Author Topic: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy (Read 27287 times)

Clemens Maria · « **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/

Nishant Xavier · « **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.

Last Tradhican · « **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)."

Clemens Maria · « **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.

Nishant Xavier · « **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."

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #320 on:** February 18, 2021, 11:09:37 AM »

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. So what is the point of debating about the harmless baptism of desire of the catechumen with someone who believes that non-Catholics can be saved by their implicit belief in Jesus Christ which is implicit in their belief in a god that rewards?

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #321 on:** February 18, 2021, 11:19:42 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 18, 2021, 11:05:17 AM

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

Why does the writer copy and paste reams of material but yet does not answer yes or no to my simple question: "Do you reject these examples of salvation by implicit faith?"

A simple yes or no will suffice. Yes, I reject them. No, I do not reject them. Which is it?

Stubborn · « **Reply #322 on:** February 18, 2021, 11:24:54 AM »

Xavier, of his own volition, posted this:

Quote

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..."

How is it possible that he still does not get it?

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #323 on:** February 18, 2021, 11:34:25 AM »

All the copy and paste material from Xaviersem has been answered years ago ad-nauseum, it is old material. Been there seen that and answered it more than enough times. Today, I only look at the big picture, what does the person believe? I have spelled out what I believe, and I do not care if someone else wants to believe otherwise, at least after I have explained my position simply. Why do people like XavierSem and Lover of Truth (his predecessor, who wrote 10x what Xaviersem has and was totally refuted in every detail) feel obligated to create hundreds of threads about the ways that non-Catholics can be saved? After many years at this I have concluded that they feel rebuked in their real belief that anyone can be saved by God in the last seconds when He appears to them. I have never seen a strict Thomist post about his harmless belief that a catechumen can be saved by BOD. It is always the false BODers, fake Thomists, that start and proliferate these never ending threads.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #324 on:** February 18, 2021, 11:56:37 AM »

Last Tradhican doesn't get it. God has seen fit to save souls this way, so it obviously is important to Him. We should pray and work for souls to be converted and saved, and know that God may do that, even in the last moments, in ways unknown to us. St. Augustine, whom Last Trad loves to quote, himself taught "Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes". Both sides claim this for themselves, but it is clear God can work in ways invisible to us. We cannot presume on it, but we can and even must pray and hope for it, as St. John Vianney, St. Padre Pio etc said we should as mentioned on the other thread. These were great and heroic Saints who spent their whole lifetime in prayer and sacrifice for souls, and I will take their word over yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Baptism of Desire can save souls, and all who were saved embraced the Faith before their death.

I am not going to repeat myself a 101st time for someone who doesn't want to hear. I believe exactly what St. Alphonsus believed.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #325 on:** February 18, 2021, 12:02:33 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 18, 2021, 10:45:47 AM

Hi Clemens Maria. Can you give the citation from Dr. Ott?

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr Ludwig Ott, Section 2, I, 4, p. 356:

Quote

1. Necessity of [the Sacrament of] Baptism for Salvation
Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (De fide.)

2. Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism
In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism of blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)

He also admits that in the explanation of #1 above that it is a necessity of means. But in #2 he goes on to directly deny what he has just stated in #1. But at least he is on record as saying that #1 is De fide whereas #2 is not!

Quote from: XavierSem on February 18, 2021, 10:45:47 AM

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.

No, S. 14, C. 4 is specifically about the Sacrament of Penance. The sacraments in general are discussed in S. 7, C. 4. Let the pope do the generalizations. We just need to accept what he has taught.

One of the many weaknesses of the BOD argument is that by definition it is not a sacrament and it does not confer the sacramental character nor remit the temporal punishment due to sins. Fr Laisney seems to think that the baptismal character is of little or no importance. But in actuality it signifies our incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church. There is no other means by which men can become members of the Church. And that a man could somehow be in the Church without being a member of the Church has been refuted by the popes. The Church is a visible institution and any idea that someone who hasn't visibly received the Sacrament of Faith (Baptism) can be an invisible member of the Church is completely off-base and false. The Anonymous Christian theory is condemned. The invisible Church is condemned.

Another serious weakness of BOD is that it smells of Pelagianism. When St Augustine wrote against the Pelagians he ended up denying the possibility of BOD (years after he had entertained the possibility of it). But the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be validly conferred on oneself so that really kills Pelagianism at its root. Can we say the same about BOD? Is it really God's grace or is it man using his own natural lights to compel God to save him? If you add invincible ignorance to the mix (which practically everyone who believes in BOD does), you can see that it is actually man who saves himself by his own natural powers.

Quote from: XavierSem on February 18, 2021, 10:45:47 AM

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?

No, a catechism cannot define dogma. A catechism presupposes the existence of dogma. It is designed to explain dogmas such that simple laymen can understand them. It is not an exercise of ex cathedra apostolic authority. Even the Roman Catechism has a couple of errors/imprecisions in it (things that have no direct relation with the BOD controversy).

Quote from: XavierSem on February 18, 2021, 10:45:47 AM

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.

The UOM/OUM isn't as well-defined as the pope's infallibility. But at a minimum it consists in those doctrines which the popes along with the ordinaries have taught consistently from the beginning as having an apostolic origin (i.e. divinely revealed). I can't imagine anything falling into that category which does not have a basis in Sacred Scripture. And I see no scriptural basis for BOD. When I read explanations of BOD in manuals, I see no references to Sacred Scripture. St Augustine, when he taught BOD, provided no reference to Sacred Scripture. Neither did St Thomas when he took up St Augustine's early thought on the topic. There is no number of theologians which when added up can make a dogma. If the doctrine in question has no scriptural basis, no solemn definition and no consistent claim to an apostolic origin, I have to conclude that it is not a Church tradition but a tradition of man.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #326 on:** February 18, 2021, 12:36:10 PM »

Quote

I can't imagine anything falling into that category which does not have a basis in Sacred Scripture. And I see no scriptural basis for BOD. When I read explanations of BOD in manuals, I see no references to Sacred Scripture.

Let me just quickly reply to this part for now. I will get back to the rest later. No Scriptural basis for BOD? Both Dr. Ott and the CE mentioned it. I mentioned it myself from Fr. Haydock's commentary saying Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before Baptism, Acts 10:47, St. Mary Magdalene was justified and had her sin forgiven while weeping at the Feet of Christ, Luk 7:47 Our Lord's Word on those who love Him, how He and His Father will come and dwell in them, Jn 14:21, Our Lord's Word to the Good Thief, Luk 23:43 etc.

Dr. Ott: "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."

CE: "He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins." From: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #327 on:** February 18, 2021, 12:49:13 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 18, 2021, 11:56:37 AM

Last Tradhican doesn't get it. God has seen fit to save souls this way, so it obviously is important to Him. We should pray and work for souls to be converted and saved, and know that God may do that, even in the last moments, in ways unknown to us. St. Augustine, whom Last Trad loves to quote, himself taught "Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes". Both sides claim this for themselves, but it is clear God can work in ways invisible to us. We cannot presume on it, but we can and even must pray and hope for it, as St. John Vianney, St. Padre Pio etc said we should as mentioned on the other thread. These were great and heroic Saints who spent their whole lifetime in prayer and sacrifice for souls, and I will take their word over yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Baptism of Desire can save souls, and all who were saved embraced the Faith before their death.

I am not going to repeat myself a 101st time for someone who doesn't want to hear. I believe exactly what St. Alphonsus believed.

Still he does not answer my simple question. He is a fraud.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #328 on:** February 18, 2021, 01:09:23 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 18, 2021, 12:36:10 PM

Let me just quickly reply to this part for now. I will get back to the rest later. No Scriptural basis for BOD? Both Dr. Ott and the CE mentioned it. I mentioned it myself from Fr. Haydock's commentary saying Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before Baptism, Acts 10:47, St. Mary Magdalene was justified and had her sin forgiven while weeping at the Feet of Christ, Luk 7:47 Our Lord's Word on those who love Him, how He and His Father will come and dwell in them, Jn 14:21, Our Lord's Word to the Good Thief, Luk 23:43 etc.

Dr. Ott: "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."

CE: "He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins." From: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

re: Cornelius - He was baptised. Why is the Sacrament of Baptism necessary for those who have supposedly had their sins remitted? Because BOD by definition does not remit temporal punishment, does not confer the sacramental character, does not incorporate one into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. But we know also from the teaching of the popes that justification, since the promulgation of the Gospel (the founding of the Church) cannot be had without the Sacrament of Baptism.
re: St Mary Magdalene, the Good Thief, the Holy Innocents - all prior to the promulgation of the Gospel. Not relevant. There is a tradition of the Church that even Our Lady was baptised. But certainly St Mary Magdalene was baptised as were all the Apostles and disciples who lived before the founding of the Church and continued to live after the founding. But if it is possible to be saved by BOD, wouldn't that extend to all Protestants, schismatics, and traditionalist "heretics" who disagree with your interpretation of dogmas which, by the way, no one is permitted to interpret? I assent to the literal meaning of all the dogmas of the Church. Can you say the same?

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #329 on:** February 18, 2021, 02:50:02 PM »

Quote

Quote from: XavierSem on Today at 01:00:50 PM
I confess those who die as infidels are lost. I believe those who die with the Catholic Faith, having received Baptism of Desire or of Perfect Contrition, will be saved.

Translation to the truth:

Quote

I XavierSem confess that those who die as infidels are lost, however, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God appeared to them. Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics.

Author Topic: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy (Read 27287 times)

Clemens Maria

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Nishant Xavier

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Last Tradhican

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Clemens Maria

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Nishant Xavier

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Last Tradhican

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Last Tradhican

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Stubborn

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Last Tradhican

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Nishant Xavier

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Clemens Maria

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Nishant Xavier

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Last Tradhican

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Clemens Maria

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy

Last Tradhican

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy