Author Topic: Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement (Read 12002 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #45 on:** January 16, 2014, 06:37:32 PM »

Quote from: SouthpawLink

Stubborn,
You wrote, "Trent teaches justification can sometimes occur *before* the actual reception of the sacrament, *not without it*."

Here is what Trent said: "The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it" (Sess. XIV, ch. 4: Denz. 898.)

And that's what I said: "[H]e must also have the firm intention of receiving these sacraments as early as possible in order for his perfect charity and contrition to be efficacious."

First, Trent is talking about the sacrament of penance, not about the sacrament of baptism and certainly not talking about one who has never been baptized or a BOD. This is clearly understood if you read the whole chapter.

If you are attempting to compare the similarity of the sacraments of Baptism and Penance in that perfect contrition removes original sin in one unbaptized, simply read Ch. II and you will find it plainly stated: "And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated."

Again, Trent is teaching specifically about the sacrament of Penance and the possible justification a perfect act of contrition may or may not afford the penitent *before* actually receiving the sacrament - nowhere does Trent teach salvation without receiving the sacrament, especially after Trent repeatedly teaches over and over again the sacrament is necessary for salvation.

Quote from: SouthpawLink

Fr. Feeney errs in separating justification from salvation, for Trent teaches quite clearly, "[W]e must believe that to those justified nothing more is wanting from being considered [can. 32] as having satisfied the divine law by those works which have been done in God according to the state of this life, and as having truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace [Rev. 14:13])" (Sess. VI, ch. 16: Denz. 809).

You take the quote from Trent completely out of context. Let's read and see that they are teaching about the sacrament of Penance, not the desire for the sacrament of penance and certainly not the desire for baptism..........

Quote from: Trent

Ch XIV As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost: for this manner of Justification is of the fallen the reparation: which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance.......

Ch XVI Before men, therefore, who have been justified in this manner, [Sacrament of Penance]-whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received, or whether they have recovered it when lost........... we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace:

So you see, after one receives the sacrament of penance, we must believe that, according to divine law, nothing further is wanting.

No matter how badly you may want it to say that the desire for the sacrament of baptism rewards salvation - it plainly teaches nothing is wanting only after the reception of the sacrament of penance.

bowler · « **Reply #46 on:** January 16, 2014, 07:38:17 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement

No author, no year. Likely an article from the 1980's, as the points brought up have been refuted by many authorities and even made fun of. Amateur night article!

If I posted such an article I'd be laughed off of CI by my opponents.

Quote

In the CI thread entitled "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written" ( http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Quotes-that-BODers-Say-Must-Not-be-Understood-as-Written ) I posted 4 pages of clear dogmatic decrees which the Orwellian double-think Heroin BODers here on CI say are not to be understood as they are written. FOUR PAGES of just quotes!

I ask, is it possible to reason with any of these people to whom words have no meaning? After all, if to them, ALL those CLEARLY WORDED DOGMATIC decrees do not mean what they say, then how can we convince them of anything? Words have no meaning to these people.

Ambrose · « **Reply #47 on:** January 16, 2014, 07:40:03 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ambrose
Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement

No author, no year. Likely an article from the 1980's, as the points brought up have been refuted by many authorities and even made fun of. Amateur night!

Refuted by what authorities? The Dimonds? Ibranyi? Are they authorities for you?

bowler · « **Reply #48 on:** January 16, 2014, 08:46:44 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Ambrose
Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement

No author, no year. Likely an article from the 1980's, as the points brought up have been refuted by many authorities and even made fun of. Amateur night!

Refuted by what authorities? The Dimonds? Ibranyi? Are they authorities for you?

I expect my opponents to post an article with the name of the author, and the year it was written. I fully expect my opponents to hold me to the same standards.

The article is infantile, all its points can be refuted by any minor lay believer in John 3:5 as it is written. It may have been "an epiphany" to ignorant people in 1980, however, today it represents the same amateurish arguments we are forced to refute here on CI over and over by just copy and pasting the answers over and over.

I KNOW that you Heroin BODers here on CI do not have the capacity to come up with anything better, there just is not much ammunition on your side.

Ambrose · « **Reply #49 on:** January 16, 2014, 09:24:58 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Ambrose
Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement

No author, no year. Likely an article from the 1980's, as the points brought up have been refuted by many authorities and even made fun of. Amateur night!

Refuted by what authorities? The Dimonds? Ibranyi? Are they authorities for you?

I expect my opponents to post an article with the name of the author, and the year it was written. I fully expect my opponents to hold me to the same standards.

The article is infantile, all its points can be refuted by any minor lay believer in John 3:5 as it is written. It may have been "an epiphany" to ignorant people in 1980, however, today it represents the same amateurish arguments we are forced to refute here on CI over and over by just copy and pasting the answers over and over.

I KNOW that you Heroin BODers here on CI do not have the capacity to come up with anything better, there just is not much ammunition on your side.

The article stands or falls on its merits. From my reading it has explained the matter very well. What specific point do you disagree with?

Stubborn · « **Reply #50 on:** January 17, 2014, 04:02:37 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

The article stands or falls on its merits. From my reading it has explained the matter very well. What specific point do you disagree with?

It falls flat on it's face - all anyone need do is read the first sentence to know what the rest of the article is about:
"The science of sacred theology has been greatly aided by Archbishop Cushing’s action..."

Here is a quick list, ten things about +Cushing that are easily found on google..............these below accomplishments of the Cardinal, according to Fenton, are among the aids which "so greatly aided The science of sacred theology":

Archbishop Cushing, was made Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church in 1958, 6 years after the above article was written.

1) He was also one of the cardinal electors in the 1963 papal conclave, which selected Pope Paul VI.

2) He was on good terms with practically the entire Boston elite.

3) Cushing built useful(?) relationships with Jews, Protestants, and institutions outside the usual Catholic community.

4) At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge.

5) He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church. In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades.

6) He was a member of the NAACP.

7) His sister is married to a Jew.

8) Point Magazine May 1953
Among other poses, Archbishop Cushing was photographed for the Boston newspapers this past month wearing a large smile and the habit of a Franciscan friar. The occasion was his being made an honorary member of the friars’ First Order. After the ceremony, which took place in the auditorium of a local insurance company, the Archbishop had this to say: “I have always done my humble best to follow in the footsteps of Saint Francis of Assisi.” – [Sound familiar to anyone?]

9) Boston Globe Jan. 2014
Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley preached at an ecuмenical service at Sudbury United Methodist Church on Sunday in commemoration of Cardinal Richard Cushing’s historic visit to the same congregation (below) a half-century earlier to discuss the Second Vatican Council’s efforts toward Christian unity.

10) A Globe story published after Cushing’s visit called it “the most remarkable hour and a half ever experienced by church people in the old town.” A photo caption marveled: “In the congregation, you could not tell which were Protestants and which Catholics.”
He charmed his audience, describing his upbringing in “tough’’ South Boston, what a poor student he’d been, and how he loved Pope John XXIII, the reform-minded pontiff who called the Second Vatican Council.

Yep, Fenton's friend +Cushing sure aided the science of sacred theology alright - same as Fenton aids it, right into the oblivion of the NO.

Fools follow Fenton's teaching same as fools followed Cushing right into the NO.

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #51 on:** January 17, 2014, 05:59:29 AM »

Stubborn,
You speak of possibilities whereas Trent speaks of what "sometimes happens." And once again, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus teaches that catechumens can be justified by perfect charity before their baptism (but with the necessary intention of receiving it, cf. nn. 31, 33: see the CE article, Baptism for confirmation of this interpretation).* You say that it cannot happen unless one is baptized, as though someone killed on the way to Church to be baptized would be stripped of his justification.

You also seem to create different categories of the justified (catechumens and the post-baptized), but I don't see a foundation for this anywhere in the history of Catholic theology. Granted, while original sin was still being debated in the Patristic era, the Western Fathers were generally harsher in their teaching on the fate of catechumens and unbaptized infants; this also, however, included a less than favorable understanding of the Immaculate Conception (in the West).

* Pre-Trent, we find the teachings of Popes Innocent II and III (Denz. 388, 413). And right after Trent, its Catechism teaches BoD. How could the very same Fathers misinterpret a solemn teaching from only two years prior (Trent closed in 1564, the RC was promulgated in '66)?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #52 on:** January 17, 2014, 09:52:01 AM »

Quote from: Cushing

No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's going to tell me that Christ came to die for any select group.

That's all you need to know. From a biograph of Cushing that portrayed him in a favorable light.

bowler · « **Reply #53 on:** January 17, 2014, 10:27:11 AM »

My observations in red:

Quote from: SouthpawLink

Stubborn,
You speak of possibilities whereas Trent speaks of what "sometimes happens." And once again, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus teaches that catechumens can be justified by perfect charity before their baptism (but with the necessary intention of receiving it, cf. nn. 31, 33: see the CE article, Baptism for confirmation of this interpretation).* You say that it cannot happen unless one is baptized, as though someone killed on the way to Church to be baptized would be stripped of his justification. (What is the cf. nn. 31, 33: see the CE article, Baptism? )

~~You also seem to create different categories of the justified (catechumens and the post-baptized), but I don't see a foundation for this anywhere in the history of Catholic theology.~~ Granted, while original sin was still being debated in the Patristic era, the Western Fathers were generally harsher in their teaching on the fate of catechumens and unbaptized infants;(This comment of yours smacks of modern pride. Unless you have a dogmatic decree to the contrary, the teachings of the Fathers are the closest thing we have to revelation) are saying that this also, however, included a less than favorable understanding of the Immaculate Conception (in the West).

* Pre-Trent, we find the teachings of Popes Innocent II and III (Denz. 388, 413). And right after Trent, its Catechism teaches BoD. How could the very same Fathers misinterpret a solemn teaching from only two years prior (Trent closed in 1564, the RC was promulgated in '66)?(As proof you mention two fallible papal private letters of dubious origin and content. Then a quote from a catechism which contains two words which are never anywhere explained in the catechism to mean salvation. Meanwhile to believe BOD one has to NOT interpret all the crystal clear dogmatic decrees as they are written, 4 pages of just clear dogmatic decree quiotes ALL must not be interpreted as they are written See "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written" on CI Crisis in the Church section. You expect me to put aside ALL those clear dogmatic decrees for two letters of dubious origin and content and two words from the COT? )

bowler · « **Reply #54 on:** January 17, 2014, 10:50:01 AM »

Dear Southpaw,

Here are just five infallible quotes from the 4 pages of my thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written", can you explain to me how even a catechumen can receive BOD without denying these clear few dogmas:

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

[/b]

Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism

Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.

Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”

Stubborn · « **Reply #55 on:** January 17, 2014, 12:07:18 PM »

Quote from: SouthpawLink

Stubborn,
You speak of possibilities whereas Trent speaks of what "sometimes happens." And once again, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus teaches that catechumens can be justified by perfect charity before their baptism (but with the necessary intention of receiving it, cf. nn. 31, 33: see the CE article, Baptism for confirmation of this interpretation).* You say that it cannot happen unless one is baptized, as though someone killed on the way to Church to be baptized would be stripped of his justification.

Trent teaches the sacrament is necessary unto salvation - which you agreed Trent taught this.

Trent teaches that sometimes justification is possible before the actual reception of the sacrament - but Trent does not mention anywhere what happens to the theoretical catechumen who dies justified but without the sacrament.

All we really know with certainty, is that the theoretical person did not receive the sacrament therefore does not go to heaven - we know this for certain because Trent taught the sacraments are necessary unto salvation and the catechumen did not receive the sacrament.

All speculation regarding the departed catechumen's whereabouts can only be just that - speculation - but one thing is for certain, without the sacrament there can be no salvation according to Trent.

Quote from: SouthpawLink

* Pre-Trent, we find the teachings of Popes Innocent II and III (Denz. 388, 413). And right after Trent, its Catechism teaches BoD. How could the very same Fathers misinterpret a solemn teaching from only two years prior (Trent closed in 1564, the RC was promulgated in '66)?

Here is Trent's catechism, please find and post where it teaches a BOD.

In fact, I already will tell you that there is no teaching about a BOD in Trent's catechism for the simple reason that Trent never taught it. In the quote below Trent's catechism explain what the infamous words; "or the desire thereof" mean.

Below the quote, you can see the progression of error being taught through the catechisms as Trent's teaching transforms from one must not only receive the sacrament, one must also desire to receive it - into salvation via some desire without the sacrament.

Quote from: Trent's Catechism

Dispositions for baptism

Intention

The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.

Catechism of St Pius X (1908):
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

Baltimore Catechism (19th and 20th centuries):
159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for out salvation.

"Ardent wish" by one who has no opportunity of being baptized-for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible.

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Myrna'M's book on a BOD
An adult who for some reason or other cannot be baptized, can never the less, by an act of perfect love of God or perfect contrition, gain sanctifying grace and save his soul.

CCC
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

SJB · « **Reply #56 on:** January 17, 2014, 12:29:57 PM »

Quote

Here is Trent's catechism, please find and post where it teaches a BOD.

This is the 1923 McHugh and Callan translation.

Quote

Catechism of the. Council of Trent, McHugh and Callan, 1923

Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; 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.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.

Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.

Along with the following, which is entirely consistent with Trent's catechism!

Quote

Mgr. J. H. Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) - 1931

II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:

"The various baptisms: from the Council of Trent itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied, namely an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one as it were generic name; so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood)."

Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives

If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.

SJB · « **Reply #57 on:** January 17, 2014, 12:34:35 PM »

Also from McHugh and Callan:

bowler · « **Reply #58 on:** January 17, 2014, 02:33:45 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
Here is Trent's catechism, please find and post where it teaches a BOD.

This is the 1923 McHugh and Callan translation.

Quote
Catechism of the. Council of Trent, McHugh and Callan, 1923

... will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Along with the following, which is entirely consistent with Trent's catechism!

Quote
Mgr. J. H. Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) - 1931 ...

To repeat what I answered to Southpaw: As proof you mention (and Herve too) ... a quote from the COT which contains two words which are never anywhere explained in the catechism to mean salvation. Meanwhile to believe BOD one has to NOT interpret all the crystal clear dogmatic decrees as they are written, 4 pages of just clear dogmatic decree quotes, ALL must not be interpreted as they are written See "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written" on CI Crisis in the Church section. You expect me to put aside ALL those clear dogmatic decrees for two words from the COT?

Quote from: bowler

Dear Southpaw,

Here are just five infallible quotes from the 4 pages of my thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written", can you explain to me how even a catechumen can receive BOD without denying these clear few dogmas:

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

[/b]

Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism

Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.

Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”

SJB · « **Reply #59 on:** January 17, 2014, 02:53:33 PM »

You are insanely wedded to your views, which are simply not Catholic. You are not an infallible reader or hearer, and you dismiss all evidence. I just provided you with all you need to at least reexamine your position.

Matthew is derelict in his duties for not silencing you on this forum, for which he alone is responsible.