Author Topic: Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement (Read 12008 times)

bowler · « **Reply #75 on:** January 18, 2014, 01:04:03 PM »

Quote from: Southpaw

It's relevant because, according to you, it means that the Church had, in practice and for over 200 years, contradicted Trent and obscured the Gospel truth on the necessity of baptism (unless you deny that the theologians taught BoD from 1564 to 1794). If you're correct, then you're forced to assert that as well.

What the theologians discussed, was never seen by practically any of the faithful. Again, this is irrelevant. Your assumptions are no reason to reject all the clear dogmas. All it is an end run. It sounds like something a sedevacantes would think of. Are you a sedevacantes?

bowler · « **Reply #76 on:** January 18, 2014, 01:06:23 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Council of Trent, Session VI Decree on Justification,
Chapter IV.

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5).

Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST, THEY NEVER WOULD BE JUSTIFIED, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just.”

Soutpaw,

How can a person be justified without being born again? How can a person be born again without the sacrament of baptism?

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #77 on:** January 18, 2014, 01:23:50 PM »

If I answer you, then will you in turn answer me?

Yes, I am a sedevacantist, due to the post-Vatican II false teachings relating to ecclesiology (the Eastern schismatics have "true particular Churches" and "build up the Church of God" through their illicit Masses), ecuмenism (it's no longer about converting non-Catholics) and religious liberty (the Catholic State's right to repress error is no longer granted).

Now, do you accept as true the Church's teaching, through the common and constant consent of her theologians, that explicit baptism of desire is salvific?

bowler · « **Reply #78 on:** January 18, 2014, 01:29:16 PM »

Quote from: SouthpawLink

If I answer you, then will you in turn answer me?

Yes, I am a sedevacantist, due to the post-Vatican II false teachings relating to ecclesiology (the Eastern schismatics have "true particular Churches" and "build up the Church of God" through their illicit Masses), ecuмenism (it's no longer about converting non-Catholics) and religious liberty (the Catholic State's right to repress error is no longer granted).

Now, do you accept as true the Church's teaching, through the common and constant consent of her theologians, that explicit baptism of desire is salvific?

I do not even accept that BOD of the catechumen has the constant (universal) consent of the theologians. The Fathers didn't consent to it.

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #79 on:** January 18, 2014, 01:40:39 PM »

bowler,
Have you read what the manuals state about determining a consent among the Fathers and/or Theologians? Van Noort, Tanquerey, Wilhelm and Scannell?

bowler · « **Reply #80 on:** January 18, 2014, 01:54:50 PM »

Quote from: SouthpawLink

bowler,
Have you read what the manuals state about determining a consent among the Fathers and/or Theologians? Van Noort, Tanquerey, Wilhelm and Scannell?

I have read Fr. Cekada's article dealing with the "consent of the theologians". It is another end run tactic, and falls flat on it's face, for BOD of the catechumen does not have the consent of the Fathers, therefore it is not constant, universal. Besides Fr. Cekada believes in salvation by implicit faith, just like all of Abp. Lefebvre's students. Therefore, he is a hypocrite, since the Fathers were unanimous in the opinion that to be saved one has to explcitly believe in Christ, and Fr. Cekada believes otherwise.

bowler · « **Reply #81 on:** January 18, 2014, 02:03:27 PM »

You seem to post only peripheral indirect objections for your disbelief in John 3:5 as it is written (and all the clear dogmatic degrees which confirm it, and are in perfect harmony with it). You never address your belief directly, like answering my question below. This seems to be a common practice among believers in BOD. I don't think they really know why they believe something.

Quote

How can a person be justified without being born again? How can a person be born again without the sacrament of baptism?

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #82 on:** January 18, 2014, 02:03:40 PM »

Applying the same reasoning (lack of consent on the part of the Fathers, and of the schools in the Middle Ages), the Immaculate Conception should have never been defined, right?

Please read Sect. 25 here: http://sedevacantist.com/wilhelm_scannell_04.html

Lastly, can you show me where Fr. Cekada accepted "implicit faith"? I do not remember coming across that statement in my reading of his articles.

My answer to you is that I accept the teaching of Pope St. Pius V as found in Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus: explicit faith and perfect charity can make up for the moral impossibility of receiving the sacrament of Baptism.

bowler · « **Reply #83 on:** January 18, 2014, 02:10:45 PM »

See red:

Quote from: SouthpawLink

Applying the same reasoning (lack of consent on the part of the Fathers, and of the schools in the Middle Ages), the Immaculate Conception should have never been defined, right? (not a direct answer once again, this explains nothing of what you believe)
Please read Sect. 25 here: http://sedevacantist.com/wilhelm_scannell_04.html

Lastly, can you show me where Fr. Cekada accepted "implicit faith"? I do not remember coming across that statement in my reading of his articles.

He was the publisher of The Roman Catholic and they published many works against so-called Feeneyites. Take my word for it. You can look up other quotes yourself:

Quote

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #84 on:** January 18, 2014, 02:51:13 PM »

Quote from: bowler

How can a person be justified without being born again? How can a person be born again without the sacrament of baptism?

By faith and perfect charity, as taught by the widely-used and approved Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique. It's quite notable that theologians do not produce any adversaries to this teaching (BoD), save the condemned Baius (in Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, to which I've referred several times in this thread).

The quote from Fr. Cekada isn't conclusive.

bowler · « **Reply #85 on:** January 18, 2014, 04:38:49 PM »

Quote from: SouthpawLink

Quote from: bowler
How can a person be justified without being born again? How can a person be born again without the sacrament of baptism?

By faith and perfect charity...

Since we are talking about explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, that "faith" would be the Catholic Faith in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
OK. Does this famous BOD quote from St. Alphonsus say what you want?

St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of desire [lit. blowing], is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies (juxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of desire [lit. blowing], because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.” (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)

“Baptismus flaminis est perfecta conversio ad Deum per contritionem, vel amorem Dei super omnia, cuм voto explicito, vel implicito, veri baptismi fluminis, cujus vicem supplet (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) quoad culpae remissionem, non autem quoad characterem imprimendum, nec quoad tollendum omnem reatum poenae: dicitur flaminis, quia fit per impulsum Spiritus Sancti, qui flamen nuncupatur.”

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #86 on:** January 18, 2014, 05:05:08 PM »

It would appear that there is more to the passage:

"Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ['fluminis'], of desire ['flaminis' = wind] and of blood.

"We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, 'de presbytero non baptizato' and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it'.

"Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ['non ita stricte'] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

"It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ" (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7).

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #87 on:** January 18, 2014, 05:11:19 PM »

Quote from: SouthpawLink

Applying the same reasoning (lack of consent on the part of the Fathers, and of the schools in the Middle Ages), the Immaculate Conception should have never been defined, right?

Please read Sect. 25 here: http://sedevacantist.com/wilhelm_scannell_04.html

Lastly, can you show me where Fr. Cekada accepted "implicit faith"? I do not remember coming across that statement in my reading of his articles.

My answer to you is that I accept the teaching of Pope St. Pius V as found in Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus: explicit faith and perfect charity can make up for the moral impossibility of receiving the sacrament of Baptism.

can you give me the quote for this?

Stubborn · « **Reply #88 on:** January 18, 2014, 05:21:36 PM »

Quote from: SouthpawLink

My answer to you is that I accept the teaching of Pope St. Pius V as found in Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus: explicit faith and perfect charity can make up for the moral impossibility of receiving the sacrament of Baptism.

Whether it does or does not make up for the "moral impossibility" of receiving the sacrament we can never know in this life.

But we do know that Trent infallibly declared that without the sacraments there is no salvation.

That much you said agreed with - how come you are able to believe that the Church infallibly teaches that without the sacraments there can be no salvation - yet you also believe that she teaches that without the sacrament there is salvation?

Do you believe that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation or not?

bowler · « **Reply #89 on:** January 18, 2014, 05:25:57 PM »

Quote from: gooch

Quote from: SouthpawLink
Applying the same reasoning (lack of consent on the part of the Fathers, and of the schools in the Middle Ages), the Immaculate Conception should have never been defined, right?

Please read Sect. 25 here: http://sedevacantist.com/wilhelm_scannell_04.html

Lastly, can you show me where Fr. Cekada accepted "implicit faith"? I do not remember coming across that statement in my reading of his articles.

My answer to you is that I accept the teaching of Pope St. Pius V as found in Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus: explicit faith and perfect charity can make up for the moral impossibility of receiving the sacrament of Baptism.

can you give me the quote for this?

Yes, me too. I'd like to see that quote that says that explicit faith and perfect charity can make up for the moral impossibility of receiving the sacrament of Baptism