Author Topic: Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement (Read 7668 times)

bowler · « **Reply #15 on:** January 15, 2014, 11:29:44 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

There's no such thing as Baptism of Desire. Period.

You guys keep gratuitously asserting its existence in the "Deposit of Faith" just because you want it to be there. So far none of you BoDers have come up with a single proof for this. As I have explained the rudimentary Catholic theology to you before, and you continue to reject this due to bad faith, there are only two ways something can be known to be part of the Deposit.

1) if there's unanimous consensus on the matter from the Church Fathers on the matter (no such consensus exists)

2) if a doctrine derives implicitly by way of logical syllogism from other defined dogma (no demonstration has ever been attempted by any theologian -- not St. Thomas, not St. Robert Bellarmine, not St. Alphonsus)

Here's the history.

St. Augustine floated the idea in very tentative language, clearly indicating it was speculative theology ("Considering the idea over and over again, I have come to think that ...") but then later retracted it.

Not a mention of BoD again until St. Bernard several hundred years later. St. Bernard picked it up from St. Augustine, 1) not knowing that St. Augustine had retracted it, and 2) based SOLELY on the "authority" of St. Augustine by his own admission ("I would rather err with Augustine on this matter, then be right on my own.")

Scholastics picked it up based on its existence in Augustine.

Endless repetition and circular arguments from authority, with one person quoting another person quoting another person, without ANY REAL THEOLOGY behind ... just that of repetition of an idea rooted in speculative theology that others just happened to buy into ... all because they wanted to.

I'm seriously starting to question whether most of you guys are even Catholic,despite your profession of the name. Your soteriology and ecclesiology is none other than Novus Ordo soteriology and ecclesiology, a Pelagian idea that people without any supernatural material content can possess supernatural faith which can be supplied and infused even without your knowing by virtue of general niceness. It's nothing but heretical garbage.

Can't agree more.

If the progressivists had kept the Novus Ordo in trad trappings (altars, vestments, incense, reverence) all these Heroin BODers would not be "trads".

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #16 on:** January 15, 2014, 11:32:14 AM »

Quote

The confusion of the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with sacramental character or with "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice" (confusion on the third element of the sacrament) is appalling. (Reply to Verbum, Res Fidei Feb.87, p.22, with refutation in Baptism of Desire published at the Angelus). Dare one add with St. Pius X as cause of their error: pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers, Doctors and Saints?

bowler · « **Reply #17 on:** January 15, 2014, 11:41:20 AM »

bowler · « **Reply #18 on:** January 15, 2014, 11:44:46 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote
The confusion of the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with sacramental character or with "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice" (confusion on the third element of the sacrament) is appalling. (Reply to Verbum, Res Fidei Feb.87, p.22, with refutation in Baptism of Desire published at the Angelus). Dare one add with St. Pius X as cause of their error: pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers, Doctors and Saints?

Heroin BODers are obscurist, they never speak straight, they use language to confuse rather than communicate and above is a perfect example.

What relevance does that quote above have to Lover of Truth's Heroin BOD belief, that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholic, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity? The "age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers, Doctors and Saints is 100% opposed to what he believes?

Another perfect example of an obscurist, who never speaks straight, and uses language to confuse rather than communicate, of Vatican II Orwellian doublespeak.

Stubborn · « **Reply #19 on:** January 15, 2014, 12:07:14 PM »

Just yet another thread started by one who despises the sacraments - nothing new.
:tv-disturbed:

Cantarella · « **Reply #20 on:** January 15, 2014, 01:09:07 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

1/ Misrepresentation of the Dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

St Cyprian -> fallible
St Alphonsus -> fallible

"It is worth reminding that this traditional interpretation of the Dogma, including the Three Baptism, is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgence, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus of Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc" -> this is simply not true

Quote from: Ambrose

2/ The doctrine on Baptism of Desire is optional

"The truth is that one ought to believe everything that belongs to the Deposit of Faith, both that which has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church". -> yes, as long as the fallible teaching does not contradict an infallible one.

"Therefore one ought to believe in the doctrine of three baptisms, as it belongs to the Catholic Faith, though not yet defined". -> Exactly, as it is not defined a Catholic is not bound to believe in it and furthermore, it cannot be defined as it would clearly contradict the Infallible Magisterium. Never could a Pope define infallibly a doctrine contrary to what the Church has always taught.

Quote from: Ambrose

3/ Third error: The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation".

The Church did not teach at Trent that desire for Baptism is sufficient for salvation. Advocates of BOD bring out a passage that is actually dealing with Justification, not Salvation. One can be justified and then go damn oneself anyways. No Council ever used the term "Baptism of Desire". If Trent had defined baptism of desire, then the Council would have contradicted itself. There is not such dogma in the Catholic Church.

Quote from: Ambrose

The root of the error of the Feeneyites: lack of proper Thomistic Theology

First, Thomistic theology is not the binding teaching authority of Christ Our Lord and His Church. Second, I don't even see where St Thomas taught Baptism of Desire. Again, this is theological speculation. We cannot find ANY infallible source for Baptism of Desire. We can however find MANY infallible quotes where we find that the Holy Church has always taught that there is only one Baptism, absolutely necessary fro salvation and optional for one. Example:

Solemn Magisterium:

The Council of Vienne:

“All the faithful must confess only one Baptism, which regenerates in Christ all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is necessary for children and grown-up people alike for the perfect remedy of salvation.” (Denz. 482)

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #21 on:** January 15, 2014, 01:10:00 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Just yet another thread started by one who despises the sacraments - nothing new.
:tv-disturbed:

You've admitted in the past that BoD could be defined by the Church and that you'd accept it. Would that mean that the Church herself had come to despise her own sacraments?

Cantarella · « **Reply #22 on:** January 15, 2014, 01:19:11 PM »

1. Misrepresentation of the Dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

St Cyprian -> fallible
St Alphonsus -> fallible

"It is worth reminding that this traditional interpretation of the Dogma, including the Three Baptism, is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgence, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus of Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc" ->this is simply not true

2. The doctrine on Baptism of Desire is optional

"The truth is that one ought to believe everything that belongs to the Deposit of Faith, both that which has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church". -> yes, as long as the fallible teaching does not contradict an infallible one.

"Therefore one ought to believe in the doctrine of three baptisms, as it belongs to the Catholic Faith, though not yet defined". ->Exactly, as it is not defined a Catholic is not bound to believe in it and furthermore, it cannot be defined as it would clearly contradict the Infallible Magisterium. Never could a Pope define infallibly a doctrine contrary to what the Church has always taught.

3. The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation".

The Church did not teach at Trent that desire for Baptism is sufficient for salvation. Advocates of BOD bring out a passage that is actually dealing with Justification, not Salvation. One can be justified and then go damn oneself anyways. No Council ever used the term "Baptism of Desire". If Trent had defined baptism of desire, then the Council would have contradicted itself. There is not such dogma in the Catholic Church.

The root of the error of the Feeneyites: lack of proper Thomistic Theology

First, Thomistic theology is not the binding teaching authority of Christ Our Lord and His Church. Second, I don't even see where St Thomas taught Baptism of Desire. Again, this is theological speculation. We cannot find ANY infallible source for Baptism of Desire. We can however find MANY infallible quotes where we find that the Holy Church has always taught that there is only one Baptism, solemnized by water, absolutely necessary for salvation and optional for one. One example of many:

Solemn Magisterium:

The Council of Vienne:

“All the faithful must confess only one Baptism, which regenerates in Christ all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is necessary for children and grown-up people alike for the perfect remedy of salvation.”

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #23 on:** January 15, 2014, 01:53:45 PM »

Quote from: SouthpawLink

Quote from: Stubborn
Just yet another thread started by one who despises the sacraments - nothing new.
:tv-disturbed:

You've admitted in the past that BoD could be defined by the Church and that you'd accept it. Would that mean that the Church herself had come to despise her own sacraments?

Hey SouthpawLink your logic is overwhelming. :cheers:

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #24 on:** January 15, 2014, 01:57:45 PM »

I'm glad the Feeneyites are reading the truth about salvation on this thread. Slowly but surely perhaps some of it will sink in for some them as it did for me, Jehanne and probably others. Eventually some may stop believing their own tired, worn, erroneous and many times refuted rhetoric.

Stubborn · « **Reply #25 on:** January 15, 2014, 03:19:29 PM »

Quote from: SouthpawLink

Quote from: Stubborn
Just yet another thread started by one who despises the sacraments - nothing new.
:tv-disturbed:

You've admitted in the past that BoD could be defined by the Church and that you'd accept it. Would that mean that the Church herself had come to despise her own sacraments?

So far the between the three amigos, only one of them gave a half of an answer - will you answer the 2 clear questions below with a simple yes or no answer?

1 Are the sacraments necessary unto salvation? Yes or No?

2 Without the sacraments, through faith alone (aka a BOD) can man obtain justification? Yes or No? (the answers are in Trent's quote below)

Quote from: Trent

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;

and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

I have been asking the three amigos to do the Catholic thing and start a thread in defense of the sacraments to help prove to themselves that it is not within themselves to do anything other than trivialize the necessity of the sacrament.

Trent's catechism teaches that people who do what these three have been doing end up despising the sacraments - which is why they cannot find it within themselves to do the Catholic thing and defend the sacraments.

That's where defending a BOD lands everyone - it becomes impossible to defend the sacraments. It's in their lex credendi to belittle the necessity of the sacraments so there is no way they can ever defend them.

Stubborn · « **Reply #26 on:** January 15, 2014, 03:25:08 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I'm glad the Feeneyites are reading the truth about salvation on this thread. Slowly but surely perhaps some of it will sink in for some them as it did for me, Jehanne and probably others. Eventually some may stop believing their own tired, worn, erroneous and many times refuted rhetoric.

As long as you keep defending the anti-sacrament of a BOD you will never be able to defend the sacraments of the Catholic Church - the reality is you have joined the desecraters but you won't admit it.

Always remember that per V1, dogma is to be understood ("understood" = not interpreted) as once declared.

Quote from: Trent

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;

and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

bowler · « **Reply #27 on:** January 15, 2014, 03:27:09 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I'm glad the Feeneyites are reading the truth about salvation on this thread. Slowly but surely perhaps some of it will sink in for some them as it did for me, Jehanne and probably others. Eventually some may stop believing their own tired, worn, erroneous and many times refuted rhetoric.

TRANSLATION=
I'm glad the Feeneyites are reading the truth about salvation on this thread. Slowly but surely perhaps some of my Heroin BOD will sink in for some them as it did in me, and then they can embrace my "truth" that "anyone in any false religion can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity. Join us, Join us, Join us

Stubborn · « **Reply #28 on:** January 15, 2014, 03:53:04 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I'm glad the Feeneyites are reading the truth about salvation on this thread. Slowly but surely perhaps some of it will sink in for some them as it did for me, Jehanne and probably others. Eventually some may stop believing their own tired, worn, erroneous and many times refuted rhetoric.

Another thing, Jehanne posted that only recently he went to his first TLM - his lex orandi lex credendi is as screwed up as yours still is from your years as a novus ordoite. Far as SJB is concerned, he must have been a NO for a very long time as well and has much to learn as regards what a Church teaching even is.

You need to learn that because of this:

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Post
I was born and raised in the anti-Church.

........That you should take your own advice:

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Post If they authentically convert they can join us as laypeople but they [converts from the NO] probably should take a vow of silence and do penance for the rest of their lives refraining from all speaking and writing apart from that which is necessary, say in Confession for instance.

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #29 on:** January 15, 2014, 04:51:02 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

So far the between the three amigos, only one of them gave a half of an answer - will you answer the 2 clear questions below with a simple yes or no answer?

1 Are the sacraments necessary unto salvation? Yes or No?

2 Without the sacraments, through faith alone (aka a BOD) can man obtain justification? Yes or No? (the answers are in Trent's quote below)

1. Yes.

2. Through supernatural faith, hope, charity and contrition (and with the intention of receiving the sacrament), one can be justified before being baptized.

"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Sess. VII, can. 4).

"In persons who are penitent before the sacrament of absolution, and in catechumens before baptism, there is true justification, yet separated from the remission of sin" — Condemned (Pope St. Pius V, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, n. 43).

"Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a 'pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned' [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins" — Condemned (n. 31; see also n. 33).

"Through contrition even when joined with perfect charity and with the desire to receive the sacrament, a crime is not remitted without the actual reception of the sacrament, except in case of necessity, or of martyrdom" — Condemned (n. 71).