Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: graceseeker on April 03, 2018, 02:33:33 PM
-
sometimes they have said believable things but.. I dropped off going to that site because.. actually, not sure why
maybe it was the way they picked on Pope Benedict?
yes, that one did take some not so flattering photos.. but.. now we have this pope and
sigh
once again, who do we believe? I guess I should subscribe to the Wanderer
-
Please stop your trolling. Unless you're a Feeneyite, why do you even give the Dimond Brothers a thought? FYI, The Dimond Brothers are just 2 Jєωιѕн pseudo-converts to Catholicism who badger other Traditional Catholics in order to further destroy the movement. Don't be fooled by them.
They say they come from a "non-religious family" (i.e. Jєωιѕн pseudo-converts). They also couldn't resist changing the spelling of their last name (by removing the letter "a" from it) in order to make them look as if they're gentiles----Dimond is less obvious than Diamond. Since they have never received sacraments from anyone, they're not members of the Catholic Church unless, of course they have, dare shall I say, a strong desire for Baptism lol!
Always remember this great quote from Archbishop Lefebvre:
"Some Jєωs have converted, but there is a danger there, because it is not guaranteed that they have truly converted, or if they only do so in order to keep or facilitate their material interests or their position. It is very difficult to discern." - Against The Heresies Page 200
-
Please stop your trolling. Unless you're a Feeneyite, why do you even give the Dimond Brothers a thought? FYI, The Dimond Brothers are just 2 Jєωιѕн pseudo-converts to Catholicism who badger other Traditional Catholics in order to further destroy the movement. Don't be fooled by them.
They say they come from a "non-religious family" (i.e. Jєωιѕн pseudo-converts). They also couldn't resist changing the spelling of their last name (by removing the letter "a" from it) in order to make them look as if they're gentiles----Dimond is less obvious than Diamond. Since they have never received sacraments from anyone, they're not members of the Catholic Church unless, of course they have, dare shall I say, a strong desire for Baptism lol!
Always remember this great quote from Archbishop Lefebvre:
"Some Jєωs have converted, but there is a danger there, because it is not guaranteed that they have truly converted, or if they only do so in order to keep or facilitate their material interests or their position. It is very difficult to discern." - Against The Heresies Page 200
Your response and the OP are an example of the blind leading the blind.
-
Thanks everyone
Everything is perfectly clear now
whew!
-
Please stop your trolling. Unless you're a Feeneyite, why do you even give the Dimond Brothers a thought? FYI, The Dimond Brothers are just 2 Jєωιѕн pseudo-converts to Catholicism who badger other Traditional Catholics in order to further destroy the movement. Don't be fooled by them.
They say they come from a "non-religious family" (i.e. Jєωιѕн pseudo-converts). They also couldn't resist changing the spelling of their last name (by removing the letter "a" from it) in order to make them look as if they're gentiles----Dimond is less obvious than Diamond. Since they have never received sacraments from anyone, they're not members of the Catholic Church unless, of course they have, dare shall I say, a strong desire for Baptism lol!
Always remember this great quote from Archbishop Lefebvre:
"Some Jєωs have converted, but there is a danger there, because it is not guaranteed that they have truly converted, or if they only do so in order to keep or facilitate their material interests or their position. It is very difficult to discern." - Against The Heresies Page 200
they were originally Vatican 2 Catholics and they still attend Byzantine Catholic Masses for Sacraments. So your assertion that they've never received the Sacraments is blatantly false.
And using Feeneyite as a pejorative is a bit odd when there are absolutely no ex cathedra statements in favour of BOD but dozens against.
-
using Feeneyite as a pejorative is a bit odd when there are absolutely no ex cathedra statements in favour of BOD but dozens against.
Odd indeed. It's like the emperors new clothes, everyone is afraid of saying the emperor is naked!
-
things are just getting clearer and clearer!
Thanks so much
still don't know what a feenyite is but that's OK
don't know if the NO Mass is valid but that's OK
guess I don't need to know... and neither does anyone else who might come here
-
things are just getting clearer and clearer!
Thanks so much
still don't know what a feenyite is but that's OK
don't know if the NO Mass is valid but that's OK
guess I don't need to know... and neither does anyone else who might come here
A Feeneyite is basically someone who believes non-Catholics cannot be saved. Father Feeney himself wasn't even against all forms of BOD(although none of them have any real basis), just the modernist one that non-Catholics like Muslims, Jєωs, etc. can somehow be saved. Which is a complete denial of basic Church dogma that outside it none can be saved, but modernists and the post-Vatican 2 clergy just ignore that.
-
A Feeneyite is basically someone who believes non-Catholics cannot be saved. Father Feeney himself wasn't even against all forms of BOD(although none of them have any real basis), just the modernist one that non-Catholics like Muslims, Jєωs, etc. can somehow be saved. Which is a complete denial of basic Church dogma that outside it none can be saved, but modernists and the post-Vatican 2 clergy just ignore that.
don't know what a BOD is
me, I have no problem believing non-Catholics don't make it . Catholics don't most of the time either. Jesus said the w ay is narrow and there are few who find it
the saints say something like less than 1% make it
-
don't know what a BOD is
BOD = baptism of desire
-
they were originally Vatican 2 Catholics and they still attend Byzantine Catholic Masses for Sacraments. So your assertion that they've never received the Sacraments is blatantly false.
And using Feeneyite as a pejorative is a bit odd when there are absolutely no ex cathedra statements in favour of BOD but dozens against.
Sorry for the above incorrect statement. However, the fact that the Dimond Brothers (who possess a "holier than thou" attitude towards all non-Feeneyite Catholics) still attend Byzantine Catholic Masses for Sacraments makes them hypocrites, plain and simple.
They are receiving sacraments from Novus Ordo clergy in Novus Ordo churches, then have they audacity to continuously and publicly say that all non-Sedevacantists are damned to Hell. Thus, they are receiving sacraments from NO priests who are damned to hell. You would think that they would at least go to a Sedevacantist mass to receive Sacraments (since they make a living trash-talking the NO Church). Since they keep going to NO Churches to receive sacraments, why should anyone take those 2 seriously??
Pope Pius IX spoke on BOD (check Denzinger). I suppose the Dimond Brothers, as well as other Feeneyites, thereby consider Pope Pius IX to be a "false pope."
Also, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated "for disobedience and not for his position"-- that is true. However, that's only half of the story. Feeneyites usually fail to mention the other half of the story: Fr. Feeney disobeyed an order to come to Rome and defend his position (because even he knew that he had no theological leg to stand on and that he would be vigorously questioned on his untenable position by theologians much more learned than he).
-
Fr. Feeney disobeyed an order to come to Rome and defend his position (because even he knew that he had no theological leg to stand on and that he would be vigorously questioned on his untenable position by theologians much more learned than he).
Hey, boy, you're fixin' to get destroyed by Ladislaus and Cantarella. :laugh1:
-
Sorry for the above incorrect statement. However, the fact that the Dimond Brothers (who possess a "holier than thou" attitude towards all non-Feeneyite Catholics) still attend Byzantine Catholic Masses for Sacraments makes them hypocrites, plain and simple.
They are receiving sacraments from Novus Ordo clergy in Novus Ordo churches, then have they audacity to continuously and publicly say that all non-Sedevacantists are damned to Hell. Thus, they are receiving sacraments from NO priests who are damned to hell. You would think that they would at least go to a Sedevacantist mass to receive Sacraments (since they make a living trash-talking the NO Church). Since they keep going to NO Churches to receive sacraments, why should anyone take those 2 seriously??
Pope Pius IX spoke on BOD (check Denzinger). I suppose the Dimond Brothers, as well as other Feeneyites, thereby consider Pope Pius IX to be a "false pope."
Also, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated "for disobedience and not for his position"-- that is true. However, that's only half of the story. Feeneyites usually fail to mention the other half of the story: Fr. Feeney disobeyed an order to come to Rome and defend his position (because even he knew that he had no theological leg to stand on and that he would be vigorously questioned on his untenable position by theologians much more learned than he).
Pope Pius IX spoke fallibly about invincible ignorance, which is different altogether to modern BOD. Yet even then Pope Pius IX was not saying that those that die outside the Church attain salvation, but rather that those who are invincibly ignorant are not guilty of the sin of unbelief and will be guided to the faith before death by divine light if they live virtuous lives. This is the same position St. Thomas Aquinas held.
Every time Pope Pius IX mentioned invincible ignorance he preceded or proceeded it with a repetition of EENS, that no one can be saved outside of the Catholic faith. Unless you are proposing Pope Pius IX was a scatterbrain who contradicted himself from sentence to sentence on the same issue in multiple encyclicals, then it is clear that when he said:
they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God Who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.
he meant to reaffirm what St. Thomas Aquinas taught, that virtuous heathens living in invincible ignorance will be guided to the faith.
Even if Pope Pius IX was indeed a self-contradictory scatterbrain who preached that those who died outside the Church could be saved, while reaffirming the next sentence that they could not, it still would not prove Baptism of Desire not even to the extent of invincible ignorance, as it has still never been defined dogmatically. Never, not once. And for every Pope in the last 150 years or so who has taught it to some extent, there are many many more from Church history who denounced the idea completely(many Popes even saying unbaptised catechumens are damned!).
-
Sorry for the above incorrect statement. However, the fact that the Dimond Brothers (who possess a "holier than thou" attitude towards all non-Feeneyite Catholics) still attend Byzantine Catholic Masses for Sacraments makes them hypocrites, plain and simple.
They are receiving sacraments from Novus Ordo clergy in Novus Ordo churches, then have they audacity to continuously and publicly say that all non-Sedevacantists are damned to Hell. Thus, they are receiving sacraments from NO priests who are damned to hell. You would think that they would at least go to a Sedevacantist mass to receive Sacraments (since they make a living trash-talking the NO Church). Since they keep going to NO Churches to receive sacraments, why should anyone take those 2 seriously??
I didn't know that the sede Dimond Bros. receive the sacraments from Byzantine Catholic Masses. So, they do not attend traditional Masses by traditional priests. That's very strange.
-
I didn't know that the sede Dimond Bros. receive the sacraments from Byzantine Catholic Masses. So, they do not attend traditional Masses by traditional priests. That's very strange.
They used to attend byzantine masses suggesting to go late just for the eucharist but I would be surprised if they still do. I believe their position now is that there is hardly a priest in the U.S that you can receive the eucharist. I remember sending them an email a few years back about a priest i thought was good enough, they said it would be acceptable to receive the eucharist but told me (angrily)it was a mortal sin to give money , this I disagreed with and I don’t believe they have ever proven their position using Catholic teaching
-
I can't find fault in a Catholic who believes what is printed in My Catholic Faith or the Baltimore Catechism, regarding Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. I think there is abundant good faith among traditional Catholics; a desire to be faithful to Holy Mother Church.
This quickness to toss accusations of the sin of heresy, and mortal sins against the faith, and accusations of bad will are. . . terrifying to say the least.
I sense acts of inquisition without the authority to condemn, if that makes sense.
We live in strange times.
-
They used to attend byzantine masses suggesting to go late just for the eucharist but I would be surprised if they still do. I believe their position now is that there is hardly a priest in the U.S that you can receive the eucharist. I remember sending them an email a few years back about a priest i thought was good enough, they said it would be acceptable to receive the eucharist but told me (angrily)it was a mortal sin to give money , this I disagreed with and I don’t believe they have ever proven their position using Catholic teaching
I'd be interested in knowing where they attend mass, if they do. What you say here seems to suggest that they are home-aloners now?
-
Sorry for the above incorrect statement. However, the fact that the Dimond Brothers (who possess a "holier than thou" attitude towards all non-Feeneyite Catholics) still attend Byzantine Catholic Masses for Sacraments makes them hypocrites, plain and simple.
They are receiving sacraments from Novus Ordo clergy in Novus Ordo churches, then have they audacity to continuously and publicly say that all non-Sedevacantists are damned to Hell. Thus, they are receiving sacraments from NO priests who are damned to hell. You would think that they would at least go to a Sedevacantist mass to receive Sacraments (since they make a living trash-talking the NO Church). Since they keep going to NO Churches to receive sacraments, why should anyone take those 2 seriously??
If this is where they attend mass, I can certainly understand your comments here.
However, perhaps there is no other option for them to receive valid sacraments....although I suspect that there has got to be at least one traditionalist chapel that is within reasonable distance.
-
Pope Pius IX spoke fallibly about invincible ignorance, which is different altogether to modern BOD.
Since you believe that Pope Pius IX was not speaking of BOD, then I will go back even further in Church history and cite a Canon from The Council of Trent affirming BOD (and as we all know canon law must be obeyed).
Session 7, Canon 4 of Canons on the Sacraments in General (Denzinger 847) clearly states the following:
"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."
Trent uses in its canon the word "DESIRE" so, frankly, how ignorant or insincere do you have to be to NOT SEE that BOD was taught at The Council of Trent and that to deny BOD makes one "anathema"? You can quote as many church fathers as you want to in order to justify your denial of BOD but I have just proven that BOD is canonical law.
-
things are just getting clearer and clearer!
Thanks so much
still don't know what a feenyite is but that's OK
don't know if the NO Mass is valid but that's OK
guess I don't need to know... and neither does anyone else who might come here
I'll be more than happy to explain these things to you. First, a Feeneyite is someone who followed the errors of Father Leonard Feeney, a Jesuit Priest [1897-1978] who claimed that "without water baptism, there is absolutely no salvation."
Also, the NO Mass is valid if you believe that Pope Paul VI was a true pope. That's because as Pope, he (along with many other Popes before him) continuously violated #5 of Quo Primum (and that's okay because it is not dogmatic).
What does #5 of Quo Primum say? Here it is:
"by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure."
Pope Paul VI arguably violated #5 of Quo Primum more than any other Pope since 1570 when he created the NO Mass. However, the NO Mass (even though it's barely Catholic and the Latin Mass is a billion times better because of this) is still valid and licit because it:
a.) has a valid consecration of the host (transubstantiation takes place because the words in Luke 22:19 are said to make it valid); and
b.) to deny the validity and licitness of the NO Mass would be violating an important canon law (which all Catholics must obey) and that law is the following:
Canon 7 of Chapter 9 in Session 22 of The Council of Trent –"If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema." (Denzinger 954)
I hope that this helped you.
-
Since you believe that Pope Pius IX was not speaking of BOD, then I will go back even further in Church history and cite a Canon from The Council of Trent affirming BOD (and as we all know canon law must be obeyed).
Session 7, Canon 4 of Canons on the Sacraments in General (Denzinger 847) clearly states the following:
"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."
Trent uses in its canon the word "DESIRE" so, frankly, how ignorant or insincere do you have to be to NOT SEE that BOD was taught at The Council of Trent and that to deny BOD makes one "anathema"? You can quote as many church fathers as you want to in order to justify your denial of BOD but I have just proven that BOD is canonical law.
No that is a nonsense interpretation that no Pope has EVER taught. By your twisted logic that desire can replace sacrament because of that one quote you misinterpret, I could "desire" Holy Orders and then be a valid Priest, because according to you desire for a sacrament can replace it. So clearly, to any discerning Catholic, that quote is NOT saying that all sacraments can be fulfilled by a desire for them, but just that SOME of them can be. Which is true. It applies to the sacrament of Penance for example, as it states in another Canon of Trent.
But just as the desire of Holy Orders cannot replace the actual sacrament, the desire of Baptism cannot replace it either. As Trent teaches:
"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."
This canon addresses your view directly. It clearly states that true and natural water is required. Where is the water involved in Baptism of Desire? As the Canon clearly states, anyone who twists that into allowing metaphorical baptism as BODers do, is anathema.
-
No that is a nonsense interpretation that no Pope has EVER taught.
You sound like a typical Protestant who believes there is more than one way to interpret even the most obviously clear and concise parts of canon law. The canon advocating BOD uses the word "desire"....It does not get any clearer than that. You do not have to be an amateur theologian or a theological Sherlock Holmes and begin an in-depth exegesis of this unambiguous canon law.
Do you think that's the only time Trent used the word "desire?" Think again. Check out Session 6 Chapter 4 (Denzinger 796):
“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 Savior. 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.”
If you're still too stubborn with your Protestant mindset, I also recommend that you check out Canon 737.1 and Canon 1239.1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law where BOD is also stated. Also, The Catechism of St. Pius X teaches BOD.
Bottom Line: Baptism of Desire is all over Church doctrine!
How many more examples of Baptism of Desire do I have to give you? It's in plain English throughout Church doctrine. No need to play the theological Sherlock Holmes. This debate is over and has been over for many many years. Just admit Father Leonard Feeney was wrong.
-
You sound like a typical Protestant who believes there is more than one way to interpret even the most obviously clear and concise parts of canon law. The canon advocating BOD uses the word "desire"....It does not get any clearer than that. You do not have to be an amateur theologian or a theological Sherlock Holmes and begin an in-depth exegesis of this unambiguous canon law.
Do you think that's the only time Trent used the word "desire?" Think again. Check out Session 6 Chapter 4 (Denzinger 796):
“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 Savior. 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.”
If you're still too stubborn with your Protestant mindset, I also recommend that you check out Canon 737.1 and Canon 1239.1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law where BOD is also stated. Also, The Catechism of St. Pius X teaches BOD.
Bottom Line: Baptism of Desire is all over Church doctrine!
How many more examples of Baptism of Desire do I have to give you? It's in plain English throughout Church doctrine. No need to play the theological Sherlock Holmes. This debate is over and has been over for many many years. Just admit Father Leonard Feeney was wrong.
Hank,
And the Magisterium - sorry, ah, hierarchy - has gone along with this in its universal catechisms, and even Pius X in his, and all the theologians, the manualists, etc. to a man have agreed with BoD and all read Trent exactly as you do.
And yet the hierarchy - sorry, Magisterium - was "indefectible" until Vatican II, and "unable to be mistaken" . . . except as to the absolute necessity of the receipt of the sacrament of water baptism for salvation. That minor point.
-
Hank,
And the Magisterium - sorry, ah, hierarchy - has gone along with this in its universal catechisms, and even Pius X in his, and all the theologians, the manualists, etc. to a man have agreed with BoD and all read Trent exactly as you do.
Thank you for bringing both common sense and honesty to this discussion, Jeremiah.
-
I can't find fault in a Catholic who believes what is printed in My Catholic Faith or the Baltimore Catechism, regarding Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. I think there is abundant good faith among traditional Catholics; a desire to be faithful to Holy Mother Church.
This quickness to toss accusations of the sin of heresy, and mortal sins against the faith, and accusations of bad will are. . . terrifying to say the least.
I sense acts of inquisition without the authority to condemn, if that makes sense.
We live in strange times.
4 sure
-
You sound like a typical Protestant who believes there is more than one way to interpret even the most obviously clear and concise parts of canon law. The canon advocating BOD uses the word "desire"....It does not get any clearer than that. You do not have to be an amateur theologian or a theological Sherlock Holmes and begin an in-depth exegesis of this unambiguous canon law.
Do you think that's the only time Trent used the word "desire?" Think again. Check out Session 6 Chapter 4 (Denzinger 796):
“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 Savior. 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.”
If you're still too stubborn with your Protestant mindset, I also recommend that you check out Canon 737.1 and Canon 1239.1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law where BOD is also stated. Also, The Catechism of St. Pius X teaches BOD.
Bottom Line: Baptism of Desire is all over Church doctrine!
How many more examples of Baptism of Desire do I have to give you? It's in plain English throughout Church doctrine. No need to play the theological Sherlock Holmes. This debate is over and has been over for many many years. Just admit Father Leonard Feeney was wrong.
The only one insisting on double meanings, metaphors and multiple interpretations if you. Once again:
"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."
-
So I take it that no one really knows which liturgy the DB's attend?
-
The only one insisting on double meanings, metaphors and multiple interpretations if you. Once again:
"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."
Thank you, Thank You, Thank You for this canonical citation!!! I am personally giving you a thumbs up myself on your post!
So you quote Session 7 Canon 2 on Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism [Denzinger 858] and, therefore, you associate Baptism of Desire as a"some sort of metaphor" or distortion of Catholic doctrine.
So, using this logic, Trent flip-flops on this issue. First, it advocates Baptism of Desire in Dz. 796 and then again in Dz. 847 and then suddenly Trent pulls a 180 with Dz. 858 (your above quote). Then, almost 400 years later, the Church goes back to reaffirming Baptism of Desire in Canons 737.1 and 1239.1 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
So either Trent and the early 20th Century Church flip-flopped or Baptism of Desire is part of Church Doctrine.
-
Thank you, Thank You, Thank You for this canonical citation!!! I am personally giving you a thumbs up myself on your post!
So you quote Session 7 Canon 2 on Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism [Denzinger 858] and, therefore, you associate Baptism of Desire as a"some sort of metaphor" or distortion of Catholic doctrine.
So, using this logic, Trent flip-flops on this issue. First, it advocates Baptism of Desire in Dz. 796 and then again in Dz. 847 and then suddenly Trent pulls a 180 with Dz. 858 (your above quote). Then, almost 400 years later, the Church goes back to reaffirming Baptism of Desire in Canons 737.1 and 1239.1 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
So either Trent and the early 20th Century Church flip-flopped or Baptism of Desire is part of Church Doctrine.
Nowhere does it advocate Baptism of Desire. As I already explained, your position is untenable as your quote mentioned ALL SACRAMENTS, and as we know, desire is NOT a substitute for all sacraments even according to BODers. Holy Orders and Matrimony, for example.
You are the one insisting that Trent flip-flopped, as it clearly says that Baptism is not a metaphor. BOD is literally all about a metaphorical baptism being substitute for a real one.
-
Nowhere does it advocate Baptism of Desire.
Even if someone were to agree with you on Trent not teaching Baptism of Desire (which I do not), then can you please explain the Church canons 737.1 and 1239.1 in the Code of Canon Law?
-
Hey, boy, you're fixin' to get destroyed by Ladislaus and Cantarella. :laugh1:
Don't forget moi. Any piece of paper calling Fr Feeney to Rome or ex-communicating him 4 not complying is a Fraud. And btw-- there is NO SUCH THING as a 'Feeneyite'... :cheers:
-
QUOTE FUNCTION HAS NEVER BEEN WORKING PROPERLY W/ NEW SOFTWARE. :cussing:
-
Dimond brothers are setting up something that isnt De Fide to be so, condemning others who don't.
To quote from their website: "There is only one baptism, which is celebrated in water (de fide)." I won't bother linking to that poisonous well.
What is De Fide? "A term meaning "of Faith," used to identify those doctrines of the Church which are infallibly true."
According to original 1952 'Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma' by Ludwig Ott (Priest and Prof. in Dogmatics) which has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur given in 1954, Baptism of Desire is a doctrine that is sententia fidei proxima which means "A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation. but which have not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church."
Something that contradicts this would be censured as "a Proposition Proximate to Heresy (propositio heresi proxima) which signifies that the proposition is opposed to a truth which is proximate to the Faith (Sent. fidei proxima)", that is, an opinion approaching heresy.
Pope Innocent III "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona on the subject of Baptism of Desire:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read, brother, in the eighth book of Augustine's "City of God" * where among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers' and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned."
- Denzinger's "The Sources of Catholic Dogma" Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur 1955
-
Dimond brothers are setting up something that isnt De Fide to be so, condemning others who don't.
To quote from their website: "There is only one baptism, which is celebrated in water (de fide)." I won't bother linking to that poisonous well.
What is De Fide? "A term meaning "of Faith," used to identify those doctrines of the Church which are infallibly true."
According to original 1952 'Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma' by Ludwig Ott (Priest and Prof. in Dogmatics) which has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur given in 1954, Baptism of Desire is a doctrine that is sententia fidei proxima which means "A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation. but which have not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church."
Something that contradicts this would be censured as "a Proposition Proximate to Heresy (propositio heresi proxima) which signifies that the proposition is opposed to a truth which is proximate to the Faith (Sent. fidei proxima)", that is, an opinion approaching heresy.
Pope Innocent III "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona on the subject of Baptism of Desire:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read, brother, in the eighth book of Augustine's "City of God" * where among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers' and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned."
- Denzinger's "The Sources of Catholic Dogma" Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur 1955
While their conclusion is debateable, their quote is completely accurate. The fact that there is one baptism to be celebrated only in natural water is de fide. It has been repeated in numerous councils including Trent. BOD advocates work their way around this, and perhaps they are correct and BOD is true, but that doesn't change the fact that their quote is 100% correct in its assertion that the one baptism of water is de fide.
-
While their conclusion is debateable, their quote is completely accurate. The fact that there is one baptism to be celebrated only in natural water is de fide. It has been repeated in numerous councils including Trent. BOD advocates work their way around this, and perhaps they are correct and BOD is true, but that doesn't change the fact that their quote is 100% correct in its assertion that the one baptism of water is de fide.
Do you believe that Catholics who believe in Baptism of Desire & Baptism of Blood are going to be saved?
-
Do you believe that Catholics who believe in Baptism of Desire & Baptism of Blood are going to be saved?
I don't believe they'll be damned for it. It's speculative theology that I don't agree with. The most extreme form of BOD, the one where non-invincibly ignorant Muslims etc. can be saved, does come close to denying EENS, but I'd still regard it as material heresy at worst.
-
I don't believe they'll be damned for it. It's speculative theology that I don't agree with. The most extreme form of BOD, the one where non-invincibly ignorant Muslims etc. can be saved, does come close to denying EENS, but I'd still regard it as material heresy at worst.
Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply. Do you believe that Novus Ordo people will either be damned or in Purgatory longer than (Traditional) Catholics?
-
Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply. Do you believe that Novus Ordo people will either be damned or in Purgatory longer than (Traditional) Catholics?
I don't know, if I'm being perfectly honest. I assume by Traditional Catholics you also mean SSPX, etc. who recognise the V2 Popes but resist what Vatican 2 has done to the Church nonetheless. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Certainly the Novus Ordo Church, its lax attitudes, and ecuмenism lead people to modernism, moral relativism and disregarding Catholic dogma, which would then put their souls in grave danger. But just going to Novus Ordo masses and living out a normal Catholic life, unaware of the crisis in the Church and thinking everything's going on fine as before - would that incur such consequences? Obviously praying with and attending mass celebrated by heretics is sinful, and even people who recognise the V2 Popes are well aware the Church is full to the brim with modernist heretics these days, but if someone were to do it blissfully unaware that they were - would it be mortally sinful(it would seem to lack full culpability)? These are questions I certainly don't have the knowledge to answer, and that I doubt could be definitely answered except by the Pope. And well that's the issue, I believe in this time of Great Apostasy that there is no Pope to do that.
Comparisons could be drawn to Catholics going to mass in dioceses in communion with anti-popes in the past, yet the situation was different as there was always a true Pope present at each of those times.
So in conclusion, although calling it that is inaccurate since nothing I've said is conclusive, I believe that since there is no true Pope or Church to condemn the Novus Ordo Mass or invalidly ordained priests under V2, Catholics would not be guilty of mortally sinning for attending it(as it would not be performed in full knowledge). Therefore they would not be damned for it, and they'd rely on their own faith and works for salvation just as a Traditional Catholic would. As for Penance, I believe Vatican 2 Priests are invalid and therefore their sacraments are too, however Penance can be received in desire so again they would not necessarily be damned for lack of valid Priests. Those are just my rather uneducated opinions though, this crisis is unprecedented and it's hard to compare it to historical events. It takes a greater mind than mine to speak on it.
-
I don't believe they'll be damned for it. It's speculative theology that I don't agree with. The most extreme form of BOD, the one where non-invincibly ignorant Muslims etc. can be saved, does come close to denying EENS, but I'd still regard it as material heresy at worst.
How can a muslim be saved?
-
I don't believe they'll be damned for it. It's speculative theology that I don't agree with. The most extreme form of BOD, the one where non-invincibly ignorant Muslims etc. can be saved, does come close to denying EENS, but I'd still regard it as material heresy at worst.
No, it doesn't come "close" to denying EENS. It's a clear rejection of EENS. What do you mean material heresy at worst? Are you using the term as being synonymous with being a "minor" heresy? Material/Formal depends upon the will of the person adhering to it, and any heresy can be "at worst" formal.
-
Dimond brothers are setting up something that isnt De Fide to be so, condemning others who don't.
It is de fide that there is only one Baptism, but it is postulated by theologians that water Baptism, BOD, and BOD is something analogous to the Holy Trinity, three in one.
I think it's rather that the Dimonds are condemning individuals for what has yet to be condemned.
According to original 1952 'Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma' by Ludwig Ott
(. . .)
Baptism of Desire is a doctrine that is sententia fidei proxima
A crucial categorization.
Of the 26 theologians compiled by Fr. Cekada, wasn't it only 7 who listed BOD as de fide?
If it was de fide I don't think there would be a multitude of theological notes applied to the doctrine.
Pope Innocent III "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona
A perfect example of a pope teaching error in a letter, as a private individual.
This should be discussed in the "Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?" thread.
An example of the difference between teaching privately and bringing forth a matter of faith and morals, presented to the Universal Church for belief.
BOD started with Augustine, and it's going to end with Augustine.
-
This thread should probably be moved to the Baptism of Desire sub-forum. I can already see the discussion turning towards that direction.
-
I don't believe they'll be damned for it. It's speculative theology that I don't agree with. The most extreme form of BOD, the one where non-invincibly ignorant Muslims etc. can be saved, does come close to denying EENS, but I'd still regard it as material heresy at worst.
I'm with Lad, it does, despite the notion that such individuals may be united to the the soul of the Church in actuality, and the body by desire.
Not only EENS, but it wreaks havoc on the visibility of the Church.
Is BOD postulated as an at death type of grace or that such individuals are in a state of grace while publicly adhering to an entirely different religion?
-
All sides would submit if we had recourse to the Church; to a pope.
That 1953 letter ain't cutting it.
The reason why priests deny communion to those who do not believe in BOD is because of the theological note applied by a number of theologians to BOD. That rejection of such a class of doctrine is a mortal sin against the faith.
But, do these same priests hold as St. Alphonsus does that all who die as non-Catholics are damned?
No.
These are strange times we live in.
I don't think there is any obligation to believe in BOD. Recourse is had to St. Augustine. He started it. He ended it.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15083.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15083.htm)
Chapter 13
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.
Go back further and you'll find BOB with St. Cyprian, but not BOD. Sts. Augustine and Ambrose are the BOD pillar.
-
No, it doesn't come "close" to denying EENS. It's a clear rejection of EENS. What do you mean material heresy at worst? Are you using the term as being synonymous with being a "minor" heresy? Material/Formal depends upon the will of the person adhering to it, and any heresy can be "at worst" formal.
I mean that people who believe it believe that the Church teaches it, and indeed many clergy and even Popes have believed in BOD.
-
How can a muslim be saved?
I don't believe in BOD.
-
I mean that people who believe it believe that the Church teaches it, and indeed many clergy and even Popes have believed in BOD.
Yeah, but no Doctor or Church Father or Pope ever taught a form of BoD that would allow infidels to be saved. They believed in BoD as efficacious only for those who were Catholic in every other way except for the in re reception of the Sacrament. That's the distinction I always make.
If someone believes in BoD as St. Thomas did, I personally would not even characterize that as an "error". I would disagree and think it a mistaken piece of speculative theology.
-
Yeah, but no Doctor or Church Father or Pope ever taught a form of BoD that would allow infidels to be saved. They believed in BoD as efficacious only for those who were Catholic in every other way except for the in re reception of the Sacrament. That's the distinction I always make.
If someone believes in BoD as St. Thomas did, I personally would not even characterize that as an "error". I would disagree and think it a mistaken piece of speculative theology.
By their approval of beliefs that allowed people outside of the Church to be saved, they opened the gates for modern clergymen to fling open the gates to all infidels. Now we're stuck with the V2 Popes saying "It doesn't matter if one is Catholic".
The belief that Jєωs, Muslims, etc. can be saved is certainly heresy, but the failure of pre-V2 Popes to condemn it while it was running rampant among the clergy, and the support given to it by post-V2 Popes, means that a Catholic who believes it probably thinks that's what the Church teaches. So it probably isn't a formal heresy in most cases.
-
the failure of pre-V2 Popes to condemn it while it was running rampant among the clergy, and the support given to it by post-V2 Popes, means that a Catholic who believes it probably thinks that's what the Church teaches. So it probably isn't a formal heresy in most cases.
/thread
-
By their approval of beliefs that allowed people outside of the Church to be saved, they opened the gates for modern clergymen to fling open the gates to all infidels. Now we're stuck with the V2 Popes saying "It doesn't matter if one is Catholic".
The belief that Jєωs, Muslims, etc. can be saved is certainly heresy, but the failure of pre-V2 Popes to condemn it while it was running rampant among the clergy, and the support given to it by post-V2 Popes, means that a Catholic who believes it probably thinks that's what the Church teaches. So it probably isn't a formal heresy in most cases.
That's always hard to say. Lots of people RATIONALIZE things to themselves because it's what they WANT to believe, whereas if they had sincerely sought the truth with a good will and with docility to the Holy Spirit, they would have been led to the truth. Only God can sort them out. What I objected to was your choice of words that it's "at the most" material heresy. At the most it's formal heresy. What you meant is that in most cases you think it's probably only material. But I see that as not my problem to figure out ... leave that to God. I will just continue pointing out that it's heresy.
-
By their approval of beliefs that allowed people outside of the Church to be saved, they opened the gates for modern clergymen to fling open the gates to all infidels. Now we're stuck with the V2 Popes saying "It doesn't matter if one is Catholic".
The belief that Jєωs, Muslims, etc. can be saved is certainly heresy, but the failure of pre-V2 Popes to condemn it while it was running rampant among the clergy, and the support given to it by post-V2 Popes, means that a Catholic who believes it probably thinks that's what the Church teaches. So it probably isn't a formal heresy in most cases.
Which pre vat 2 popes are you referring to? Which writings of pre vat 2 speak to muslims or Jєωs being saved?
-
Which pre vat 2 popes are you referring to? Which writings of pre vat 2 speak to muslims or Jєωs being saved?
I didn't say that at all. What I said is that pre-Vat 2 Popes approved beliefs that allowed people outside the Church to be saved(Pope Pius IX taught invincible ignorance and Pope Pius XII believed unbaptised infants are saved), while also failing to condemn the rampant heresy among their clergy that other non-Catholics can be saved. EENS used to be very simple, NO ONE outside the Church can be saved whatsoever. But by those Popes expanding EENS to include people who are outside the Church, they justified modernist heretics to start teaching that others outside the Church could be saved too. And they failed to condemn those beliefs.
Now we're stuck with post Vat 2 Popes who actively support the belief that muslims and Jєωs can be saved, with Francis even saying that "It doesn't matter if one is Catholic."
I would not blame the average Catholic layman for thinking BOD is what the Church teaches. It is the fault of the Church for failing to condemn heresies among its own ranks that led to Vatican 2 in the first place, where they proceeded to embrace all those heresies.
-
I didn't say that at all. What I said is that pre-Vat 2 Popes approved beliefs that allowed people outside the Church to be saved(Pope Pius IX taught invincible ignorance and Pope Pius XII believed unbaptised infants are saved), while also failing to condemn the rampant heresy among their clergy that other non-Catholics can be saved. EENS used to be very simple, NO ONE outside the Church can be saved whatsoever. But by those Popes expanding EENS to include people who are outside the Church, they justified modernist heretics to start teaching that others outside the Church could be saved too. And they failed to condemn those beliefs.
Now we're stuck with post Vat 2 Popes who actively support the belief that muslims and Jєωs can be saved, with Francis even saying that "It doesn't matter if one is Catholic."
I would not blame the average Catholic layman for thinking BOD is what the Church teaches. It is the fault of the Church for failing to condemn heresies among its own ranks that led to Vatican 2 in the first place, where they proceeded to embrace all those heresies.
Pope Pius IX didn’t teach non catholics are saved through invincible ignorance, we can argue that point if you like. Can you give me the quote of Pope Pius XII teaching unbaptized children are saved? I thank you in advance.
-
Pope Pius IX didn’t teach non catholics are saved through invincible ignorance, we can argue that point if you like. Can you give me the quote of Pope Pius XII teaching unbaptized children are saved? I thank you in advance.
Sorry I misremembered entirely. What he said was very different and I apologise for the mistake, but still a form of BOD. He said unbaptised infants are NOT saved, but that an unbaptised ADULT can be saved through an act of love. So still saying that baptism is not necessary, and a less extreme form of BOD.
An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM