Author Topic: THE CASE AGAINST FATHER FEENEY (Read 26093 times)

Jehanne · « **Reply #25 on:** October 04, 2009, 04:01:17 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: SJB
jehanne,

The point is that THE SACRAMENT of BAPTISM is not NOT required in EVERY case. Do you now admit this?

Now you know why I thought you were a female. :) No offense to any females out there, either. I knew Clare was a female...but not from her arguments. :)

The name "Jehanne" is a French name. Actually, there are men and women who have had that name throughout history. A quick Google search will reveal who they are.

Actually, I wasn't referring to your pseudonym...more your style of argument. Both you and CM apparently missed that. :)

So, you're saying that I argue like a girl?!

Seriously, what else could I be saying.

Okay, fine. Fortunately, I think that the infallible decrees of the Church are clear enough, at least for me.

SJB · « **Reply #26 on:** October 04, 2009, 04:16:48 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: SJB
jehanne,

The point is that THE SACRAMENT of BAPTISM is not NOT required in EVERY case. Do you now admit this?

Now you know why I thought you were a female. :) No offense to any females out there, either. I knew Clare was a female...but not from her arguments. :)

The name "Jehanne" is a French name. Actually, there are men and women who have had that name throughout history. A quick Google search will reveal who they are.

Actually, I wasn't referring to your pseudonym...more your style of argument. Both you and CM apparently missed that. :)

So, you're saying that I argue like a girl?!

Seriously, what else could I be saying.

Okay, fine. Fortunately, I think that the infallible decrees of the Church are clear enough, at least for me.

Can you be sure you are infallible in understanding these decrees? It is a serious question too...could you be mistaken?

Jehanne · « **Reply #27 on:** October 04, 2009, 04:28:42 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Can you be sure you are infallible in understanding these decrees? It is a serious question too...could you be mistaken?

Sure. From a historical point of view, absolutely not. Secular historians, even atheistic ones, virtually all acknowledge the fact that Catholics, from before the time of Saint Augustine, until well after the Reformation, believed that all non-Catholics perished in the "eternal fire." Catholic liberalism, which began in the 18th-century, introduced the theological novelty of "invincible ignorance," which is now applied to virtually all non-Catholics, by traditionalists and modernist Catholics alike. Here is but one historical example out of many:

http://smu.edu/ijas/1431trial.html

"When it was explained to her what the Church Militant meant, and [she was] admonished to believe and hold the article Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam, etc., and to submit to the Church Militant,

She answered: I believe in the Church on earth; but for my deeds and words, as I have previously said, I refer the whole matter to God, Who caused me to do what I have done.

She said also that she submits to God her Creator, Who caused her to do what she did; and refers it to Him in His own Person.

Asked if she means that she has no judge on earth, and our Holy Father the Pope is not her judge,

She replied: I will tell you nothing else. I have a good Master, Our Lord, in Whom I trust for everything, and not in any other.

She was told that if she did not wish to believe in the Church and in the article Ecclesiam Sanctam Catholicam, she would be a heretic to uphold [her views], and that she would be punished by other judges who would sentence her to be burned.

She answered: I will tell you nothing else. And [even] if I saw the fire, I should tell you what I have told you, and nothing else.

Questioned as to whether, if the General Council, that is to say our Holy Father, the Cardinals [and the rest] were here, she would be willing to submit..."

Many other historical examples exist.

SJB · « **Reply #28 on:** October 04, 2009, 05:26:21 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB
Can you be sure you are infallible in understanding these decrees? It is a serious question too...could you be mistaken?

Sure. From a historical point of view, absolutely not. Secular historians, even atheistic ones, virtually all acknowledge the fact that Catholics, from before the time of Saint Augustine, until well after the Reformation, believed that all non-Catholics perished in the "eternal fire." Catholic liberalism, which began in the 18th-century, introduced the theological novelty of "invincible ignorance," which is now applied to virtually all non-Catholics, by traditionalists and modernist Catholics alike. Here is but one historical example out of many:

http://smu.edu/ijas/1431trial.html

"When it was explained to her what the Church Militant meant, and [she was] admonished to believe and hold the article Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam, etc., and to submit to the Church Militant,

She answered: I believe in the Church on earth; but for my deeds and words, as I have previously said, I refer the whole matter to God, Who caused me to do what I have done.

She said also that she submits to God her Creator, Who caused her to do what she did; and refers it to Him in His own Person.

Asked if she means that she has no judge on earth, and our Holy Father the Pope is not her judge,

She replied: I will tell you nothing else. I have a good Master, Our Lord, in Whom I trust for everything, and not in any other.

She was told that if she did not wish to believe in the Church and in the article Ecclesiam Sanctam Catholicam, she would be a heretic to uphold [her views], and that she would be punished by other judges who would sentence her to be burned.

She answered: I will tell you nothing else. And [even] if I saw the fire, I should tell you what I have told you, and nothing else.

Questioned as to whether, if the General Council, that is to say our Holy Father, the Cardinals [and the rest] were here, she would be willing to submit..."

Many other historical examples exist.

Invincible ignorance...or inculpable ignorance is not a theological novelty. Where are you getting this?

Can one be inculpably ignorant of a particular law? The concept is hardly "novel".

Jehanne · « **Reply #29 on:** October 04, 2009, 05:42:09 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Can one be inculpably ignorant of a particular law? The concept is hardly "novel".

I have posted this quote from Saint Thomas over and over. Please read it:

"Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Isaiah 53:1: "Who hath believed our report?" It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.

If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22) "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin"; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as "referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ." " (Summa Theologica II II Q.10, A.1)