answer, but thus far he refuses a direct answer.

To those that think his recent response above (quoted below)  indicates that he rejects the theories spelled out in the examples, I beg to differ. For the theory of salvation by implicit faith spelled out complete, teaches that by faith in a god that rewards, the believer implicitly believes in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. Therefore, the quote he posted below can be teaching salvation by implicit faith. I will correct it to show how the modernists sophists twist language in their minds to work their way around dogmas and teach their errors, while appearing to be totally orthodox. Until Xaviersem answers that he rejects the examples of salvation by implicit faith that I posted, we have no clue what he believes.


Quote
Quote
Xaviersem wrote: 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 at least Implicit faith in Christ as true God and the only Savior of humankind” (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16)."
Logged

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #318 on: February 18, 2021, 10:49:20 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on February 15, 2021, 04:01:48 PM
Doesn't Trent, Session VI, Chapter IV include infants among those for whom regeneration via baptism is necessary? The prior Session talked about original sin and specifically mentioned infants and their need for being reborn in Christ as well as adults. And indeed within Session VI there is discussion of the condemnation in Adam being passed on to men by merely being born.

How then can the "or the desire of" refer to a necessary disposition for baptism which must be conjoined with the water of the sacrament when some of those of whom it is speaking do not require that desire or disposition, and therefore the linkage of desire to the water is not necessary for them?

The MHFM video https://endtimes.video/council-of-trent-no-baptism-of-desire/ specifically addresses this matter by focusing on what impius means in Latin.  You can skip to the 4:54 mark to see the discussion of the meaning of impious/impius.  But it is a good idea to watch the entire video.  It is only 1/2 hour long.

To summarize, impius is defined as "denotes an impious or wicked person, someone guilty of actual sin, a person above the age of reason".  Impious can not be used in regard to infants who lack the use of reason.  St Robert Bellarmine made this distinction as well.  He refers to the infants as "puerorum" and to adults as "impiorum".  The use of the word impious cannot include those who lack the use of reason by definition.
Logged

Offline Nishant Xavier

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #319 on: February 18, 2021, 11:05:17 AM »
I found the citation in Dr. Ott, who classifies it as proximate to faith, and therefore its denial as proximate to heresy. Still a mortal sin.

From an Old CI post by RomanTheo: Another brilliant explanation by Dr. Ludwig Ott, with ample proofs from Scripture and Tradition.

AND FOR MR. LAST TRADHICAN - NO ONE, I REPEAT NO ONE, is saved without EXPLICIT FAITH in JESUS CHRIST in the NT. Period.

"Baptism has two effects: 1) it washes away original sin (and infuses faith, hope and charity into the soul), and 2) it imprints upon the soul an indelible character. The character is necessary to receive the other sacraments - which means the character (not sanctifying grace) is "strictly necessary as the gateway to the other sacraments".

Nothing in the citation you quote from Ott implicitly refutes the Church's doctrine concerning baptism of desire.  Dr. Ott himself explicitly teaches this doctrine on pages 356-358 of the book you quoted.  As you will see in the following quotation, Ott, like every other theologian prior to Vatican II, interprets the Council of Trent as teaching baptism of desire.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Van Ott, p-356-357:  "2. Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism: In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)

"a) Baptism of desire (Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti) Baptism of desire is the explicit or implicit desire for sacramental baptism (votum baptismi) associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on charity).
       
"The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible " without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same."

"According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much." John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43 • " This, day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."

"The chief witnesses from Tradition are St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism, St.  Ambrose says: " Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed? Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53). St. Augustine declared: "I find that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is lacking in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of the heart (fidem conversionemque cordis), if perhaps the shortness of the time does not permit the celebration of the mystery , of Baptism " (De bapt. IV 22, 29). In the period of early Scholasticism St. !  Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 77 c. 2 n. 6-9), Hugo of St. Victor (De sacr. 116, 7) and the Summa Sententiarum (V 5) defended the possibility of Baptism of desire against Peter Abelard. Cf. S. th. III 68, 2.
                               
"Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin.  Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments."

He continues by explaining the Church's teaching concerning the baptism of blood:

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Van Ott, p. 357: b) Baptism of blood (baptismus sanguinis) Baptism of blood signifies martyrdom of an unbaptised person, that is, the patient bearing of a violent death or of an assault which of its nature leads to death, by reason of one's confession of the Christian faith, or one's practice of Christian virtue.

"Jesus Himself attests the justifying power of martyrdom. Mt. to, 32: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in Heaven." Mt. 10 39 (16, 25): " He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me shall find it." John 11 12, 25: " He that hateth his life in this world keepeth it unto life eternal."
                   
"From the beginning the Fathers regarded martyrdom as a substitute for Baptism. Tertullian calls it "blood Baptism" (lavacrum sanguinis) and ascribes to it the effect of "taking the place of the baptismal bath if it was not received, and restoring that which was lost" (De bapt. I6). According to St. Cyprian, the catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive "
the glorious and most sublime blood-Baptism" (Ep. 73, 22). Cf. Augustine, De civ. Dei XIII 7.
                   
"As, according to the testimony of Tradition and of the Church Liturgy (cf. Feast of the Innocents), young children can also receive blood-Baptism, blood-Baptism operates not merely ex opere operantis as does Baptism of desire, but since it is an objective confession of Faith it operates also quasi ex opere operato. It confers the grace of justification, and when proper dispositions are present, also the remission of all venial sins and temporal punishments. St.  Augustine says: " It is an affront to a martyr to pray for him; we should rather recommend ourselves to his prayers "(Sermo 159 I.) Baptism by blood does not confer the baptismal character. Cf. S. th. III 66, 11 and 12."

This is the Church's teaching concerning baptism of desire and blood.  It can be found expressed in similar terms in any pre-Vatican II theological manual and in the old catechisms.  Those who depart from Tradition by rejecting BOD are no better than Modernists."
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 62 63 [64] 65 66 ... 69
« previous next »