Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Last Tradhican on August 23, 2017, 12:32:05 PM

Title: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 23, 2017, 12:32:05 PM
No takers on the following question:

If you were given the choice of martyrdom before baptism or denying Christ so you could get baptized which would you chose?

The root cause of the above posters monomaniacal obsession with the salvation of non-Catholics (Monomania - In 19th-century psychiatry, monomania was a form of partial insanity conceived as single pathological preoccupation in an otherwise sound mind.) is his doubts about  Divine Providence and God's Omniscience and Omnipotence. His question above is indicative of his disbeliefs. That is the difference between him and those who believe that dogmas are the final word on a subject that was in dispute. He believes that a person can be snatched away from God's Providence, we do not. We would never ask such a question because God would never put us in that situation, only the poster could, and other men like him.

Everything that a Catholic needs to know about speculative "What would Happen to a person if...." questions like you drum up in your head, is contained in this quote from St. Augustine, we keep repeating it, but you do not have the eyes to see, because of your illness, your doubts about divine providence and God's omniscience and omnipotence.

The new member ryanaugustine hit the nail on the head when he said:

LoT, if you fancy yourself a teacher then I, the uninstructed, must tell you that you are wrong.  You are not easily understood.  You post endless quotes and do not plug them into any context.  You do not explain anything in plain english.  You don't weave your quotes into any sort of whole cloth of understanding.

I think, rather, that you post these quotes to try desperately to convince yourself that you are right and that Pax Vobis, for instance, cannnot possibly be so.

But I don't want to malign you.  I do think, though, that you should avoid trying to instruct the ignorant until you yourself are clear about what you believe, why, and can present it properly.

Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 23, 2017, 12:39:24 PM
St. Augustine on the Errors of Pelagius said:

If you wish to be a catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that “they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.” There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief. Now these are your words: “We say that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ.” Is it then really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing admonition.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on August 23, 2017, 12:48:38 PM
"If you were given the choice of martyrdom before baptism or denying Christ so you could get baptized which would you chose?"

I've already answered this question for him.  I would not, by God's grace, deny Christ, no matter the consequences.  If that meant dying before receiving the Sacrament, then that's what it would mean.  I would accept it as God's will that He chose not to give me salvation and the beatific vision.  Glory to God for denying me this.

Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 23, 2017, 02:25:55 PM
I'm honored to be the one that shows the warts of your heresy by holding it up to the light and reduce you to anger and lies and accusations in order to defend your heresies. What else do you have?
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 23, 2017, 02:39:05 PM
Co-sign
You cannot admit the fallacy of your position.  Because you are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.  Or both.  But not neither.  
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 23, 2017, 02:41:18 PM
All hail the chosen one…
I'm honored to be the one that shows the warts of your heresy by holding it up to the light and reduce you to anger and lies and accusations in order to defend your heresies. What else do you have?
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 23, 2017, 02:42:54 PM
All hail the chosen one…
Thank you.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 23, 2017, 03:14:48 PM
EVERY word he brings forward concerning eternal salvation, is rooted in his doubts about Divine Providence and God's Omniscience and Omnipotence. Until he understand St. Augustine's quote he will forever go on seeking teachers according to his own desires.

"If you wish to be a catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that “they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined....It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him ” 

Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 23, 2017, 03:39:56 PM
"If you were given the choice of martyrdom before baptism or denying Christ so you could get baptized which would you chose?"

I've already answered this question for him.  I would not, by God's grace, deny Christ, no matter the consequences.  If that meant dying before receiving the Sacrament, then that's what it would mean.  I would accept it as God's will that He chose not to give me salvation and the beatific vision.  Glory to God for denying me this.
.
It seems to me you're patronizing the short-sightedness of your opponent with this answer, Ladislaus.
.
I would answer differently. I would say that if I was hoping to receive Holy Baptism, that I would be confident that God would not deny me this grace if I honestly asked Him for it. Our Lord said that anything you ask the Father in my name you shall receive. How could it be any different for the most basic of human necessity? 
.
It comes down to faith in divine providence, that fulfilling His own requirement is not beyond His ability to provide. Therefore, He could send a saint to me as I lay dying as He has done in many instances throughout history. If for whatever reason that is not possible, He could send an angel if He so chose, but for me to place limits on God's omnipotence is one and the same as having no faith in God. Rather, our faith in the Providence of God should be sufficient. 
.
BTW LoT must be absolutely delighted to see his name being the topic of so many threads. This is his objective, to draw attention to himself, sheer and tangible vainglory, which is a miserable vice.
.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 23, 2017, 03:53:05 PM
.
It seems to me you're patronizing the short-sightedness of your opponent with this answer, Ladislaus.
.
I would answer differently. I would say that if I was hoping to receive Holy Baptism, that I would be confident that God would not deny me this grace if I honestly asked Him for it. Our Lord said that anything you ask the Father in my name you shall receive. How could it be any different for the most basic of human necessity?
.
It comes down to faith in divine providence, that fulfilling His own requirement is not beyond His ability to provide. Therefore, He could send a saint to me as I lay dying as He has done in many instances throughout history. If for whatever reason that is not possible, He could send an angel if He so chose, but for me to place limits on God's omnipotence is one and the same as having no faith in God. Rather, our faith in the Providence of God should be sufficient.
.
BTW LoT must be absolutely delighted to see his name being the topic of so many threads. This is his objective, to draw attention to himself, sheer and tangible vainglory, which is a miserable vice.
.
On that auspiciously timed, and accurate, note ignore is working now, for those it may not have been. Yay. Handy.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 24, 2017, 08:07:44 AM
It must be reiterated by further explication more than by redundancy that a non-member can be saved within the Church by being effectively joined to her in a proper theological sense. Additionally, we will come to understand that the Church's teaching in regards to her necessity for her salvation is the teaching of Christ rather than a "rigorist" dogma that she made up on her own.

Monsignor Fenton in his scholarly way will clearly explain the necessity of the Church for salvation. One cannot be saved apart from salvific contact with Christ and salvific contact with Christ can only be obtained through His Mystical Body on earth which is the Catholic Church. Actual graces can be obtained outside the Church but these graces are designed to help move one within the Church. Sanctifying grace cannot be obtained outside the Church. Actual grace nudges one to do what is necessary to be saved such as learning God's will and doing it. For instance a person outside the Church may feel the inclination to learn which Church it was that Christ founded. This is an actual grace from God that, if cooperated with, will help lead to one's ultimate salvation. If he cooperates with this grace he will actually try to find out which Church that is.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 24, 2017, 08:08:57 AM
Additionally, as stated above, the Church's teaching on her own necessity for salvation does not originate from the Church but from Christ Himself as we will see in this chapter. Some people who do not conform to the moral law condemn the Church as if she arbitrarily forbids things just to be mean. The Church is God's instrument on earth used to convey Divine Revelation. One who claims he does not like what the Church teaches in regards to marriage or any other moral teaching really does not like what God has revealed on the issue. It is quite unfortunate that some will not realize or acknowledge this fact until after they die and their eternal fate has already been sealed.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 24, 2017, 09:50:05 AM
In short, the poster does not truly believe that God can provide for the conversion and baptism of a non-Catholic, and so from there he goes into theological speculation to get around every single word in the dogmatic declarations on EENS, the sacraments, and justification. The mental gymnastics is so overwhelming that at the end he does not know what he believes and ends up with the idea that; Any non-Catholic can be saved if he dies in a state of sanctifying grace.

Well, that is like saying anyone that goes to heaven is saved. It says  nothing. Yet he thinks he's "cracked the code".

He says he is being submissive to the teachings of the Church, that the Church has not definitively decided on the issue of the damnation of those who do not believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, on the other hand, he rejects the teachings of the Church that one must be a sacramentally baptized Catholic in a state of grace to be saved. That is a teaching of the Church too, and yet he vehemently rejects it and hates the teaching with a passion. Interesting.

No theologian in at least the first 1500 years of the Church ever taught that Pagans, Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus etc... can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards, and after that time period it was not till the late 1800 that some obscure theologians started pushing the speculation to the point where it was the majority opinion of the theologians at Vatican II.

We reject that teaching which was enshrined at Vatican II (indeed, the document constantly brought forward by the poster, the 1949 letter, is referenced in Vatican II). We know that it is a teaching of the Church but it is speculative teaching, strictly tolerated at this point in time. We have the right to reject it. 

On the other side, the poster rejects the constant teaching of the Church that to be saved one must be a sacramentally baptized member of the Catholic Church in a state of grace at death. We have for years been bringing forward all the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, theologians, that is teach the same as us. It is also Church teaching, and has a longer tradition than the recent streak of salvation by belief in a rewarder God. Not one such "strict interpreter" of EENS has ever been declared a heretic, indeed, they are all Saints. Yet the poster hates the teaching so much that he dedicates all his time to counter it.

Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2017, 10:04:29 AM
It must be reiterated by further explication more than by redundancy that a non-member can be saved within the Church by being effectively joined to her in a proper theological sense

You reiterate this opinion ad nauseam.  As I've pointed out, a lot of BoDers don't even buy Fenton's "undigested hamburger" ecclesiology.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2017, 10:05:09 AM
In short, the poster does not truly believe that God can provide for the conversion and baptism of a non-Catholic, and so from there he goes into theological speculation to get around every single word in the dogmatic declarations on EENS, the sacraments, and justification. The mental gymnastics is so overwhelming that at the end he does not know what he believes and ends up with the idea that; Any non-Catholic can be saved if he dies in a state of sanctifying grace.

Spot on.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2017, 10:22:47 AM
Quote
Any non-Catholic can be saved if he dies in a state of sanctifying grace.
And let's not forget the fantasic way that a non-catholic OBTAINS sanctifying grace - He belives that any non-catholic can "will" his way to a perfect act of love, supernatural faith and therefore, justification.  It sounds an awful lot like the protestant idea of 'confessing one's sins to God' or maybe he's talking about a jedi mind trick??
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 24, 2017, 10:40:43 AM
Sounds like Lover of Tautology is practicing magic inna mirror again.
In short, the poster does not truly believe that God can provide for the conversion and baptism of a non-Catholic, and so from there he goes into theological speculation to get around every single word in the dogmatic declarations on EENS, the sacraments, and justification. The mental gymnastics is so overwhelming that at the end he does not know what he believes and ends up with the idea that; Any non-Catholic can be saved if he dies in a state of sanctifying grace.

Well, that is like saying anyone that goes to heaven is saved. It says  nothing. Yet he thinks he's "cracked the code".

He says he is being submissive to the teachings of the Church, that the Church has not definitively decided on the issue of the damnation of those who do not believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, on the other hand, he rejects the teachings of the Church that one must be a sacramentally baptized Catholic in a state of grace to be saved. That is a teaching of the Church too, and yet he vehemently rejects it and hates the teaching with a passion. Interesting.

No theologian in at least the first 1500 years of the Church ever taught that Pagans, Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus etc... can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards, and after that time period it was not till the late 1800 that some obscure theologians started pushing the speculation to the point where it was the majority opinion of the theologians at Vatican II.

We reject that teaching which was enshrined at Vatican II (indeed, the document constantly brought forward by the poster, the 1949 letter, is referenced in Vatican II). We know that it is a teaching of the Church but it is speculative teaching, strictly tolerated at this point in time. We have the right to reject it.

On the other side, the poster rejects the constant teaching of the Church that to be saved one must be a sacramentally baptized member of the Catholic Church in a state of grace at death. We have for years been bringing forward all the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, theologians, that is teach the same as us. It is also Church teaching, and has a longer tradition than the recent streak of salvation by belief in a rewarder God. Not one such "strict interpreter" of EENS has ever been declared a heretic, indeed, they are all Saints. Yet the poster hates the teaching so much that he dedicates all his time to counter it.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 24, 2017, 10:54:40 AM

Quote
Furthermore, no one is excluded from the everlasting possession of the Beatific Vision except for reasons of sin. In the case of an infant who has died without receiving the sacrament of baptism, that sin is not personal, but is original sin, the aversion from God which is consequent upon the offense committed by Adam himself. Obviously, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, an infant who dies in that state will not be punished by the all-just and all-merciful God for some sin which he did not personally commit. But, for such an infant, the Beatific Vision is a good to which the infant is not entitled and which he will not receive. Fenton

Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2017, 11:10:23 AM
Oh, right, St Fenton is infallible.  I forgot.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 24, 2017, 11:20:26 AM

Quote
The people who do not come into salvific contact with Our Lord do not avail themselves of the salvation which is in Him alone. As a result they are not saved, and they remain in the condition in which they have come into the world, or in the condition in which they have placed themselves through their own personal and mortal sins. If they die in this condition, they inevitably receive the effects which follow upon their condition. They are excluded from the Beatific Vision and, if they pass from this life guilty of mortal sin for which they have not been repentant, they suffer the pain of hell forever. Fenton

Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2017, 11:31:49 AM
Due to mental breakdown, LoT returns to spam mode.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 24, 2017, 11:32:54 AM

Quote
A man who feels in this way is inevitably inclined to look upon the effects of Our Lord's redemptive sacrifice as in reality either non-existent or quite unimportant. If the best man can obtain is something to which he is entitled by the very fact of being a man, or something which he is competent to obtain through the exercise of his own natural powers, then of course it is hardly more than a mere verbalism to speak of a redemption. And if God is going to give everlasting life to any man, without regard for any contact with Our Lord, then the most Our Lord could have done has been to obtain some extra and accidental advantages in the supernatural order for those who come and stay in contact with Him. Fenton

Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 24, 2017, 11:42:06 AM
"Time for Jeopardy…I'm a good driver… yeah."
Due to mental breakdown, LoT returns to spam mode.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 24, 2017, 11:43:49 AM

Quote
In reality the only motive force for the forgiveness of man's sins is to be found in the redemption by Jesus Christ. And the only possible way for a man to have his own sins remitted is to come into contact with Our Lord and with His salvific power in the one and only social unit which has been divinely constituted as His Mystical body. This means being within His Church as a member or at least by a sincere, even though perhaps only an implicit, desire or intention. The man who is not thus in contact with Our Lord cannot have the remission of sin. And he cannot have the effects that follow upon that remission of sin. Fenton

Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2017, 11:51:17 AM
Yeah, he's gone back to spamming up everyone else's quotes ... having experienced yet another mental breakdown.

Grow up, John Gregory.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 24, 2017, 11:52:46 AM

Quote
Moreover, we must not lose sight of the fact that all men stand in need of redemption. There is absolutely no one who can come to the love and friendship of God by his own unaided natural powers. All men need the remission of sin, which is to be found only in the redemptive sacrifice of Our Lord. The infusion or granting of the supernatural life of grace is the positive aspect of the remission of original or mortal sin, and this life of grace is a sharing of the divine life, a sharing which is not to be obtained apart from the Incarnate Word of God. Since the sin of Adam there never has been and there never will be the remission of sin or the granting of the life of sanctifying grace to any human being apart from the force of Our Lord's redemptive sacrifice. Fenton

Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Irish_Catholic on August 24, 2017, 02:26:28 PM
Dear LOT, as a relative newbie on this forum, I find myself having to ask you, whose truth is it that you profess to love?
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 24, 2017, 02:36:06 PM
Dear LOT, as a relative newbie on this forum, I find myself having to ask you, whose truth is it that you profess to love?
Ultimate truth.  The TRUTH Himself.  Jesus Christ.  All truths.  I hate falsity and love truth.  
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2017, 02:41:18 PM
I hate falsity and love truth.  

:facepalm:
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 24, 2017, 02:43:31 PM

Quote
The second sentence in the portion of the document translated at the beginning of this chapter brings out the fact that acts which would otherwise be most conducive to salvation are deprived of their effect if they are performed "outside" the bond of unity of the Catholic Church. It teaches that even the reception of the sacraments cannot be "profitable unto salvation," that is, cannot produce their effects in the life of divine grace for those who are outside of the unity of the ecclesiastical body. Furthermore it asserts that no work which of its very nature ought to be salutary can be profitable in the line of salvation unless these works are performed "within" the true Church of Jesus Christ. Fenton

Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 24, 2017, 02:49:01 PM
:facepalm:
To be fair, isn't this attributable to us all? Should we now pray God thanks, that we are not as other men?
"Hi,  I'm DZ and I'm a crapoholic."
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 24, 2017, 04:29:00 PM
The spam machine seems to shut down around 3 pm, up till then it is non-stop, anyone posts something and he responds within seconds. The only way to do that on all the threads in this sub-forum is to post spam. No other way it can be done. He does not read anything just post spam.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: ryanaugustine on August 24, 2017, 10:20:59 PM
What an honor to be quoted in such a manner!

It would seem our poor friend LoT is suffering precisely the consequence that St. Augustine (my Confirmation saint) identified.  Augustine got it right.  And so did Fr. Feeney.

I heartily recommend Desire and Deception by Charles Coulombe, and Bread of Life by Fr. Feeney.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 25, 2017, 05:08:44 AM

Quote
Now, the sacraments produce grace of themselves, ex opera operato, as the technical language of sacred theology says. They bring about this effect except where there is some disposition on the part of the recipient which is incompatible with the reception of the life of sanctifying grace. According to the terminology of the Cantate Domino, such an obstacle exists in a person who is "outside" the unity of the ecclesiastical body, the Mystical body of Jesus Christ. Fenton

Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Last Tradhican on September 15, 2017, 01:43:33 PM
The root cause of this poor man's monomaniacal obsession with the salvation of non-Catholics are his doubts about Divine Providence and God's Omniscience and Omnipotence. The difference between him and we who believe that dogmas are the final word on a subject that was previously in dispute, is that he believes that a person can be snatched away from God's Providence, we do not. 
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 15, 2017, 01:46:10 PM
The Church Fathers taught Baptism of blood, but they did not teach Baptism of desire.

Incorrect. See the quotes from St. Augustine and St. Ambrose above, 
which clearly speak of Baptism of desire.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: DZ PLEASE on September 15, 2017, 01:47:11 PM
The root cause of this poor man's monomaniacal obsession with the salvation of non-Catholics are his doubts about Divine Providence and God's Omniscience and Omnipotence. The difference between him and we who believe that dogmas are the final word on a subject that was previously in dispute, is that he believes that a person can be snatched away from God's Providence, we do not.
His being sick doesn't preclude his also being wicked, and he is the latter, make no mistake or excuse.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 15, 2017, 01:48:44 PM
Baptism of desire and/or blood only apply to catechumens.

Incorrect. Only a small percentage of the quotes from the Church that we present above refer to catechumens specifically, while the majority do not. The letter from the Holy Office in 1949, referenced above, clarifies this.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 15, 2017, 02:00:48 PM
The Church Fathers taught Baptism of blood, but they did not teach Baptism of desire.

Incorrect. See the quotes from St. Augustine and St. Ambrose above,
which clearly speak of Baptism of desire.

Ignoring the fact that St. Augustine retracted his opinion, that St. Ambrose's speech was ambiguous at best, and that 7-8 Church Fathers rejected it outright.

But carry on, LoT, with your diabolical crusade to undermine EENS and the Sacraments.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 15, 2017, 02:03:22 PM
Pope Pius XII did not approve, or did not know about the letter from the Holy Office in 1949.

Incorrect. Looking at the letter from the Holy Office (
here (http://baptismofdesire.com/feeney.html)), the introductory letter from Archbishop Cushing clearly states, "The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision". Still, some have actually tried to argue that it is not certain Pope Pius XII approved of the original letter since it was only signed by two Cardinals who worked for Pope Pius XII. This argument is beyond absurdity; imagine two executives publishing a letter for all the world to see, stating that their CEO approved of the letter, when in actuality he did not. What would happen? The CEO would very quickly find out about the letter published in his name, the executives who sent the letter fraudulently would most likely be terminated (or at least seriously reprimanded), and the letter would be retracted. Of course nothing of the sort happened with the letter from the Holy office in 1949; the letter was published in 1952 in several well-known Catholic references with imprimatur, including Canon Law Digest, The Church Teaches, the Catholic Mind, and the American Ecclesiastical Review, and Pope Pius XII reigned for another 6 years without saying a word.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: JPaul on September 15, 2017, 02:35:37 PM
In the letter it criticizes Father Feeney for speaking against catechetical  instructions approved by the competent authority. That would be Cushing himself and the main teaching which precipitated this controversy was what was being taught at Boston College with the approval of the competent authority.
A bit of research will show that the disputed teaching which was taking place was clearly heretical, and that is what the SBC were basing their charges of Cushing being a heretic. Which it can be shown that he was.
Fr. Feeney was told to stop teaching the foundational dogma of the Church because it was "causing problems" for the authorities among the non-Catholics and Jews.

It is a sorry wagon that LoH and his ilk, hitch their wagon to.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 15, 2017, 02:43:54 PM
Father Leonard Feeney was excommunicated only for disobedience, not for going against the faith.

Incorrect. The letter from the Holy Office in 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (
here (http://baptismofdesire.com/feeney.html)) clearly states, "Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities...". The circumstances surrounding the excommunication were printed in an article in "The Catholic Advance" on February 27, 1953, which can be seen here (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/Feeney-article-1953.jpg). Pope Pius XII made three separate requests for Father Feeney to come to Rome. Clearly this meeting was to be about Father Feeney's denial of a Catholic doctrine, but when he did not show for the hearing, this was the final straw.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 15, 2017, 03:10:42 PM

Looking at the letter from the Holy Office (
here (http://baptismofdesire.com/feeney.html)), the introductory letter from Archbishop Cushing clearly states, ...

Logic continues to elude your heresy-riddled mind.  As I mentioned, the only affirmation that Pius XII approved this comes from none other than Cushing.  It's circular evidence.  We know this letter is authentic because it says it is.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 15, 2017, 03:11:40 PM
In the letter it criticizes Father Feeney for speaking against catechetical  instructions approved by the competent authority. That would be Cushing himself and the main teaching which precipitated this controversy was what was being taught at Boston College with the approval of the competent authority.
A bit of research will show that the disputed teaching which was taking place was clearly heretical, and that is what the SBC were basing their charges of Cushing being a heretic. Which it can be shown that he was.
Fr. Feeney was told to stop teaching the foundational dogma of the Church because it was "causing problems" for the authorities among the non-Catholics and Jews.

It is a sorry wagon that LoH and his ilk, hitch their wagon to.

Correct.  Applying LoT's own principles, the See of Boston was vacant due to manifest heresy on the part of Cushing.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Merry on September 15, 2017, 04:05:23 PM
Ultimate truth.  The TRUTH Himself.  Jesus Christ.  All truths.  I hate falsity and love truth.  

"...Except when it is convenient for me to calumniate a priest, as I calumniated Monsignor Francis Cassano by calling him a Mason when he wasn't.  But he deserved this because he said there was nothing wrong with the theology of Fr. Feeney in his book, 'Bread of Life,' when I wanted him to say it was full of heresy and nastiness.  I also hate falsity and love truth, except when I deny that I called Feeneyites the same as pedophiles, and then posted that I "never said' that.  Someone found my post and re-posted it, but I am ignoring this my lie and wicked assertion, the same way I am ignoring how I calumniated Monsignor Cassano, because I like the sound of crickets - and I also like the sound of my footsteps as I run away from owning up to my public errors. But despite all this,  the main thing to remember is I really do hate falsity and love truth.  All this helps the readers of my theological posts to believe that I really have personal integrity, and they can therefore trust my miles of sound theories, and scintillating logic."        

 :heretic: 
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 18, 2017, 08:45:29 AM
The teaching on "Soul of the Church" is a heresy.

The definition of "Soul of the Church" in the "New Catholic Dictionary" (1929) provides an explanation for the origins of this term:

Soul of the Church: "From the 16th century, the Catholic theologians expressed more definitely the theological doctrine of the distinction between the Soul and Body of the Church. . . This distinction. . . is formally expressed by Bellarmine in his study on the members of the Church. According to him, men belong to the Body of the Church by virtue of external profession of the faith, and participation in the sacraments; and to the Soul of the Church through the internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, and charity. He draws three general conclusions relative to the members of the Church. There are those: (a) Who belong always to both the Body and Soul of the Church; (b) Who belong to the Soul without belonging to the Body; (c) Who belong to the Body but not to the Soul. This teaching has generally been followed by Catholic theologians."


In our list of quotes above, we present a quote from St. Robert Bellarmine on the Soul of the Church. As we all know, St. Bellarmine was later beatified, canonized, and given Doctor of the Church honors by Pope Pius XI (processes which never would have occurred had his teaching on the subject been considered heresy). The same teaching on "Soul of the Church" was also taught by St. Pope Pius X, Baltimore Catechism, Canon Law, Catholic Encyclopedia, A Catholic Dictionary, and the Holy Office in 1949 (see above for quotes on each).

So to say the teaching on "Soul of the Church" is a heresy, we would also logically have to declare as heretical St. Robert Bellarmine for teaching it, Pope Leo XIII for approving of it in the Baltimore Catechism, St. Pope Pius X for including it in his catechism, Pope Pius XII for approving the letter from the Holy Office in 1949, and to condemn the other Catholic references mentioned as well. Yet there has not been a single condemnation of any of these sources. And let's not forget, there has been over 25 popes since St. Robert Bellarmine was alive, all of which could have condemned him if he had taught heresy, but they did not.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: JPaul on September 18, 2017, 09:32:31 AM
Logic continues to elude your heresy-riddled mind.  As I mentioned, the only affirmation that Pius XII approved this comes from none other than Cushing.  It's circular evidence.  We know this letter is authentic because it says it is.
And because the questionable Bishop who requested its creation verifies it
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 18, 2017, 01:05:02 PM
 Baptism of desire was condemned by the Church.

Incorrect. If we look back through the history of the General Councils where heresies were condemned, we can clearly see that with each condemnation, the Church has always been very specific in naming the heresy, explaining what it was about, and at the same time condemning those who taught the heresy. For example:

Council of Nicaea in 325 AD: "First of all the affair of the impiety and lawlessness of Arius and his followers was discussed in the presence of the most pious emperor Constantine. It was unanimously agreed that anathemas should be pronounced against his impious opinion and his blasphemous terms and expressions which he has blasphemously applied to the Son of God"

Council of Ephesus 431 AD: "The holy synod said: As, in addition to all else, the excellent Nestorius has declined to obey our summons and has not received the holy and God-fearing bishops we sent to him, we have of necessity started upon an investigation of his impieties. We have found him out thinking and speaking in an impious fashion, from his letters, from his writings that have been read out, and from the things that he has recently said in this metropolis which have been witnessed to by others; and as a result we have been compelled of necessity both by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow servant Celestine, bishop of the church of the Romans, to issue this sad condemnation against him..."

Council of Constantinople III in 680 AD: "To make an end of the Monothelite controversy, Emperor Constantine IV asked Pope Donus in 678 to send twelve bishops and four western Greek monastic superiors to represent the pope at an assembly of eastern and western theologians. Pope Agatho, who meanwhile had succeeded Donus, ordered consultation in the west on this important matter. Around Easter 680 a synod in Rome of 125 Italian bishops, with Pope Agatho presiding, assessed the replies of the regional synods of the west and composed a profession of faith in which Monothelitism was condemned."

Similar references can be found in the other General Councils where heresies were condemned, such that there was no confusion as to what was being condemned, and who was involved in spreading the erroneous teachings. Yet on our webpage above, we provide quotes teaching baptism of desire and/or blood from St. Pope Siricius, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, Pope Pius IX, St. Pope Pius X, Pope Pius XII, St. Cyprian, Tertullian, St. Hippolytus, John Chrystostome, St. Basil, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Victor of Braga, St. Genesius of Arles, Rufinus, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Augustine, St. Prosper, St. Fulgentius, St. John of Damascus, St. Bede, St. Bonaventure, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus Liguori. Nowhere in any General Councils or other documents throughout the history of the Church do we see a single condemnation of any of these Popes, Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, and Saints, nor do we see a condemnation of baptism of desire or blood. If there were a condemnation, it would be very specific, naming "baptism of desire" and/or "baptism of blood", and naming at least some of those who taught it. There are no such condemnations that exist 
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 19, 2017, 08:53:09 AM
 St. Hippolytus of Rome (3rd century): Canons of Hypolytus, Can. XIX: Concerning Catechumens: "Catechumens, who by the unbelievers are arrested and killed by martyrdom, before they received baptism, are to be buried with the other martyrs, for they are baptized in their own blood." 
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 19, 2017, 12:58:37 PM
St. Hippolytus of Rome (3rd century): Canons of Hypolytus, Can. XIX: Concerning Catechumens: "Catechumens, who by the unbelievers are arrested and killed by martyrdom, before they received baptism, are to be buried with the other martyrs, for they are baptized in their own blood."

It's appropriate that you would spam bump a thread dedicated to your mental/spiritual illness.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 19, 2017, 01:11:12 PM
These errors, in their turn, had stemmed from a false attitude toward the documents of ecclesiastical magisterium. They were, together, "deadly fruits" of a tendency to ignore the clear teachings of the Sovereign Pontiffs, teaching in the course of their ordinary doctrinal activity. Fenton
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 19, 2017, 01:46:38 PM
 ;)
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 19, 2017, 01:50:19 PM
The Catholic assertion of the truth that there is no salvation outside the true Church is and has always been a point on which the attacks of the Church's enemies have been centered with particular intensity. A claim that the Catholic Church is a highly acceptable religious society, or even that it is by far the best religious organization, would never have aroused any special animosity against the Church. As a matter of fact, claims of this sort have always been made and are still being made by religious societies distinct from the Catholic Church. What the enemies of the Church have always found and still find infuriating is the Catholic insistence on the truth that the Catholic Church is actually the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the one and only true supernatural kingdom of God on earth, the only social body within which men are to find salvific contact with God through Our Lord. Fenton 
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 19, 2017, 02:11:43 PM
 :cheers:
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 19, 2017, 02:38:23 PM
 There have been various ways in which Catholic writers have tended to reduce the teaching on the necessity of the Church for salvation to a meaningless formula. Among them, the following may be regarded as among the most important: 

(1) A few writers, obviously unschooled in sacred theology, have simply rejected the formula itself, and thus completely denied the teaching. The unfortunate Arnold Harris Mathew, writing during his days as a Catholic, produced teaching of this sort. He makes this statement in the chapter "Extra Ecclesiam Salus Nulla," in the symposium Ecclesia: The Church of Christ, a work which Matthew himself edited:

Now the further question arises as to how far Catholics are bound to hold that for those outside the Roman Church there is no salvation. Catholics are not bound to hold anything of the kind. [Mathew, in his chapter, "Extra Ecclesiam Salus Nulla," in the symposium, Ecclesia: The Church of Christ, edited by Arnold Harris Mathew (London: Burns and Oates, 1906), p. 148.] Fenton
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 19, 2017, 03:04:32 PM
 :baby:
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 20, 2017, 07:32:32 AM
(2) The teaching that the dogma of the necessity of the Church for salvation admits of exceptions is, in the last analysis, a denial of the dogma as it has been stated in the authoritative declarations of the ecclesiastical magisterium and even as it is expressed in the axiom or formula "Extra ecclesiasm nulla salus." It is important to note that such teaching is found in Cardinal Newman's last published study on this subject, a study incorporated into his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, perhaps the least valuable of all his published works. Because of Newman's great influence in the field of contemporary theological studies, it will be helpful to see how he treated this subject in the Letter. Fenton
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 20, 2017, 10:19:04 AM
 ::)
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 20, 2017, 01:05:30 PM
(3) Some Catholic authors attempted to explain the dogma of the Church's necessity for the attainment of eternal salvation by saying that the Church is only the ordinary means, and that it is still possible, in extraordinary cases, for a man to attain the Beatific Vision outside the Church. At the same time they resolutely claimed, as Newman had done, that it is a Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. Manifestly, according to this explanation, the dogma would be nothing more than a vain formula, something which the very people who accept it as a dogma would be expected to treat, for all practical purposes, as untrue. Ultimately, of course, this explanation coincides with the one offered by Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk. Fenton
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 20, 2017, 02:08:38 PM
 :confused:
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 20, 2017, 02:24:34 PM
The only method by which the dogma can be explained satisfactorily is that employed in the Suprema haec sacra. The Holy Office letter merely restates, in a more detailed form, exactly what all of the declarations of the ecclesiastical magisterium have taught about the meaning of the Church's necessity for the attainment of eternal salvation. Whatever progress there will be in the explanation of this dogma will come and must come along the line laid down in this Holy Office letter. Such is the teaching of the encyclical letter Humani generis. Fenton
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 20, 2017, 02:29:28 PM
 :boxer:
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 20, 2017, 02:38:22 PM
 That doctrinal tactic was and is completely erroneous. Moreover, it had and it could only have the most absolutely disastrous effects upon the people who were misled by it. These people were influenced to believe that a dogma of the Catholic Church, a teaching which the Church presents as a divinely revealed truth which all men are obliged to accept with the assent of divine faith, was, in the last analysis, something practically devoid of meaning. They were encouraged to imagine that dogma which the Church's magisterium had, in ages past, set forth as a part of divine public revelation, turned out, on further analysis, to be an empty set of words, which modern intellectual Catholics could accept only when they had been voided of the meaning they were manifestly meant to convey. Not to put too fine a point on it, the people who were encouraged to accept the faulty teachings repudiated in the Humani generis were put in a position to fancy that the Church was something less than sincere when it still insisted upon the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. Fenton 
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 20, 2017, 03:10:10 PM
 :-*
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: JPaul on September 20, 2017, 03:27:42 PM
:-*
Everywhere I turn...it's Fenton, Fenton, Fenton, it is like being hit over the head repeatedly with a... :fryingpan:
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: DZ PLEASE on September 20, 2017, 03:33:56 PM
Everywhere I turn...it's Fenton, Fenton, Fenton, it is like being hit over the head repeatedly with a... :fryingpan:
"Hi, I'd like to offer as my main support a theologian approved by an authority which I reject." :facepalm: :fryingpan:
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: DZ PLEASE on September 20, 2017, 03:39:05 PM
Everywhere I turn...it's Fenton, Fenton, Fenton, it is like being hit over the head repeatedly with a... :fryingpan:
Should be named "Lover of Fenton".

I think it's a verb now, like "Uh oh, LoF's here. We're about to get Fentoned."

You took too much bro.

He should start a "Doo Whop" singing apostolate, then he could call his group "The Fentones"
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 21, 2017, 08:12:22 AM
St. Basil, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century)Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XV: "And ere now there have been some who in their championship of true religion have undergone the death for Christ's sake, not in mere similitude, but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood. Thus I write not to disparage the baptism by water, but to overthrow the arguments of those who exalt themselves against the Spirit; who confound things that are distinct from one another, and compare those which admit of no comparison."
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 21, 2017, 09:12:57 AM
 8)
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 21, 2017, 11:24:03 AM
Rufinus, Church Father (4th Century)A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed: "It is written that when the side of Jesus was pierced "He shed thereout blood and water." This has a mystical meaning. For Himself had said, "Out of His belly shall flow rivers of living water." But He shed forth blood also, of which the Jews sought that it might be upon themselves and upon their children. He shed forth water, therefore, which might wash believers; He shed forth blood also which might condemn unbelievers. Yet it might be understood also as prefiguring the twofold grace of baptism, one that which is given by the baptism of water, the other that which is sought through martyrdom in the outpouring of blood, for both are called baptism."
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 21, 2017, 12:14:21 PM
 :boxer:
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 21, 2017, 02:18:04 PM
St. Ambrose, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century)From his writing "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio": "But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it."
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 22, 2017, 08:06:27 AM
 :baby:
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 22, 2017, 08:28:34 AM
 Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century)The Sacraments, Baptism: "...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on September 22, 2017, 09:16:45 AM
 :baby:
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Lover of Truth on September 22, 2017, 09:27:55 AM
The Douay Catechism (17th century): "Q. 610. Can a man be saved without baptism? A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ."
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Last Tradhican on October 06, 2017, 03:20:53 AM
Was the spammer finally thrown out of CI or did he finally crackup? I do not see his sub-forum monopolizing spamming anymore.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Ladislaus on October 10, 2017, 11:46:53 AM
Was the spammer finally thrown out of CI or did he finally crackup? I do not see his sub-forum monopolizing spamming anymore.

He doesn't appear to be banned (looking at the Members List).  He probably got tired of it here and moved his act somewhere else.  He mentioned that he was at some other forum.  He might get bored over there and then come back.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: Last Tradhican on October 14, 2017, 10:20:22 AM
Notice that there are no postings to this sub-form anymore. Like I said, he was the motor of this forum. By his obsession of teaching others that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus , all "religions" can be saved (what the Vatican II church has taught pretty much everyone), he actually served as an instrument to excite others to counter him with the truth that no one hears anymore.
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: happenby on October 14, 2017, 11:41:58 AM
Lover of Truth is in the practice of trying to control a discussion by putting his fingers in his ears and singing la la la at the top of his keyboard.  As if we haven't already seen and considered every quote and explained to him that nothing, no saint, no theologian, no Catholic writer can trump the teachings of Jesus Christ or the Church, each who made it quite clear for those who have ears, that not only is there no salvation outside the Church, there is no salvation without baptism and no baptism without water.  LoT's spamming action is the work of one who desperately wants to be right at the expense of what's true and obvious.  After all, if the Church didn't mean what She said, and Christ didn't mean what He said, and Trent didn't mean what it said in its infallible canons, then those who accepted that these authorities actually did mean it, won't be in trouble.  On the other hand, if the Church did mean what She said and Christ meant what He said and Trent meant what it said, then those denying it, modifying it, or otherwise softening what is clearly taught, will be held accountable.    
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 14, 2017, 11:44:44 AM
 :-X
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: St Ignatius on October 14, 2017, 01:47:39 PM
:-X
DZ,
As a writer, could you make this kinda thing up?
If you can, you'd better get to work, you'll be a millionaire before you know it... ;)
Title: Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 14, 2017, 01:50:36 PM
DZ,
As a writer, could you make this kinda thing up?
If you can, you'd better get to work, you'll be a millionaire before you know it... ;)
As usual, you are very generous with your assessments; however, it's nice to know that someone else is tracking, that few words are needed.