Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on February 11, 2024, 02:45:27 PM
-
With so much fighting on the teaching of the late excommunicate Leonard Feeney, it's hard to nail down exactly what their error is.
Since the Council of Trent explicitly taught that those who desired salvation would be in the state of Grace, and no one can go Hell in the state of Grace, my opinion is that this teaching is heresy, but I am open to being convinced that it might be a doctrinal error that is not directly against dogma.
Bellato
-
I chose "other" because it's the Church's prerogative to issue formal condemnations, not self appointed keyboard-Popes.
-
Other: Feeneyites are orthodox Catholics and the maker of this poll ought be not condemned but rather pitied for being a jackass.
-
Other: Feeneyites are orthodox Catholics and the maker of this poll ought be not condemned but rather pitied for being a jackass.
I hit other just so I could see the poll, but yeah I think the poll at least should’ve had an option for orthodox Catholics
-
Voted Other, just to see the results.
-
Why would they be condemned when they hold the correct position?
-
With so much fighting on the teaching of the late excommunicate Leonard Feeney, it's hard to nail down exactly what their error is.
Since the Council of Trent explicitly taught that those who desired salvation would be in the state of Grace, and no one can go Hell in the state of Grace, my opinion is that this teaching is heresy, but I am open to being convinced that it might be a doctrinal error that is not directly against dogma.
This is completely false. You made an anonymous thread to spread error. Yikes.
If you honestly took at look at the evidence against BoD, BoB and invincible ignorance you will quickly see you are a victim of a propaganda campaign against Fr Feeney and the Church.
-
With so much fighting on the teaching of the late excommunicate Leonard Feeney, it's hard to nail down exactly what their error is.
Since the Council of Trent explicitly taught that those who desired salvation would be in the state of Grace, and no one can go Hell in the state of Grace, my opinion is that this teaching is heresy, but I am open to being convinced that it might be a doctrinal error that is not directly against dogma.
Please...why...:facepalm:
-
St. Alphonsus said Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are de fide, so I'll go with him. I would have to see a higher authority than a Doctor of the Church to contradict him before I changed my position. That's why I voted "heretics".
Here's what Fr. Cekada explained about this (he was a bit more lenient than me; since he managed to dig out one or two theologians who taught that it was only proxima fidei, he didn't apply the censure of heresy to Feeneyites, but that argument is a bit weak if you have 20 or so theologians on the other side.)
In any case, Fr. Cekada said (https://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2) that, since every theologian teaches that these doctrines are at least proxima fidei, which it is mortally sinful to deny, being a Feeneyite is at least mortally sinful.
III. Summing Up.
Once again, before a Catholic can resolve a specific theological issue, he must first understand and accept the general theological principles the Church lays down as criteria for determining what must be believed.
Vatican I and the Roman Pontiff have unambiguously specified the type of teaching you must believe and adhere to:
� Solemn pronouncements of the extraordinary Magisterium.
� Teachings of the universal ordinary Magisterium.
� Teachings held by theologians to belong to the faith.
� Doctrinal decisions of the Vatican congregations.
� Theological truths and conclusions so certain that opposition to them merits some theological censure short of “heresy.”
The standard teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood (as was amply docuмented in my original article) fall into these categories.
You must therefore adhere to these teachings.
Further, no matter what category theologians have assigned to these teachings — theologically certain, Catholic doctrine or de fide — rejecting them has the same consequences in the moral order: you commit a mortal sin against the faith.
And finally, you must reject the notion promoted in pro-Feeney circles that such teachings may be ignored because a Catholic’s obligation “is restricted to only those matters that the infallible judgment of the Church has proposed to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith” — for that is a principle the Church condemned in the Syllabus of Errors. (Dz 1722.)
Yours in Christ,
— The Rev. Anthony Cekada
-
I chose other because too lenient on those who believe BOD/BOB was not a selection.
-
IIRC, Fr Feeney was initially for BOD and he didn't come out against it publicly until he wrote his book Bread of Life which was printed after the "Letter" of 1949. This means he was "excommunicated" for a position they didn't even know that he held.?!?!? I think most of the slander against Fr is just fabricated which means it rises to the level of calumny and is not just your regular garden variety detraction. Fools rush in where angels dare not tread.
Please correct me if I'm wrong,
JoeZ
-
This means he was "excommunicated" for a position they didn't even know that he held.?!?!?
.
He was excommunicated for disobedience in refusing to obey first his Jesuit superiors and then to go to Rome when the Holy Office summoned him to Rome.
-
.
He was excommunicated for disobedience in refusing to obey first his Jesuit superiors and then to go to Rome when the Holy Office summoned him to Rome.
So he was summoned to Rome to explain a position that they didn't know he held. Ya that's better.
-
St. Alphonsus said Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are de fide, so I'll go with him. I would have to see a higher authority than a Doctor of the Church to contradict him before I changed my position. That's why I voted "heretics".
Here's what Fr. Cekada explained about this (he was a bit more lenient than me; since he managed to dig out one or two theologians who taught that it was only proxima fidei, he didn't apply the censure of heresy to Feeneyites, but that argument is a bit weak if you have 20 or so theologians on the other side.)
In any case, Fr. Cekada said (https://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2) that, since every theologian teaches that these doctrines are at least proxima fidei, which it is mortally sinful to deny, being a Feeneyite is at least mortally sinful.
A Saint saying some is de fide doesn't make it so. St Alphonsus version of BoD contradicts Trent on Initial Justification. There is a whole thread on it so I am not going to post the quotes here.
There is a higher authority. The numerous Papal decrees and Councils that affirm Water Baptism to the point of leaving no room for BoD.
Fr. Cekada's garbage on BoD has long since been completely refuted. Despite the dozens or so times this as has pointed out in cathinfo.... I am starting to suspect that most people here didn't even read the contrary evidence.
As soon as Lad gets up I expect he will post it again. He seems to have it saved copy and paste somewhere.
-
A Saint saying some is de fide doesn't make it so. St Alphonsus version of BoD contradicts Trent on Initial Justification. There is a whole thread on it so I am not going to post the quotes here.
There is a higher authority. The numerous Papal decrees and Councils that affirm Water Baptism to the point of leaving no room for BoD.
Fr. Cekada's garbage on BoD has long since been completely refuted. Despite the dozens or so times this as has pointed out in cathinfo.... I am starting to suspect that most people here didn't even read the contrary evidence.
As soon as Lad gets up I expect he will post it again. He seems to have it saved copy and paste somewhere..
.
No, the problem with this argument is that, if the popes and the Council of Trent and so on really taught what you think they teach, these theologians would know that too, especially Doctors of the Church.
But since they read the Fathers and Popes and Councils and everything else that you have read (actually, a vast, vast amount more than you have ever read), and therefore knew and understood all these things better than you do, which is what it means for someone to be a theologian, then they are the ones who are correct when they say that this is part of our Faith and has always been taught and believed so.
The Feeneyite claim that they understand the Fathers and Popes better than theologians and even Doctors of the Church is false and absurd.
-
.
No, the problem with this argument is that, if the popes and the Council of Trent and so on really taught what you think they teach, these theologians would know that too, especially Doctors of the Church.
But since they read the Fathers and Popes and Councils and everything else that you have read (actually, a vast, vast amount more than you have ever read), and therefore knew and understood all these things better than you do, which is what it means for someone to be a theologian, then they are the ones who are correct when they say that this is part of our Faith and has always been taught and believed so.
The Feeneyite claim that they understand the Fathers and Popes better than theologians and even Doctors of the Church is false and absurd.
You are completely wrong.
First, a real patristic scholar William A Jurgens admitted in volume 3 of faith of the early fathers, that few fathers taught BoD and many outright rejected it.
Second, St Peter Canisius was at Trent and he never taught BoD in his catechism, this fact is always overlook in the blindness of BoD advocates.
Third, your claims are false assumptions, there were plenty of heretical pre-vatican 2 theologians, and Fr. Cekada was wrong with his statements about theologians.
Forth.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
You BoDers do not care for what the Church ACTUALLY teaches, instead you choose to hold on to the opinions of men, refusing to so much as consider the contrary evidence, and then saying that we are prideful 'feenenites'.
-
You are completely wrong.
First, a real patristic scholar William A Jurgens admitted in volume 3 of faith of the early fathers, that few fathers taught BoD and many outright rejected it.
.
Let's see, looks to me like that book was published in 1979. So you are quoting some modernist here. :facepalm:
Second, St Peter Canisius was at Trent and he never taught BoD in his catechism, this fact is always overlook in the blindness of BoD advocates.
Can you please quote where he condemns Baptism of Desire? If he simply omits speaking of it, that proves nothing. What you Feeneyites really need is people who CONDEMNED Baptism of Desire before Vatican 2. I have never seen any Feeneyite ever quote a real theologian -- or anyone who managed to get an Imprimatur at all -- saying something along the lines of, "Baptism of Desire is heretical, and St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas taught heresy when they taught it." If Feeneyism were really true, you could give me hundreds of theologians saying this, and yet I have never seen a single one.
Third, your claims are false assumptions, there were plenty of heretical pre-vatican 2 theologians, and Fr. Cekada was wrong with his statements about theologians.
Like who? And according to whom are they heretics?
Forth.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
The Church's judgment does not condemn Baptism of Desire. If it did, St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas would be excommunicated, and Leonard Feeney would be a Doctor of the Church. As it is, though, it is precisely the other way around.
-
.
Let's see, looks to me like that book was published in 1979. So you are quoting some modernist here. :facepalm:
This is baseless slander, Faith of the early father's is an excellent work and source for patristic texts, William himself believed in BoD but he was honest enough to admit that few fathers taught it.
Can you please quote where he condemns Baptism of Desire? If he simply omits speaking of it, that proves nothing. What you Feeneyites really need is people who CONDEMNED Baptism of Desire before Vatican 2. I have never seen any Feeneyite ever quote a real theologian -- or anyone who managed to get an Imprimatur at all -- saying something along the lines of, "Baptism of Desire is heretical, and St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas taught heresy when they taught it." If Feeneyism were really true, you could give me hundreds of theologians saying this, and yet I have never seen a single one.
The Church does not outright condemn every error, the fact that St Peter fails to mention BoD is important because if Trent had taught it he would have mentioned it. Secondly he also quotes St Augustine and Ambrose affirming WATER baptism when referring to the commonly misinterpreted canon of Trent.
Like who? And according to whom are they heretics?
I don't have names but the Dimonds have pointed several out on their site in refuting them, also the fact that the Church is in a crisis.
The Church's judgment does not condemn Baptism of Desire. If it did, St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas would be excommunicated, and Leonard Feeney would be a Doctor of the Church. As it is, though, it is precisely the other way around.
Pope St. Siricius (A.D. 385):
"Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life. Whoever should fall into the peril of shipwreck, the incursion of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege or the desperation of any bodily sickness, and should beg to be relieved by the unique help of faith, let them obtain the rewards of the much sought-after regeneration in the same moment of time in which they beg for it. Let the previous error in this matter be enough; [but] now let all priests maintain the aforesaid rule, who do not want to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock upon which Christ constructed His universal Church.” (Decree to Himerius on the Necessity of Baptism)
St. Leo the Great at the Council of Chalcedon, St. Leo said the Blood of Redemption can't be separated from the water of baptism.
"It is he, Jesus Christ who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony–Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."
Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “Besides, only one baptism regenerating all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be the perfect remedy for salvation for both adults and children.”
Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “But since one is the universal Church, of regulars and seculars, of prelates and subjects, of exempt and non-exempt, outside of which absolutely (omnino) no one (nullus) is saved, one is the Lord, one is the Faith and one is the baptism of all.”
-
and Leonard Feeney would be a
Your disrespect is quoted here for the rest of your life, and will be remembered by you in eternity.
-
With so much fighting on the teaching of the late excommunicate Leonard Feeney, it's hard to nail down exactly what their error is.
Sure, that's because they hold no error.
-
Other: Feeneyites are orthodox Catholics and the maker of this poll ought be not condemned but rather pitied for being a jackass.
I won't on this nonsense because the question assumes that they should be "condemned." And of course it's posted by some Anonymous Coward, yet another abuse of the Anonymous forum.
-
Since the Council of Trent explicitly taught that those who desired salvation would be in the state of Grace ...
This shows that OP has no idea what Father Feeney actually taught, that there could be justification (though no salvation). Nor does OP have any idea what Trent taught. There's no mention of a "desire of salvation", but a "desire (bad translation for votum) of Baptism."
-
St. Alphonsus said Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are de fide, so I'll go with him. I would have to see a higher authority than a Doctor of the Church to contradict him before I changed my position. That's why I voted "heretics".
Here's what Fr. Cekada explained about this (he was a bit more lenient than me; since he managed to dig out one or two theologians who taught that it was only proxima fidei, he didn't apply the censure of heresy to Feeneyites, but that argument is a bit weak if you have 20 or so theologians on the other side.)
In any case, Fr. Cekada said (https://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2) that, since every theologian teaches that these doctrines are at least proxima fidei, which it is mortally sinful to deny, being a Feeneyite is at least mortally sinful.
Yeah, Father Cekada was more "lenient" than you because he had the honesty to admit that only the minority of theologians agreed with St. Alphonsus, and you can't condemn someone as a heretic based on a minority opinion. St. Alphonsus isn't the Magisterium.
Apart from that, Father Cekada has promoted the error of (what I have termed) "Cekadism", attributing to theologians an authority they lack.
Here's what an ACTUAL theologian from before Vatican II had to say, rather than some borderline-flunkee at an SSPX seminary (yes, I was told by his colleagues that he did not do well at seminary except in Liturgy and Canon Law).
Msgr. Fenton:
Thus, when we review or attempt to evaluate the works of a private theologian, we are perfectly within our rights in attempting to show that a certain portion of his doctrine is authentic Catholic teaching or at least based upon such teaching, and to assert that some other portions of that work simply express ideas current at the time the books were written. The pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs, acting as the authorized teachers of the Catholic Church, are definitely not subject to that sort of evaluation.
Unfortunately the tendency to misinterpret the function of the private theologian in the Church’s doctrinal work is not something now in the English Catholic literature. Cardinal Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (certainly the least valuable of his published works), supports the bizarre thesis that the final determination of what is really condemned in an authentic ecclesiastical pronouncement is the work of private theologians, rather than of the particular organ of the ecclesia docens which has actually formulated the condemnation. The faithful could, according to his theory, find what a pontifical docuмent actually means, not from the content of the docuмent itself, but from the speculations of the theologians.
-
IIRC, Fr Feeney was initially for BOD and he didn't come out against it publicly until he wrote his book Bread of Life which was printed after the "Letter" of 1949. This means he was "excommunicated" for a position they didn't even know that he held.?!?!? I think most of the slander against Fr is just fabricated which means it rises to the level of calumny and is not just your regular garden variety detraction. Fools rush in where angels dare not tread.
Please correct me if I'm wrong,
JoeZ
Correct. Father Feeney was attacked by the spurious "Letter" for actually believing in EENS, whereas his superiors, including the heretic Cushing who called EENS dogma "nonsense" were confirmed in their heresy. Of course, this "Letter" appears nowhere in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and, very strangely, Cushing, who evidently had the only copy of it, sat on it for a couple years until the Cardinal who had allegedly signed it died. Why, when it was very relevant at the time it was already written ... other than to alter its contents somehow? Only place it appeared was in Cushing's own "Irish Ecclesiastical Review."
-
No, the problem with this argument is that, if the popes and the Council of Trent and so on really taught what you think they teach, these theologians would know that too, especially Doctors of the Church.
Unlike St. Alphonsus, St. Peter Canisius was in fact a theologian at Trent (spoke twice during the Council and was involved in everything that took place there). He saw no teaching of "Baptism of Desire" in Trent, and it can be proved a dozen different ways that there was no such teaching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCfbFDcIGSw
-
A Saint saying some is de fide doesn't make it so. St Alphonsus version of BoD contradicts Trent on Initial Justification. There is a whole thread on it so I am not going to post the quotes here.
Right, in summary, St. Alphonsus' version of BoD, where those who are "saved" by BoD do not (necessarily) have all temporal punishment remitted by BoD is in fact a heretical contradiction of Trent, which teaches that initial justification = regeneration, and then defines regeneration (as the term implies) as a complete rebirth, including washing away of all sin and guilt due to sin so that nothing remains in the one so reborn that would hinder his immediate entry into Heaven. St. Alphonsus was a great saint, but he erred rather seriously on this point. If someone believes in BoD, he must reject this aspect of St. Alphonsus' position.
-
You are completely wrong.
First, a real patristic scholar William A Jurgens admitted in volume 3 of faith of the early fathers, that few fathers taught BoD and many outright rejected it.
Even Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner has the intellectual honesty to admit this, even if most BoDers don't.
I summarized the evidence on another thread, but the Fathers are overwhelmingly against BoD. We have 5 or 6 Church Fathers who explicitly reject it and only two Fathers who allegedly opined in its favor.
Of the two, St. Augustine admitted it was pure speculation and not received Tradition, saying that he had gone back and forth on the matter and then tentatively stated "I find that ...". At no point did he teach it with any authority. In fact, even as Rahner admits, St. Augustine retracted the opinion, and some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence come from his later works.
As for the other, St. Ambrose, who explicitly rejects BoD elsewhere, in his famous Oration at the funeral of Valentinian did NOT teach BoD but merely expressed hope that, like the unbaptized martyrs, those who had this "desire" (zeal, confession) might be "washed but not crowned". Crowning refers to entry into the Kingdom. So this sounds more like a distinction between a type of justification (washing) but not salvation (crowning).
When the question resurfaces after a 700-year silence, in the pre-scholastics, they universally based their opinion (as did Pope Innocent II) incorrectly on the "authority of Augustine and Ambrose". And the other Fathers were chopped liver? Evidently they also did not know that Augustine had retracted his youthful speculation after he had matured his his battles against various heretics, the Donatists and Pelagians, nor did they properly understand St. Ambrose. That's it for their "authority", the house of cards upon which all BoD theory rests.
We have two ways of discerning whether something was revealed (and, therefore, whether the contrary is heretical), namely, 1) unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers, 2) where a doctrine derives implicitly and necessarily from revealed doctrine.
1 is a bit fat negatory as the majority of Church Fathers rejected it, and of the two left, one retracted and the other was misinterpreted
With regard to 2, NO ONE has ever provided any kind of theological proof for BoD. Most never even attempt it. We see only "Augustine and Ambrose", "Augustine and Ambrose", "Augustine and Ambrose".
In the modern theologians, we see only "Yep, BoD.", "Yep, BoD".
Only theologian who even came close to making an attempt to prove it was St. Thomas, but it was not so much proof as explanation. He states that the Sacraments have both a visible and an invisible aspect, and merely states that in BoD you have the invisible without the visible. But not all the graces of all the Sacraments allow the invisible to occur without the visible, and the two which most prominently do not, Holy Orders and Confirmation (there's no such thing as Holy Orders of Desire or Confirmation of Desire), are both, like Baptism, "character" Sacraments that require the visible/physical administration to receive the character. So this isn't any kind of "proof". That one big problem with BoD, its reduction of the character of Baptism to relative meaninglessness, as it's merely some badge of honor that some on Heaven have but others do not.
St. Robert Bellarmine, admitting that the Fathers were divided on BoD, stated that "it would seem too harsh" to say that Catechumens (to whom he limited it) could not be saved this way. Not much of a theological proof there either. It also contradicts his earlier teaching that Catechumens are excluded from the Church due to their non-participation in the Sacraments.
-
COUNCIL OF TRENT
ON JUSTIFICATION
FIRST DECREE
Celebrated on the thirteenth day of the month of January, 1547.
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."
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm
-
COUNCIL OF TRENT
ON JUSTIFICATION
FIRST DECREE
Celebrated on the thirteenth day of the month of January, 1547.
Great. Thanks. We're all aware of the passage. We don't agree with your interpretation of it. Remove the English comma before "or the desire thereof" and then you get closer to how we read this.
Also, this has nothing to do with Feeneyism (as called out by the OP), since Father Feeney rightly points out that this passage is speaking justification and not of salvation.
And in case you think Father Feeney invented the distinction, there were post-Tridentine theologians who held that infidels, for instance, could be justified but not saved. St. Ambrose, in the famous Valentinian passage, holds that those who desire Baptism could be "washed" (aka justified) but not "crowned" (aka saved).
-
Also, this has nothing to do with Feeneyism (as called out by the OP), since Father Feeney rightly points out that this passage is speaking justification and not of salvation.
This also calls out the ignorami who consider Father Feeney to have been a "heretic" (while giving the real heretic, Cardinal Cushing, a free pass). Father Feeney believed in justification by desire, so at no point does he even reject your (IMO incorrect) reading of Trent.
This amorphous term "Baptism" of Desire doesn't address the effects of said "Baptism of Desire", i.e. whether it pertains to "justification of desire" or "salvation of desire".
-
Great. Thanks. We're all aware of the passage. We don't agree with your interpretation of it. Remove the English comma before "or the desire thereof" and then you get closer to how we read this.
Also, this has nothing to do with Feeneyism (as called out by the OP), since Father Feeney rightly points out that this passage is speaking justification and not of salvation.
And in case you think Father Feeney invented the distinction, there were post-Tridentine theologians who held that infidels, for instance, could be justified but not saved. St. Ambrose, in the famous Valentinian passage, holds that those who desire Baptism could be "washed" (aka justified) but not "crowned" (aka saved).
It's funny how St. Alphonsus, a lot smarter than you read this passage as proving Baptism of Desire, and the reason why he labelled BOD as de fide!
Don't risk your salvation for novelty! Just obey the Church and believe. It's so easy. Pride is a nasty sin.
-
It's funny how St. Alphonsus, a lot smarter than you read this passage as proving Baptism of Desire, and the reason why he labelled BOD as de fide!
Don't risk your salvation for novelty! Just obey the Church and believe. It's so easy. Pride is a nasty sin.
You are projecting your pride on to others and revealing your own dishonesty. St Alphonsus version of BoD contradicts Trent on initial justification, this was already mentioned earlier.
You should just obey the Church which teaches those who desire baptism must be rushed to be baptized when in danger of death otherwise they are lost, as Pope Siricius teaches.
-
It's funny how St. Alphonsus, a lot smarter than you read this passage as proving Baptism of Desire, and the reason why he labelled BOD as de fide!
Don't risk your salvation for novelty! Just obey the Church and believe. It's so easy. Pride is a nasty sin.
It gets even worse for you because as Lad pointed out this decree is on justification. I.e Justification of desire not baptism of desire.
It's almost as if you didn't read the thread. Instead you are blinded by your own pride. Plenty of quotes where given earlier from the Church, showing there is only water baptism. So once more take your own advice and obey the Church and stop being so prideful.
-
Cushing, who evidently had the only copy of it, sat on it for a couple years until the Cardinal who had allegedly signed it died.
.
This story gets repeated constantly by Feeneyites, but from what I can tell it is false. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani died in 1951 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Marchetti_Selvaggiani). This website says the letter was published in 1949 (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/protocol-122-49-suprema-haec-sacra/):
Less than three months after the Marchetti-Selvaggianni letter was published in part in The Pilot, Father Feeney was expelled from the Jesuit Order on October 28, 1949.
-
Here's the full chronology. There's a distinction between ...
1) the publication date on the docuмent itself (August 8, 1949)
2) publication of some parts of it in The Pilot (I keep mis-remembering this as The Irish Ecclesiastical Review) (September 3, 1949)
3) publication of the entire docuмent in The Pilot (September 4, 1952)
4) publication in Acta Apostolicae Sedis -- NEVER
Rahner's edition of the Enchiridion Symbolorum cites The Pilot article in 9/4/1952, the first time it appeared in full anywhere.
On August 8, 1949 — almost four months after the silencing of Father Feeney — the Holy Office issued a docuмent, a letter addressed to the Archbishop of Boston and signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, known as Protocol No. 122/49.*
On September 3, 1949, this Protocol was published in part in The Pilot, the official news organ of the Archdiocese of Boston.
Three years later, on September 4, 1952, it was published in full in The Pilot under cover of an explanatory memorandum from Archbishop Cushing.
-
Plus, I love it how some sedevacantists also pretend that everything written before some magical morning in, say, 1958, or 1962 were all orthodox and then the Church groaned and somehow woke up Modernist, getting out of the wrong side of the bed that morning. Perhaps the exact moment of this transformation was on September 12, 1962 at 8:43 AM and 30 seconds.
No, the Modernists were all over the place in the 1940s and 1950s. Cushing was an open heretic, which by SV terms means he was no longer the Bishop of Boston, since manifest heresy deposes ipso facto, right? Cushing openly, publicly, and repeatedly denied EENS, calling it "nonsense", and some of the statements by Father's Jesuit superiors were even more egregious.
-
It's funny how St. Alphonsus, a lot smarter than you read this passage as proving Baptism of Desire, and the reason why he labelled BOD as de fide!
Don't risk your salvation for novelty! Just obey the Church and believe. It's so easy. Pride is a nasty sin.
This is the kind of arrogant crap we see from these types (and he's too much of a coward to put his name to the posts). St. Alphonsus does not equal the Church. But you're likely just another depraved EENS-denying heretic who tries to pretends that "the Church" promotes his heresies, but since you post Anonymous like some coward, I have no way to confirm or deny that.
There are other theologians who disagree with St. Alphonsus on lots of individual points, including St. Peter Canisius, also a Doctor of the Church, the difference being that St. Peter was actually AT Trent and directly involved in it.
-
There are other theologians who disagree with St. Alphonsus on lots of individual points, including St. Peter Canisius, also a Doctor of the Church, the difference being that St. Peter was actually AT Trent and directly involved in it.
This is an example of how you misread and leap to conclusions, following up on the Dimonds. It's the same modus operandi. I'll address this more in the relevant threads.
-
This is an example of how you misread and leap to conclusions, following up on the Dimonds. It's the same modus operandi. I'll address this more in the relevant threads.
That was me.
-
This is an example of how you misread and leap to conclusions ...
There's nothing being "misread" here. I follow all the points made by the Dimonds and evaluate their validity (sometimes they're faulty or there's a logical gap, etc.) but in this case there's no other conclusion to be made.
-
This is the kind of arrogant crap we see from these types (and he's too much of a coward to put his name to the posts). St. Alphonsus does not equal the Church. But you're likely just another depraved EENS-denying heretic who tries to pretends that "the Church" promotes his heresies, but since you post Anonymous like some coward, I have no way to confirm or deny that.
There are other theologians who disagree with St. Alphonsus on lots of individual points, including St. Peter Canisius, also a Doctor of the Church, the difference being that St. Peter was actually AT Trent and directly involved in it.
Who I am doesn't matter. Feeneyites, from my experience ignore the real issues and love to focus on ad hominem and other distractions. Anonymity forced you to face the truth, not me.
Your beliefs are in direct contradiction to de fide teaching from Trent. Ignore this at your own peril.
-
Who I am doesn't matter. Feeneyites, from my experience ignore the real issues and love to focus on ad hominem and other distractions. Anonymity forced you to face the truth, not me.
Your beliefs are in direct contradiction to de fide teaching from Trent. Ignore this at your own peril.
No, you launched in with the ad hominems, o anonymous hypocrite (and coward).
It's just been splained to you that at no point does Father Feeney (the subject of this thread) deny anything taught by Trent. He believes in justification by votum, which is exactly what you claim Trent teaches. There's no "direct" contradiction. You just beg the question and wag your finger at the "pride" and make absurd sanctimonious statements like "Ignore this at your own peril".
Instead of begging the question, try to refute the actual arguments, where Trent doesn't actually teach what you claim it does and want to believe that it does. You simply beg the question that is says what you claim and then spew BS on top of it.
-
Father Feeney holds that there's justification by votum. Explain, o anonymous windbag, how this isn't what Trent is teaching.
-
Feeneyites, from my experience ignore the real issues and love to focus on ad hominem and other distractions.
That's a good one being that anti-Feenyite arguments start with ad hominem against Fr. Feeney himself.
-
Unlike St. Alphonsus, St. Peter Canisius was in fact a theologian at Trent (spoke twice during the Council and was involved in everything that took place there). He saw no teaching of "Baptism of Desire" in Trent, and it can be proved a dozen different ways that there was no such teaching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCfbFDcIGSw
As even the Dimonds note, Canisius published his catechism in 1555. In 1566, 10 years later, the official Catechism of the Council of Trent was published. You should read the preface to it in the attached link for its authority and influence. As most of us know, the Catechism said this:
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.
https://www.saintsbooks.net/books/The%20Roman%20Catechism.pdf
Before the Catechism of the Council of Trent, of course, baptism of desire was taught and believed throughout the Church. It was clearly taught in the Summa of St. Thomas, and it was thought that St. Augustine also taught it (for example, St. Thomas asserts that he did). I say that it was "thought" that St. Augustine taught it to prescind from the claim by Feeneyites that say he didn't; it was accepted until the Feeneyite controversy that St. Augustine did.
Yet it is said that Peter Canisius published a catechism in 1566 that rejected BoD on the basis that he asserts the necessity of baptism and quotes John 3:5. Well, St. Thomas asserted the necessity of baptism and cited John 3:5 (Summa, Third part, Q. 68, Art. 1:
On the contrary, It is written (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized."
I answer that, Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Romans 5:18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Galatians 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.
Yet St.Thomas also recognized BoD. So you have a similar statement by him on the absolute necessity for baptism, yet he at the same time acknowledged BoD.
So the language in Canisius's catechism asserting the necessity of baptism doesn't necessarily mean he rejects the possibility of a BoD under an exceptional case anymore than St. Thomas does.
But it is said that Canisius cited statements by the fathers which assert that even catechumen can't be saved without receiving the sacrament, and Augustine and Ambrose are cited. Ambrose, like Augustine, also was understood to teach baptism of desire (e.g., the Funeral Oration of Valentinian) and both were cited by St. Thomas in that regard.
What you will not see in Canisius is a direct reject of BoD, which, again, was an established teaching per the great doctors of the Church, Sts. Anselm, Augustine and Thomas. Very odd. Then you have the major Catechism of Trent coming after Canisius's catechism, and Canisius never objects, makes a statement contrary to it, etc.
In almost, nay, in every case where something is cited against BoD, it's a sub silentio "denial" of the BoD exception to sacramental baptism otherwise universally recognized necessity by all doctors and saints who recognize BoD while also making similar statements to Canisius. Despite the "wanderings" away from the "truth" of the sacraments absolute "necessity" per Feeneyites, nobody comes forward and says, "no, there is no exceptions for BoD." Nobody.
I said this elsewhere, regarding St. Dismas and the assertion that he couldn't have gone to heaven because the "gates" weren't open until Jesus's Ascenion, or is it Resurrection - they can't get that straight: the pro-Feeney group seemingly peruse statements for a possible "gotcha" use to deny BoD. They should rather spend their time thinking about what would be contradictions between the great doctors on BoD if they were right about no justification or salvation without the sacrament and how it is indeed possible to reconcile sacramental necessity and a universe were BoD could coexist.
But, nay, it's more fun to indulge in the fire of being a Feeneyite, and blow up rhetorical dynamite on Catholic forums . . . .
I know because I was one, and it was a helluva lot of fun.
DR
-
I hate this anonymous forum, though I understand it's purpose in the right cases.
That last post was me.
-
As even the Dimonds note, Canisius published his catechism in 1555. In 1566, 10 years later, the official Catechism of the Council of Trent was published. You should read the preface to it in the attached link for its authority and influence. As most of us know, the Catechism said this:
Before the Catechism of the Council of Trent, of course, baptism of desire was taught and believed throughout the Church. It was clearly taught in the Summa of St. Thomas, and it was thought that St. Augustine also taught it (for example, St. Thomas asserts that he did). I say that it was "thought" that St. Augustine taught it to prescind from the claim by Feeneyites that say he didn't; it was accepted until the Feeneyite controversy that St. Augustine did.
Yet it is said that Peter Canisius published a catechism in 1566 that rejected BoD on the basis that he asserts the necessity of baptism and quotes John 3:5. Well, St. Thomas asserted the necessity of baptism and cited John 3:5 (Summa, Third part, Q. 68, Art. 1:
Yet St.Thomas also recognized BoD. So you have a similar statement by him on the absolute necessity for baptism, yet he at the same time acknowledged BoD.
So the language in Canisius's catechism asserting the necessity of baptism doesn't necessarily mean he rejects the possibility of a BoD under an exceptional case anymore than St. Thomas does.
But it is said that Canisius cited statements by the fathers which assert that even catechumen can't be saved without receiving the sacrament, and Augustine and Ambrose are cited. Ambrose, like Augustine, also was understood to teach baptism of desire (e.g., the Funeral Oration of Valentinian) and both were cited by St. Thomas in that regard.
What you will not see in Canisius is a direct reject of BoD, which, again, was an established teaching per the great doctors of the Church, Sts. Anselm, Augustine and Thomas. Very odd. Then you have the major Catechism of Trent coming after Canisius's catechism, and Canisius never objects, makes a statement contrary to it, etc.
In almost, nay, in every case where something is cited against BoD, it's a sub silentio "denial" of the BoD exception to sacramental baptism otherwise universally recognized necessity by all doctors and saints who recognize BoD while also making similar statements as Canisius. Despite the "wanderings" away from the "truth" of the sacraments absolute "necessity" per Feeneyites, nobody comes forward and says, "no, there is no exceptions for BoD." Nobody.
I said this elsewhere, regarding St. Dismas and the assertion that he couldn't have gone to heaven because the "gates" weren't open until Jesus's Ascenion, or is it Resurrection - they can't get that straight: the pro-Feeney group seemingly peruse statements for a possible "gotcha" use to deny BoD. They should rather spend their time thinking about what would be contradictions between the great doctors on BoD if they were right about no justification or salvation without the sacrament and how it is indeed possible to reconcile sacramental necessity and a universe were BoD could coexist.
But, nay, it's more fun to indulge in the fire of being a Feeneyite, and blow up rhetorical dynamite on Catholic forums . . . .
I know because I was one, and it was a helluva lot of fun.
DR
-
That's a good one being that anti-Feenyite arguments start with ad hominem against Fr. Feeney himself.
And didn't Fr. Feeney start his arguments with ad hominem. What about the good name of Cardinal Gibbons smeared by Feeney?
-
As even the Dimonds note, Canisius published his catechism in 1555. In 1566, 10 years later, the official Catechism of the Council of Trent was published. You should read the preface to it in the attached link for its authority and influence. As most of us know, the Catechism said this:
Pay attention would you? Regardless of when the Catechism was published, St. Peter Canisius (whom you deliberately denigrate by calling him just Canisius), cites the disputed passage from the Council of Trent ... and he was there during the Council. There were also multiple editions (translated into many languages).
On top of that, your interpretation of the Catechism of Trent is plain wrong (just as you're wrong about everything else). This passage means nothing more than that the proper dispositions of an adult to receive Baptism would prevent them from being cut off from the graces of the Sacrament, without specifying how. It's an almost verbatim quote from St. Fulgentius, where St. Fulgentius concludes the passage "because God would not let him die without the Sacrament."
You read whatever you want to into everything because you have an agenda and are incapable of looking at the matter objectively.
-
So the language in Canisius's catechism asserting the necessity of baptism doesn't necessarily mean he rejects the possibility of a BoD under an exceptional case anymore than St. Thomas does.
But it is said that Canisius cited statements by the fathers which assert that even catechumen can't be saved without receiving the sacrament, and Augustine and Ambrose are cited. Ambrose, like Augustine, also was understood to teach baptism of desire (e.g., the Funeral Oration of Valentinian) and both were cited by St. Thomas in that regard.
Hogwash. St. Peter juxtaposed the disputed votum passage with two citations from the Fathers explicitly stating that even well-disposed catechumens could not be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. That would be the height of absurdity of the votum passage meant the exact opposite.
[all 3 in the same footnote]
Citation 1: Trent teaches that votum can supply for justification.
Citation 2: St. Ambrose teaches that even well-disposed Catechumens cannot be saved.
Citation 3: St. Augustine teaches that even well-disposed Catechumens cannot be saved.
Ridiculous.
-
And didn't Fr. Feeney start his arguments with ad hominem. What about the good name of Cardinal Gibbons smeared by Feeney?
Gibbons was an Americanist and a proto-Modernist.
-
I hate this anonymous forum, though I understand it's purpose in the right cases.
That last post was me.
Yes, there are situations that require Anonymity. This is not one of them and is an abuse of this forum.
-
Father Feeney holds that there's justification by votum. Explain, o anonymous windbag, how this isn't what Trent is teaching.
I see that the Anonymous Windbag who claimed that Father Feeney "directly" contradicts Trent had no response here. Father Feeney believed in justification by way of the votum, so precisely what they claim that Trent teaches here.
So there's a logical step on top of this that one would have to argue why his opinion is "heretical", and then it would be anything but direct. This argument is generally made from a single source (let me educate this Anon), namely, from the condemnation of Baius. But the condemnation of Baius isn't condemning what people think it condemns. I've studied and gone through the teachings of Baius and it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
There were actually theologians after Trent who held to the justification/salvation distinction, e.g. Melchior Cano (and a couple others), asserting that infidels, for instance, could be justified but not saved.
So I still await an explanation how someone who believes in justification by votum directly contradicts Trent and is therefore a heretic.
-
Yes, there are situations that require Anonymity. This is not one of them and is an abuse of this forum.
Not really, just avoiding abuse of Ad hominem. Stick to proofs. If you focus on yhe truth, you might find your way out of this.
-
As even the Dimonds note, Canisius published his catechism in 1555. In 1566, 10 years later, the official Catechism of the Council of Trent was published. You should read the preface to it in the attached link for its authority and influence. As most of us know, the Catechism said this:
Before the Catechism of the Council of Trent, of course, baptism of desire was taught and believed throughout the Church. It was clearly taught in the Summa of St. Thomas, and it was thought that St. Augustine also taught it (for example, St. Thomas asserts that he did). I say that it was "thought" that St. Augustine taught it to prescind from the claim by Feeneyites that say he didn't; it was accepted until the Feeneyite controversy that St. Augustine did.
Yet it is said that Peter Canisius published a catechism in 1566 that rejected BoD on the basis that he asserts the necessity of baptism and quotes John 3:5. Well, St. Thomas asserted the necessity of baptism and cited John 3:5 (Summa, Third part, Q. 68, Art. 1:
Yet St.Thomas also recognized BoD. So you have a similar statement by him on the absolute necessity for baptism, yet he at the same time acknowledged BoD.
So the language in Canisius's catechism asserting the necessity of baptism doesn't necessarily mean he rejects the possibility of a BoD under an exceptional case anymore than St. Thomas does.
But it is said that Canisius cited statements by the fathers which assert that even catechumen can't be saved without receiving the sacrament, and Augustine and Ambrose are cited. Ambrose, like Augustine, also was understood to teach baptism of desire (e.g., the Funeral Oration of Valentinian) and both were cited by St. Thomas in that regard.
What you will not see in Canisius is a direct reject of BoD, which, again, was an established teaching per the great doctors of the Church, Sts. Anselm, Augustine and Thomas. Very odd. Then you have the major Catechism of Trent coming after Canisius's catechism, and Canisius never objects, makes a statement contrary to it, etc.
In almost, nay, in every case where something is cited against BoD, it's a sub silentio "denial" of the BoD exception to sacramental baptism otherwise universally recognized necessity by all doctors and saints who recognize BoD while also making similar statements to Canisius. Despite the "wanderings" away from the "truth" of the sacraments absolute "necessity" per Feeneyites, nobody comes forward and says, "no, there is no exceptions for BoD." Nobody.
I said this elsewhere, regarding St. Dismas and the assertion that he couldn't have gone to heaven because the "gates" weren't open until Jesus's Ascenion, or is it Resurrection - they can't get that straight: the pro-Feeney group seemingly peruse statements for a possible "gotcha" use to deny BoD. They should rather spend their time thinking about what would be contradictions between the great doctors on BoD if they were right about no justification or salvation without the sacrament and how it is indeed possible to reconcile sacramental necessity and a universe were BoD could coexist.
But, nay, it's more fun to indulge in the fire of being a Feeneyite, and blow up rhetorical dynamite on Catholic forums . . . .
I know because I was one, and it was a helluva lot of fun.
DR
The Catechism does not teach BoD. The desire for baptism leads one into baptism. It does not in of itself suffice as baptism. That is what avail means, and the context is baptism not baptism of desire.
-
I asked this on an earlier page, but I didn't get a response.
I'm curious if anyone can provide a pre-Vatican 2 theologian who accuses St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus of being heretics for their "heretical" teaching of baptism of blood and desire.
St. Thomas Aquinas has been dead for 700+ years. If he had taught something heretical, someone would have accused him of heresy by now, don't you think?
Actually, if he had taught heresy on baptism, along with other Doctors of the Church, there would be entire bookshelves of theologians accusing them of heresy, and not just a few weirdos on the internet.
There should be hundreds of approved theologians one could cite on this, as well as hundreds of theologians teaching that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are heretical, but let's start with just five or ten authors for now.
I'm waiting. :popcorn:
-
Not really, just avoiding abuse of Ad hominem. Stick to proofs. If you focus on yhe truth, you might find your way out of this.
Bro 'trads' like yourself are a shame, you ignore all the quotes of Popes and Councils given and only go with Saints you agree with despite there being Saints of both sides of this.
This sort of dishonestly and lack of comprehension is why the Dimonds call people like yourself bad willed.
-
I asked this on an earlier page, but I didn't get a response.
I'm curious if anyone can provide a pre-Vatican 2 theologian who accuses St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus of being heretics for their "heretical" teaching of baptism of blood and desire.
St. Thomas Aquinas has been dead for 700+ years. If he had taught something heretical, someone would have accused him of heresy by now, don't you think?
Actually, if he had taught heresy on baptism, along with other Doctors of the Church, there would be entire bookshelves of theologians accusing them of heresy, and not just a few weirdos on the internet.
There should be hundreds of approved theologians one could cite on this, as well as hundreds of theologians teaching that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are heretical, but let's start with just five or ten authors for now.
I'm waiting. :popcorn:
Fallacy and assumptions and question begging. Try to pay attention to the things actually mentioned in this thread.
-
So, the Council of Trent itself says, "Baptism or the desire for it," meaning it's de fide, but the sprainers care less and give their word salad to explain it all away.
Its simple, believe what the Catholic Church teaches and submit and stop loving your pet theory. The Council of Trent stands against you!
-
So, the Council of Trent itself says, "Baptism or the desire for it," meaning it's de fide, but the sprainers care less and give their word salad to explain it all away.
Its simple, believe what the Catholic Church teaches and submit and stop loving your pet theory. The Council of Trent stands against you!
The Council of Trent does not teach baptism of desire, you are reading in to it. BoDers like yourself do not care for truth, that is why you regurgitate the same nonsense that has been refuted over and over and over again and again, even in this thread, had you taken the time to read it.
-
Alright! That's it! I've had enough! It's time to clean house!
(EWPJ digs up Fr. Feeney's corpse and launches his skeleton at everyone that's arguing, Fr. Feeney's skull bonks DR on the head and DR takes a header into the ground, a thigh bone smacks the anon OP on the cheek and some shards of bone get stuck in their eye, Fr. Feeney's corpse finally lands on the ground and shatters into several pieces, Ladislaus shakes his head in disgust and tries to proceed to put the corpse pieces back together like a puzzle, EWPJ helps with this due to the guilt of launching Fr. Feeney's corpse out of rage at people fighting for the 197459183809th time about this topic when no one ever changes their mind. Ironically, Yeti is trying to leave the scene but trips over Fr. Feeney's left foot bone and falls face first into a finger bone that was sticking up and his eye is gouged! Eventually the pieces are put back together and EWPJ and Ladislaus put his corpse back into the ground. THE END.)
-
And didn't Fr. Feeney start his arguments with ad hominem. What about the good name of Cardinal Gibbons smeared by Feeney?
Cardinal Gibbons had no good name. He was an Americanist through and through. I say this as one who lived in the tower of Gibbons Hall at the Catholic University of America for several semesters as a Church history grad student where I got to know the concrete historical person of James Cardinal Gibbons very well.
-
As any first-year Latin student knows, "votum" does not only mean "desire" but also means "wish" and, very often, "vow" as it does here in the context of the Tridentine decree on justification (not the decree on baptism).
Justification by vow (to receive water baptism at the earliest available time)
Not Baptism of desire which is a faerie tale of confused sentimenality and nebulous theology.
-
"The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were
holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics
were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for
having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being
intolerant and bigoted.
If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine."
Re: the bolded, what has changed for traditional Catholics since the days of V2 and those days?
Nothing.
Now as then, the same Standard Operating Procedure is: Speak the truth, get punished.....by NO and Catholic Authorities.
Yet the Lemmings who should know better choose to join them in their slander campaign - and even take over for them. Congratulations dumb bells.
-
As any first-year Latin student knows, "votum" does not only mean "desire" but also means "wish" and, very often, "vow" as it does here in the context of the Tridentine decree on justification (not the decree on baptism).
Justification by vow (to receive water baptism at the earliest available time)
Not Baptism of desire which is a faerie tale of confused sentimenality and nebulous theology.
Indeed. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia article states that "desire" is a terrible translation of votum, saying that it really means all of the dispositions required for Baptism, as laid out by the teaching of Trent. It's related linguistically to the word for "will", where someone has a firm will or resolution to receive the Sacrament.
I like the analogy with wedding vows. Someone could "desire" to marry another person, fully intend to do it, be resolved to get married, but if he walks out of the Church 30 seconds before pronouncing the wedding vows, he's not married.
I believe that the "desire" translation in English was planted deliberately into the theological vocabulary to allow it to mean almost anything.
-
I asked this on an earlier page, but I didn't get a response.
I'm curious if anyone can provide a pre-Vatican 2 theologian who accuses St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus of being heretics for their "heretical" teaching of baptism of blood and desire.
That's because it's a strawman. Very few people hold the position that they were heretics for teaching BoD.
Now, one aspect of St. Alphonsus' theory regarding Baptism of Desire is heretical (applying his own standards), namely, the theory (made up out of thin air) that Baptism of Desire does not remit all the temporal punishment due to sin.
1) Trent teaches that there can be no initial justification without regeneration.
2) Trent then defines regeneration (as the very term implies) as a complete rebirth, where nothing remains that would prevent the soul from immediately entering Heaven, a washing away of all sin and all temporal punishment due to sin.
Certainly this was not done deliberately, but due to an oversight in not putting these two different passages together.
In addition, one of the reasons St. Alphonsus adduced for BoD being de fide was one letter from a Pope Innocent (can't recall if II or III). But the other Pope Innocent wrote a similar letter (both addressed to individual bishops) stating that someone saved by Baptism "of Faith" (i.e. by faith in the Sacrament) [commonly adduced as proof for BoD] would rush to his heavenly home without delay. So applying the same dogmatic force to both these letters, this would also make St. Alphonsus' theory heretical. Of course, this was before Vatican I, and St. Alphonsus was mistaken regarding the authority of the docuмent. In yet another similar letter, Innocent III taught that transubstantiation takes place even if the priest merely thinks (but does not vocalize the worlds of consecration at Mass ... for which St. Thomas rightly took him to task.
-
Re: the bolded, what has changed for traditional Catholics since the days of V2 and those days?
Nothing.
Now as then, the same Standard Operating Procedure is: Speak the truth, get punished.....by NO and Catholic Authorities.
Yet the Lemmings who should know better choose to join them in their slander campaign - and even take over for them. Congratulations dumb bells.
Even in the secular world it's all the same, trust who ever controls the establishment..
-
Justification by vow ... Not Baptism of desire ...
Precisely. Father Feeney believed in justification by vow, which is what Trent taught (if you accept that particular interpretation of the "without the laver or the vow"). So I still await the anonymous windbag's explanation for his accusation that Father Feeney directly contradicts Trent ... or a retraction of that slander.
-
Sedevacantists tend to be the harshest critics of Father Feeney and focus on the fact that he disobeyed his superiors, Cardinal Cushing and his Jesuit superiors.
And yet ... if any were ever manifest heretics it was Cushing and those Jesuit superiors (evidence is overwhelming, and I can cite it here again if required), so that would mean, by their principles, that Cushing was not the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston, nor were Fathers' Jesuit superiors his superiors.
But self-contradiction has never stopped people who are intellectually dishonest.
-
Sedevacantists ... would mean, by their principles, that Cushing was not the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston, nor were Fathers' Jesuit superiors his superiors.
🎯🎯🎯
-
Cardinal Gibbons had no good name. He was an Americanist through and through. I say this as one who lived in the tower of Gibbons Hall at the Catholic University of America for several semesters as a Church history grad student where I got to know the concrete historical person of James Cardinal Gibbons very well.
Read on him more, he loved the Catholic Faith, and was working to grow the Church in America while dealing with immense hostility by the Protestants that he was working to overcome. Protestants who think the Catholic Church is evil are not going to listen.
Read the book Faith of Our Fathers. Such a book could only come from a man who loved the Faith, and wasn't corrupting it.
Pope Leo XIII did not share your poor view of him.
-
Read on him more, he loved the Catholic Faith, and was working to grow the Church in America while dealing with immense hostility by the Protestants that he was working to overcome.
Yes, many American prelates build lots of buildings, and his way to deal with the hostility of Protestants was to water down the Catholic faith, embracing principles like religious freedom. This is not to say he didn't have virtues, but this also doesn't mean someone can't call out his Americanism. In fact, we should call it out, since that type of thinking led ultimately to Vatican II.
Bishop Fellay built a lot of churches, opened many schools, loves the Catholic faith, etc. ... but this doesn't mean that he's beyond reproach for inching the SSPX towards Modernism and taking many of the faithful with him.
-
https://www.newsandtimes.com/politics/2016/10/cardinal-gibbons-on-american-religious-liberty/
Cardinal Gibbons ...
I presume also to thank him in the name of our separated brethren in America, who, though not sharing our faith, have shown that they are not insensible–indeed, that they are deeply sensible–of the honor conferred upon our common country ...
Sound familiar?
Just becomes someone has some virtues does not make him beyond reproach.
-
Pay attention would you? Regardless of when the Catechism was published, St. Peter Canisius (whom you deliberately denigrate by calling him just Canisius), cites the disputed passage from the Council of Trent ... and he was there during the Council. There were also multiple editions (translated into many languages).
On top of that, your interpretation of the Catechism of Trent is plain wrong (just as you're wrong about everything else). This passage means nothing more than that the proper dispositions of an adult to receive Baptism would prevent them from being cut off from the graces of the Sacrament, without specifying how. It's an almost verbatim quote from St. Fulgentius, where St. Fulgentius concludes the passage "because God would not let him die without the Sacrament."
You read whatever you want to into everything because you have an agenda and are incapable of looking at the matter objectively.
St. Peter Canisius is speaking about "the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace" (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum), the sacraments. He is not addressing the "extraordinary" means, or situation. Likewise when St. Augustine and St. Ambrose spoke of "catechumen," they were talking about a living person in the ordinary situation. The merely internal vow or desire is not sufficient in itself under the normal circuмstance. But in the "extraordinary" circuмstance the "vow" or desire of receiving grace by the external means, the sacrament, can suffice. Thus one can with the vow or desire to continue to receipt of the obligatory external means receive the graces necessary for salvation in the extraordinary circuмstance, when death prevents the receipt of the sacrament.
Not only the Council of Trent, but St. Thomas, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose - they are all consistent in the above. Thus, the sacraments are "necessary" or obligatory for men, as the Church is necessary for salvation in the ordinary and usually prevailing situation for most of mankind.
There is again consistency in the Council of Trent regarding "vow" or desire and both the sacraments of baptism and penance, the latter being as necessary for justification after post-Baptismal fall as water baptism is for initial justification: both involve a desire for completion and receipt of the sacrament for grace to be salvific prior to the receipt of the sacrament in the extraordinary situation. The Council of Trent doesn't speak beyond such situations, and I don't believe St. Augustine, St. Thomas, or St. Ambrose do either.
The Council and Catechism of Trent - and St. Augustine, St. Ambrose and St. Thomas in their extensive writings - were more comprehensive that St. Peter in his catechism because they acknowledged and mentioned the extraordinary situation. St. Peter only dealt with the ordinary situation and the sacraments. In his catechism on penance, for example, he didn't mention perfect contrition. In their quotes on the catechumen needing to receive the sacrament of baptism for justification St. Augustine and St. Ambrose were treating of the ordinary situation, like St. Peter in his catechism. All the quotes from St. Augustine and St. Ambrose that St. Peter cites in his catechism are addressing the ordinary situation, which is all he is dealing with in his catechism.
There is no inconsistency in the Council or Catechism of Trent, in St. Augustine, in St. Ambrose, in St. Thomas. You would have them inconsistent, but it is your own failing and misunderstanding.
St. Peter Canisius is not some outlier supporting your radical judgment that subsumes the Council and Catechism of Trent, and the doctors mentioned above, as the incoherent, inconsistent work of boobs who "just didn't get it. " They understood the distinction between the ordinary means and the extraordinary.
That the "extraordinary means" has been exploited by men with an agenda to attack and tear down the Church doesn't alter the truth of what God has provided. Men always abuse God's truths. No wonder there.
And you're not going to correct God's "errors" and set his creation right by your higher wisdom and judgment. He provides, men abuse, and we hope for the assistance and guidance of the Holy Ghost spiritually, intellectually and morally (in humility, meekness, etc.) to join Christ's elect in truth and get it right as God made and intended it to be taught and promulgated by His Church.
-
St. Peter Canisius is speaking about "the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace" (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum), the sacraments. He is not addressing the "extraordinary" means, or situation. Likewise when St. Augustine and St. Ambrose spoke of "catechumen," they were talking about a living person in the ordinary situation. The merely internal vow or desire is not sufficient in itself under the normal circuмstance. But in the "extraordinary" circuмstance the "vow" or desire of receiving grace by the external means, the sacrament, can suffice. Thus one can with the vow or desire to continue to receipt of the obligatory external means receive the graces necessary for salvation in the extraordinary circuмstance, when death prevents the receipt of the sacrament.
Not only the Council of Trent, but St. Thomas, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose - they are all consistent in the above. Thus, the sacraments are "necessary" or obligatory for men, as the Church is necessary for salvation in the ordinary and usually prevailing situation for most of mankind.
There is again consistency in the Council of Trent regarding "vow" or desire and both the sacraments of baptism and penance, the latter being as necessary for justification after post-Baptismal fall as water baptism is for initial justification: both involve a desire for completion and receipt of the sacrament for grace to be salvific prior to the receipt of the sacrament in the extraordinary situation. The Council of Trent doesn't speak beyond such situations, and I don't believe St. Augustine, St. Thomas, or St. Ambrose do either.
The Council and Catechism of Trent - and St. Augustine, St. Ambrose and St. Thomas in their extensive writings - were more comprehensive that St. Peter in his catechism because they acknowledged and mentioned the extraordinary situation. St. Peter only dealt with the ordinary situation and the sacraments. In his catechism on penance, for example, he didn't mention perfect contrition. In their quotes on the catechumen needing to receive the sacrament of baptism for justification St. Augustine and St. Ambrose were treating of the ordinary situation, like St. Peter in his catechism. All the quotes from St. Augustine and St. Ambrose that St. Peter cites in his catechism are addressing the ordinary situation, which is all he is dealing with in his catechism.
There is no inconsistency in the Council or Catechism of Trent, in St. Augustine, in St. Ambrose, in St. Thomas. You would have them inconsistent, but it is your own failing and misunderstanding.
St. Peter Canisius is not some outlier supporting your radical judgment that subsumes the Council and Catechism of Trent, and the doctors mentioned above, as the incoherent, inconsistent work of boobs who "just didn't get it. " They understood the distinction between the ordinary means and the extraordinary.
That the "extraordinary means" has been exploited by men with an agenda to attack and tear down the Church doesn't alter the truth of what God has provided. Men always abuse God's truths. No wonder there.
And you're not going to correct God's "errors" and set his creation right by your higher wisdom and judgment. He provides, men abuse, and we hope for the assistance and guidance of the Holy Ghost spiritually, intellectually and morally (in humility, meekness, etc.) to join Christ's elect in truth and get it right as God made and intended it to be taught and promulgated by His Church.
That was me.
-
Read on him more ...
Read the book Faith of Our Fathers.
Uh...I studied this heretic. I have held in my hands letters and docuмents THAT HE WROTE HIMSELF IN INK. I know exactly what and who Gibbons was.
BTW, I have read Faith of Our Fathers, several times during the past 35 years, beginning the first read at age 17. The book is not even a serious theological work. It is a popular and poorly argued apologetics tract filled with Americanist error.
Again, I have read Gibbons. I have studied Gibbons within his historical and political context.
The Americanists in these USA really coasted by because of the vast distance from Europe (Atlantic Ocean), by the politicking in Rome of Americanist and Gibbon's personal secretary Rev. (later Bishop) Denis O'Connell as rector of the North American College, and, above all, by thd scurrilous tract by Abbé Felix Klein entitled Americanism: the Phantom Heresy that white-washed and denied the very existance of the Americanist heresy and makinh Pope Leo XIII look foolish for composing Testem Benevolentiæ.
Americanist was birthed by Paulist Rev. Isaac Hecker, nutured by Cardinal Gibbons, promoted by John Catdinal Ireland, and universalised by Jesuit Rev. John Courtney Murray.
Americanism is the progenitor of Modernism.
-
The above posting is mine ^^^^
Forgive the typos I am on my phone with fat fingers.
-
As an aside, if you want to know who initiated the flow of sodomites into the American seminaries, take a close look at the East Coast Irish-American prelatial Mafia running the US Church before Vatican II, looking espacially at the time from the 1880s through 1940s.
-
Let the reader decide for himself, is this the work of a modernist who is undermining and corrupting Catholic teaching:.
https://archive.org/details/faith-of-our-fathers-by-cardinal-james-gibbons/mode/2up
-
Let the reader decide for himself, is this the work of a modernist who is undermining and corrupting Catholic teaching:.
https://archive.org/details/faith-of-our-fathers-by-cardinal-james-gibbons/mode/2up
Yes, yes it is. What's your problem with anyone criticizing Gibbons? He was a man and not infallible and not above criticism. I quoted from his proto-Ecuмenical speech about the "separated brethren" (condemned in Mortalium Animos). Given how much you're shilling for Gibbons, I'm guessing you have some personal attachment.
-
Yes, yes it is. What's your problem with anyone criticizing Gibbons? He was a man and not infallible and not above criticism. I quoted from his proto-Ecuмenical speech about the "separated brethren" (condemned in Mortalium Animos). Given how much you're shilling for Gibbons, I'm guessing you have some personal attachment.
No, I just don't idly attack who can't defend themselves. Read Faith of Our Fathers. He was a Catholic, no matter what you and Feeney say about him.
-
I'm guessing you have some personal attachment.
I agree with your suspicion, Lad. And why is this person posting anonymously?
"OOOOO! Cardinal Gibbons gave the imprimatur to my U.S. Murphy edition Douay-Rheims Bible. He must have been so amazingly traditional!" 🤡
-
My posting again ^^^^
-
No, I just don't idly attack who can't defend themselves. Read Faith of Our Fathers. He was a Catholic, no matter what you and Feeney say about him.
I did read Faith of Our Fathers several times. It is a POORLY written, Americanist-inspired popular (non-academic) apologetical tract.
Part of the Americanist heresy is to down-play differences and emphasise similarities between Catholicism and Protestantism as an effort to defend Catholicism and seek converts. This approach was condemned until Unitatis Redintegratio of Vatican II.
This is what Gibbons does in his tract.
-
Read Faith of Our Fathers. He was a Catholic, no matter what you and Feeney say about him.
He professed the Catholic faith and remained a member of the Church. That doesn't make him not an Americanist and not a promoter of religious indifferentism and the Ecuмenical mindset, which was pervasive in America long before Vatican II.
You're engaging in a false dichotomy.
Elwin is thoroughly acquainted with Gibbons. As he mentioned, he's read the originals of some of his writings, and has read the book you posted several times. I quoted from Gibbons referring to Prots as "separated brethren".
-
He professed the Catholic faith and remained a member of the Church. That doesn't make him not an Americanist and not a promoter of religious indifferentism and the Ecuмenical mindset, which was pervasive in America long before Vatican II.
You're engaging in a false dichotomy.
Elwin is thoroughly acquainted with Gibbons. As he mentioned, he's read the originals of some of his writings, and has read the book you posted several times. I quoted from Gibbons referring to Prots as "separated brethren".
Elwin has asserted things, but not yet provided any proof.
-
Elwin has asserted things, but not yet provided any proof.
Proof? The tract Faith of Our Fathers itself is prima facie proof.
You want some solid sources? For a non-academic, popular work read Solange Hertz' book Star Spangled Heresy. For a serious academic work read R. Scott Appleby's Church and Age Unite: The Modernist Impulse in American Catholicism.
What is your angle, Anonymous, for defending an indefensible Liberal prelate from century ago? Do you have a monetary interest in promoting a book that is, in fact, not worthy of use as bathroom tissue?
-
Elwin has asserted things, but not yet provided any proof.
I quoted Gibbons speaking of Prots as "separated brethren" and promoting religious liberty. You simply ignored it.
-
Yes, yes it is. What's your problem with anyone criticizing Gibbons? He was a man and not infallible and not above criticism. I quoted from his proto-Ecuмenical speech about the "separated brethren" (condemned in Mortalium Animos). Given how much you're shilling for Gibbons, I'm guessing you have some personal attachment.
Pius XI himself used the term, "separated brethren", so nothing to see here. The term didn't make Gibbons a modernist.
-
Pius XI himself used the term, "separated brethren", so nothing to see here. The term didn't make Gibbons a modernist.
Correct. So did Leo XIII ... both in the clear context of calling for their conversion and return to the true faith. Gibbons, on the other hand, simply uses the expression in an egalitarian sense, and in a religious indifferentist sense, as it's used today by the Modernists, "though they do not SHARE our faith". That's the difference, but you're obviously blind to it because you have a statue of Gibbons on your mantle somewhere.
Gibbons was unquestionably an Americanist and proto-Modernist, despite your pathetic denials.
Pope Leo XIII addressed Testem Benevolentiae primarily to Gibbons, who then simply blew it off and claimed that they believed no such things ... which was demonstrably false.
-
Pope Leo XIII addressed Testem Benevolentiae primarily to Gibbons, who then simply blew it off and claimed that they believed no such things ... which was demonstrably false.
Whilst Americanism spread across the Atlantic, ripping through the Ralliement clergy of France who called themselves "abbés democrates". The whole French Church was cast into turmoil.
And the whole time Gibbons denied his or any American clerics holding to or practicing the latitudinarian and activist errors that were, in fact, born from the bosom of American Paulist Rev. Isaac Hecker under the banner of the Stars and Stripes.
Look at the language, doctrine, and art work from books, pamphlets, and photographs produced by American Catholicism in the period folliwing the War Between the States and leading up to the Cold War. What you will view is docuмentary Americanism.
Further, the influence of Americanism under the leadership of Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop John Ireland was dirdctly responsible for the schism of tens of thousands of European immigrant Catholics in these USA who found no loving Mother in thd American Church. Germans, Austrians, and Bohemians avoided the schism because of the work the missionary Raphaelsverein amongst their populations which found support from the German-born bishops of the Midwest. Elsewhere in these USA, however, the lasting "forced schism" of Poles can be witnessed in the continued existence of the Polish National Catholic Church, certain Old Roman Catholic communities (these are not the same as Old Catholics), and the Carpatho-Russian Greek Orthodox Catholic Church made up of former Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics. All this as fruits of thr Americanist program during Gibbons' archprelacy as the de facto primate of the US Church.
-
Other: Fr. Feeney was a saintly priest and should be canonized for defending the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
I never knew Fr. Feeney personally, but knew several people who knew and conversed with him well. The late Mike Malone, a scholar in his own right and author of fifty+ books (please read the book The Only Begotten), was present, in the room, in 1972 when the excommunication of Fr. Feeney was lifted. Of course Fr. Feeney was not forced to recant any error because every Catholic must know that there is No Salvation Outside the Church - Duh! Mike Malone said to us at a Catholic Conference many years ago that Fr. Feeney is credited with the conversion of at least two hundred converts (at least ten of them Jews). I know of no traditional Catholic who can claim this many Jews as converts since 1969 (Fr. Feeney died in '78). We beg the reader to produce for us any convert since this time who can claim ten Jews to his convert resume. Mike Malone in his talk on baptism names two of the Jews by name.
Another friend told me the story of how Brother Hugh would help Fr. Feeney raise his arm at the consecration. Apparently Fr. Feeney would fast, almost to the point of being physically weak.
And we all know the story of how the young Bobby Kennedy stormed into the room and called out Fr. Feeney for his stance on No Salvation. Of course Fr. Feeney could have taken the heretical, wimpy stand, and told Bobby, "No, no, Bobby, not so, your Protestant friends at Harvard will not be damned, do you not know that all good Christians go to heaven?"
And there is the story of how Fr. Feeney came to breakfast table and Fr. de Chardin, the heretic Jesuit, was sitting there visiting the Jesuits. Fr. Feeney told him, "Fr. if you do not abandon your heresy, you will go to hell." We all know how Fr. de Chardin ended.
More stories could be told by others, but by all accounts Fr. Feeney was a good apostle and had a great love for souls. Here are the links for Mike Malone's talk on Baptism given many years ago. He tells a couple of stories directly related to Fr. Feeney.
https://rumble.com/v3q0oga-mike-malone-the-only-begotten-why-the-blessed-virgin-needed-baptism-pt.-1.html (https://rumble.com/v3q0oga-mike-malone-the-only-begotten-why-the-blessed-virgin-needed-baptism-pt.-1.html)
https://rumble.com/v3q0qmm-mike-malone-the-only-begotten-why-the-blessed-virgin-needed-baptism-pt.-2.html (https://rumble.com/v3q0qmm-mike-malone-the-only-begotten-why-the-blessed-virgin-needed-baptism-pt.-2.html)
-
"There is a growing repugnance to the popular doctrine on eternal punishment among the most intelligent of the catholic laity, and this same repugnance is the chief obstacle to the reception of the faith by a large class of non-Catholics. True charity and zeal require us, therefore, to do our utmost to resolve the difficulties which trouble and endanger these souls. We do not believe it possible to smother up discussion, or to quell the intelligence of this thinking age by the weight of any human authority, however respectable. Whatever theological opinions we may hold, we have no right to insist on anything except the dogma of faith, as necessary to Catholic communion and salvation; whether we are dealing with our spiritual brethren in the Church, or with the doubting and unsettled minds of those whom we seek to bring within her fold."
Quote from "St. Augustine and Calvinism" by Orestes Brownson, 1863
Obviously, even in Brownson's time (1800's) there were Catholics who were denying the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. "We have no right to insist on anything except 'the dogma of faith.'" And we all know what the dogma of faith is.
-
I voted other because I don't think BOD via "invincible ignorance" with an implicit desire for baptism is an infallible dogma.
-
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Yet another source showing these characters make up their own theology and misread Trent. All commentators on Trent with good reading comprehension know it teaches Baptism of Desire. If they had any theologian since Trent who read it in their twisted and perverse way they would be quoting this writing non stop. They have nothing except their arrogant twisting of Trent.
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]"The baptism of desire ([/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]baptismus flaminis[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]) is a perfect [/color]contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure [/color]love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] of [/color]God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] which contains, at least implicitly, a desire ([/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]votum[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]) of baptism. The Latin word [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]flamen[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] is used because [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Flamen[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] is a name for the [/color]Holy Ghost (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], Whose special office it is to move the heart to [/color]love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] and to conceive penitence for [/color]sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]. The "baptism of the [/color]Holy Ghost (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is [/color]proved (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] from the words of [/color]Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]. After He had declared the [/color]necessity (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] of baptism ([/color]John 3 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh003.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]), He [/color]promised (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]justifying grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] for acts of charity or perfect [/color]contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] ([/color]John 14 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]): "He that [/color]loveth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] Me, shall be [/color]loved (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] of my Father: and I will [/color]love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one [/color]love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] me, he will keep my word, and my Father will [/color]love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that [/color]justifying grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or [/color]contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of [/color]sins (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]. This [/color]doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] is set forth clearly by the [/color]Council of Trent (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that [/color]contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles [/color]man (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] to [/color]God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], before the [/color]Sacrament of Penance (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the [/color]necessity (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] of baptism, it says that [/color]men (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of [/color]regeneration (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12714a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] or its desire" ([/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]voto[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]). The same [/color]doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] is taught by [/color]Pope Innocent III (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08013a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by [/color]Popes (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]Pius V (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12130a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] and [/color]Gregory XII (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07001a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of [/color]Baius (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02209c.htm)[/b][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]."[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#x[/color]
-
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Not a good source and is biased. Most BoDers cannot admit the fact the BoD causes St Alphonsus to contradict Trent on initial justification. This goes to show that BoD is a corrupt tree.
-
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Yet another source showing these characters make up their own theology and misread Trent. All commentators on Trent with good reading comprehension know it teaches Baptism of Desire. If they had any theologian since Trent who read it in their twisted and perverse way they would be quoting this writing non stop. They have nothing except their arrogant twisting of Trent.
The whole doctrine of "Baptism of Desire" is defined as "attaining salvation without the sacrament of baptism," and that's not in Trent.
-
Other: Fr. Feeney was a saintly priest and should be canonized for defending the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Agreed.
He was the ONLY member of the clergy who saw Vatican II coming. He saw that the track was out ahead and was watching the impending trainwreck in slow motion. While others watched the US bishops building schools, churches, and parishes everywhere, noticed the full seminaries and religious orders, only Father Feeney realized that the structures were termite-infested, rotting, and ready to collapse. Vatican II did NOT simply come out of nowhere, where hundreds of millions of orthodox Catholics suddenly became heretics, on one sunny morning in 1962.
Even to this day, 99% of Trads and Trad clergy don't understand the nature of the theological / doctrinal crisis, focusing on symptoms rather than the cause of this disease.
Father's belief in EENS inspired him with the apostolic zeal to convert hundreds (including, as you point out, a number of Jews).
Father was in no way a "heretic" as many clueless Trads believe. Even with their interpretation of "or the desire thereof", what does Trent teach? Justification by votum. Father Feeney believed in justification by votum. Charges of heresy are absurd. To accuse Father of heresy, you have to prove that it's heretical to distinguish between justification and salvation ... except that Trent already did, teaching that an additional grace of final perseverance is required, and post-Tridentine theologians like Melchior Cano also held the distinction, holding that infidels, for instance, could be justified but not saved.
So, Father was disobedient to his superiors ... said with a lot of temerity (and hypocrisy) by Trads. If you're R&R, "faith is greater than obedience," no? ... except in the case of Father Feeney. If you're an SV, Cushing and Father Feeney's Jesuit superiors were clearly manifest heretics and therefore ipso facto deposed, and not actually his superiors.
No one has refuted any of the above. Simply read this below if you're not convinced that Cushing and Father's Jesuit superiors were heretics. You'll never see a more egregious or obvious case of manifest heresy.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/the-case-of-father-feeney/
But many Trads bluster about smearing Father Feeney as if he were a greater heretic than Bergoglio or Montini or Wojtyla or Arius or Nestorius ... or Cushing.
-
I recall a strong anti-Feeney sentiment amongst French priests of the SSPX back in the 1980s. Yet, were one to syllogise their attitude and argument, it would run thus:
Major: American Catholics are hopelessly infected with the Calvinistic values of the USA environment
Minor: Leonard Feeney is an American Catholic
Conclusion: Feeney's theology is Calvinistic
Corollary: Calvinism is bad, therefore Feeney is the DEVIL!
-
I recall a strong anti-Feeney sentiment amongst French priests of the SSPX back in the 1980s. Yet, were one to syllogise their attitude and argument, it would run thus:
Major: American Catholics are hopelessly infected with the Calvinistic values of the USA environment
Minor: Leonard Feeney is an American Catholic
Conclusion: Feeney's theology is Calvinistic
Corollary: Calvinism is bad, therefore Feeney is the DEVIL!
Yes, the anti-American animus among the French Trad clergy played into it. Of course, there was also the motivation that Archbishop Lefebvre himself had fallen victim to the error, asserting in his An Open Letter to Confused Catholics that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved, having transmogrified the dogma "No Salvation Outside the Church" into "No Salvation except by means of (the instrumental causality of) the Church." Archbishop Lefebvre was not a theologian, and he fell for this because he was taught it by his otherwise-orthodox professors long before Vatican II, demonstrating how far and wide the infestation of this heresy had spread. Even today, if you listen to various EWTN radio "personalities", many of them are quite solid on just about every other dogma and doctrine ... until they get to EENS and the dogma that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation, where they collapse into Modernism and heresy. Wojtyla was perceived as a great conservative, despite being the greatest purveyor of religious indifferentism ever to sit physically on the throne of Peter.
Some of this was spearheaded by Fr. Laisney's Is Feeneyism Catholic? an atrocity of intellectual dishonesty, replete with quotations where strategic ellipses make quotes sound like the opposite of what they actually said ... and most people know Father Laisney now to be a closet Modernist, having attacked the Resistance and enthusiastically promoted Fr. Robinson's openly-Modernist screed about the Sacred Scriptures and science. Laisney's intellectual dishonesty about EENS was on the level of quoting someone who said, "Our Lady did not have Original Sin" as having said "Our Lady did ... have Original Sin."
-
could be justified but not saved.
Lad, just curious what this means? Would such a person be denied the Beatific Vision but not suffer the torments of hell?
-
I voted other because I don't think BOD via "invincible ignorance" with an implicit desire for baptism is an infallible dogma.
Quote the dogma.
-
Lad, just curious what this means? Would such a person be denied the Beatific Vision but not suffer the torments of hell?
Father Feeney answered with an "I don't know." I speculate that there "torments of hell" are infinitely variable, to the point that some in Hell suffer very little, and there may be others who are in a state of happiness similar to Limbo for Infants (e.g. unbaptized martyrs if there are any). There are other possibilities, such as that those who have justification but die without Baptism don't receive the gift of final perseverance and lose their justification at death, whereas for others God may send an angel to baptize them (as St. Thomas speculated about the invincibly ignorant), or perhaps even they would stay in a Limbo state and then later be baptized at the Final Resurrection. Ultimate, with Father Feeney, we don't know but can only speculate. But one cannot enter the Beatific Vision without the character of Baptism, which justification by votum (aka BoD) does not provide (as per its proponents).
See, the Church has defined very little about the eternal statuses. For many centuries (through the first millennium), there were only Heaven and Hell. Then the notion of Limbo was introduced, and the Church permitted belief in it (condemning the proposition that it's a "Pelagian fable"), and most follow St. Thomas in believing in Limbo, while others still cling to the prior Augustinian opinion. So even Limbo isn't dogmatically set in stone.
But I think a large part of the animosity towards EENS dogma is predicated upon a monolithic view of Hell, and a strict dichotomy between eternal beatitude (beatific vision) and burning in a cauldron of fire in Hell. I believe that there are varying degrees in between (as one of the EENS definitions says about Hell).
People see a naturally virtuous and noble individual, who perhaps lived a pure life, was selfless, possibly even gave his life to save someone else, and so they find it repugnant that such an individual would be hurled into the caldron of fire right next to the likes of Judas or Joe Stalin (if he didn't convert on his deathbed). But what if there may be different degrees of beatitude and of suffering depending on the state of an individual's sole, somewhere between the poles of infinite suffering and infinite beatitude? Such an intermediate place is Limbo of the Infants, which most Catholic theologians came to believe in. Why can't there be others in Limbo or Limbo-like states with varying degrees of natural happiness or natural suffering, depending on the state of their souls at death, and yet short of the Beatific Vision, which can only be had in the Kingdom and with the character conferred by the Sacrament of Baptism.
Is this hinted at by Our Lord when He taught that those who believe and are baptized will be saved that that those who do not believe will be condemned? What about those who believe but are not baptized? They fall into neither category, of saved or of condemned, based on the logic of Our Lord's teaching.
I hold / speculate that there's an infinitely-variable degree of happiness vs. suffering in eternity even short of the Beatific Vision, but that Our Lord did not reveal these things to us, knowing that if human beings knew that not everyone's fate would necessarily entail burning intensely in the fires of Hell, with their hard hearts, they would never be motivated to become good and holy, since most people begin their road to virtue primarily due to the fear of Hell.
-
Mike Malone, who gave a speech on Baptism years ago, and who knew Fr. Feeney personally, told the story how one Jew collapsed on the sidewalk, and Fr. Feeney told the cabbie to stop. Fr. got out asked the guy if he wanted to be baptized, the guy said yes, and come to find out the guy was Jew. Fr. Feeney converted multiple Jews. It is almost as though God were saying, "I approve of Fr. Feeney, hence these 'miraculous baptism coincidences.'
And the Jesuits were liberal long before Vatican II. Look at Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, S.J, who was writing heretical nonsense in the 1920's. Heck, in 1916, in his essay "The Cosmic Earth,"
-
i voted option 2
-
continued, de Chardin wrote, "There is a communion with God, and a communion with the earth, and a communion with God through the earth." And yet the liberals Jesuits did almost nothing. And this was a man whose mother smacked him accross the face as a little boy because she found him worshipping rocks.
And as far as Fr. Feeney's disobedience, what about Abp. Lefebrvre and the '88 consecrations? The good Abp. clearly saw that Rome was bad-willed, and that Rome clearly wanted to "pick the bishops." Abp. Lefebvre saw through this and went ahead with the consecrations, and it was a good thing.
-
Some of this was spearheaded by Fr. Laisney's Is Feeneyism Catholic? an atrocity of intellectual dishonesty, replete with quotations where strategic ellipses make quotes sound like the opposite of what they actually said ... and most people know Father Laisney now to be a closet Modernist, having attacked the Resistance and enthusiastically promoted Fr. Robinson's openly-Modernist screed about the Sacred Scriptures and science. Laisney's intellectual dishonesty about EENS was on the level of quoting someone who said, "Our Lady did not have Original Sin" as having said "Our Lady did ... have Original Sin."
So I read this book because my chapel's priest recommended it during his argument with me on BOD. Lads, your critique is altogether too charitable.
It's one of those books in your library that you have to heavily comment in lest when you die someone find it there think it was your opinion. I know my children won't but maybe someone.
-
Stupid anonymous, ^ that was Me
-
When a Pope is again ruling and reaffirms the teaching on Baptism of Desire to the Church, as he must and will, then I wonder how many of those on here will obey him and believe the Catholic teaching on this.
Will you all form a heretical sect and reject his teaching or will you submit and stay in the Church?
-
When a Pope is again ruling and reaffirms the teaching on Baptism of Desire to the Church, as he must and will, then I wonder how many of those on here will obey him and believe the Catholic teaching on this.
Will you all form a heretical sect and reject his teaching or will you submit and stay in the Church?
🤣 🤣 🤣
You know what an hypothetical future Roman Pontiff must do? That is choice!
🤪
-
🤣 🤣 🤣
You know what an hypothetical future Roman Pontiff must do? That is choice!
🤪
.
We already know how a real pope handled Feeney.
-
When a Pope is again ruling and reaffirms the teaching on Baptism of Desire to the Church, as he must and will, then I wonder how many of those on here will obey him and believe the Catholic teaching on this.
Will you all form a heretical sect and reject his teaching or will you submit and stay in the Church?
The Church has already infallibly taught that only those baptised and profess the true faith are members of the Body of Christ (the Church), and that there is no salvation outside the Church, and that Water baptism is the only sacrament of baptism, and that water baptism is necessary. A true Pope will not be able to infallibly teach false doctrines such as BoD, BoB and salvation outside the Church in ignorance. On the contrary a false-'true' Pope will easily deceive the majority of 'trad' Catholics and lead them straight into hell.
.
We already know how a real pope handled Feeney.
By not signing the pseudo holy office letter?
-
The Church has already infallibly taught that only those baptised and profess the true faith are members of the Body of Christ (the Church), and that there is no salvation outside the Church, and that Water baptism is the only sacrament of baptism, and that water baptism is necessary. A true Pope will not be able to infallibly teach false doctrines such as BoD, BoB and salvation outside the Church in ignorance. On the contrary a false-'true' Pope will easily deceive the majority of 'trad' Catholics and lead them straight into hell.
By not signing the pseudo holy office letter?
Mind you. this same Pope led way for evolution and contraception, yet at the same time defined that only those baptised and profess the true faith are members of the Church... but you BoDers are so inconsistent with your faith you do not care for what the Church actually teaches, instead you choose to believe fallible men.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
-
Mind you. this same Pope led way for evolution and contraception, yet at the same time defined that only those baptised and profess the true faith are members of the Church... but you BoDers are so inconsistent with your faith you do not care for what the Church actually teaches, instead you choose to believe fallible men.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
Most 'trads' gravitate to false errors like BoD due to a lacking in faith.
St. Augustine, Against Julian, Book 5, Chap. 4: “Of the number of the elect and predestined, even those who have led the very worst kind of life are led to repentance through the goodness of God… Not one of them perishes, regardless of his age at death; never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator [Baptism]. Because of these men, our Lord says: ‘This is the will of him who sent me, the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.’”
-
A conversation with a Feeneyite
Feeneyite:
"You need to deny Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood"
Catholic responds:
"But the Council of Trent teaches this, how can I deny something taught by a Council?"
Feeneyite:
"No, the Council doesn't mean what it says, when it says 'Baptism or the Desire,' You need to trust my interpretation of the Council." Desire doesn't mean desire. I know what it really means."
Catholic responds:
"But why is it that every theologian who has commented on Trent all read it one way, that Trent teaches Baptism of Desire, when it taught with the words, "Baptism or the Desire...," yet you read it your own way and have not a single approved Catholic source since the Council of Trent that reads it the way you do?"
Feeneyite:
"Yes, but I understand Trent better than all the theologians and Catechisms since Trent. My reading comprehension and understanding of theology is also greater than the Holy Office. My superior reading comprehension makes it clear that when Trent taught " Baptism of the Desire for it," it really didn't mean that at all. I also have a cool theory that "desire" really means a vow, not a desire, even though no other approved and trained translator has ever translated it this way.
You should trust both my superior reading comprehension and my translating abilities and ignore all theologians, seminary manuals, catechisms and the Holy Office and put your trust in me!"
Catholic responds:
"Are you aware that you are talking just like every heretic in Church history?"
Feeneyite:
"No, this time is different, because i know this truth, and as I said, I know that when Trent said "desire" it didn't really mean "desire." It is for me to explain what Trent really meant, don't trust St. Alphonsus, the Holy Office, and so many other theologians on this, I know better. "
Catholic responds:
"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. I won't follow you. You look like, talk like and act like every heretic in Church history. I have spotted you. I believe what the Catholic Church has taught in the Council of Trent, in its approved catechisms, in seminary manuals approved for the training of priests all across the world, in the writings of the approved theologians, and what the Holy Office taught. I running away from you."
-
A conversation with a Feeneyite
Feeneyite:
"You need to deny Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood"
Catholic responds:
"But the Council of Trent teaches this, how can I deny something taught by a Council?"
Feeneyite:
"No, the Council doesn't mean what it says, when it says 'Baptism or the Desire,' You need to trust my interpretation of the Council." Desire doesn't mean desire. I know what it really means."
Catholic responds:
"But why is it that every theologian who has commented on Trent all read it one way, that Trent teaches Baptism of Desire, when it taught with the words, "Baptism or the Desire...," yet you read it your own way and have not a single approved Catholic source since the Council of Trent that reads it the way you do?"
Feeneyite:
"Yes, but I understand Trent better than all the theologians and Catechisms since Trent. My reading comprehension and understanding of theology is also greater than the Holy Office. My superior reading comprehension makes it clear that when Trent taught " Baptism of the Desire for it," it really didn't mean that at all. I also have a cool theory that "desire" really means a vow, not a desire, even though no other approved and trained translator has ever translated it this way.
You should trust both my superior reading comprehension and my translating abilities and ignore all theologians, seminary manuals, catechisms and the Holy Office and put your trust in me!"
Catholic responds:
"Are you aware that you are talking just like every heretic in Church history?"
Feeneyite:
"No, this time is different, because i know this truth, and as I said, I know that when Trent said "desire" it didn't really mean "desire." It is for me to explain what Trent really meant, don't trust St. Alphonsus, the Holy Office, and so many other theologians on this, I know better. "
Catholic responds:
"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. I won't follow you. You look like, talk like and act like every heretic in Church history. I have spotted you. I believe what the Catholic Church has taught in the Council of Trent, in its approved catechisms, in seminary manuals approved for the training of priests all across the world, in the writings of the approved theologians, and what the Holy Office taught. I running away from you."
What sort of dishonest childish response is this?
-
What sort of dishonest childish response is this?
That's just the normal, everyday, run of the mill, dishonest childish response from a typical BODer.
-
.
We already know how a real pope handled Feeney.
Yes, we also know how that "real" pope handled Cushing, a flaming Modernist and manifest heretic (ipso facto deposed according to your principles).
Aforementioned "real" pope ...
1) opened the door to evolution
2) opened the door to NFP as Catholic Birth Control
3) appointed, during his lengthy reign, nearly every Modernist bishop would would later bring us the glories of Vatican II (he could have transformed the Church by filling all the posts with Traditionalist-thinking clerics)
4) failed to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and therefore to prevent Vatican II
5) set up Bugnini and allowed him to begin his liturgical experimentations (even Roncalli kicked Bugnini out)
6) permitted other liturgical experimentation (e.g., Mass of the Future)
7) permitted some of the first Ecuмenical gatherings
Of the 260 or so popes in history, there's a good chance 100-150 of them are in hell right now.
in every sense of the word, Pius XII's papacy led inexorably to Vatican II.
That's to say nothing of the fact that we don't even know if the Pope actually dealt directly with the Feeney issue, or whether it was just some Modernists in the curia. We know that the so-called Suprema Haec never appeared in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, perhaps because they didn't want Pius XII to see it (since he had to approve everything in it).
-
What sort of dishonest childish response is this?
I have yet to see one of these morons address the question of how Father Feeney rejected Trent, since Father believed in justification by votum (Trent did not use the term "Baptism of Desire"). And we won't see it. That's because they're intellectually dishonest, the whole lot of the BoDers. Well, I do take that back, there were a couple here who were honest, like Arvinger, who while he believed in the narrow BoD of a Bellarmine was very strong on EENS. Rest of them consider BoD the "super dogma" because deep down they don't accept EENS and use BoD as a mean of gutting EENS dogma into a "meaningless formula".
This idiots conflate the Dimond Brothers' position of BoD (and alternate reading of Trent, with which I happen to agree) with Father Feeney's position and attribute the Dimond position to Father Feeney in accusing him of rejecting Trent. Thus they demonstrate only their ignorance and disqualify themselves from participation in the debate. Until they know what they're talking about, they need to just shut up.
Plus the morons can go full steam ahead in the Anonymous forum because no one can attribute the stupidity they spew here to them personally.
-
By not signing the pseudo holy office letter?
Not only not signing it, but very likely never having seen it. It's highly suspicious that it would not appear in Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Problem there is that for it to appear in AAS, it would have to be reviewed and approved by Pius XII.
Rahner had to cite The Pilot as his source for that nonsensical Modernist letter in Enchiridion Symbolorum ... a first. :laugh1:
Clueless Trads are oblivious to how Vatican II founded its heretical ecclesiology on "the letter" and cited it in the footnotes.
-
A conversation with a Feeneyite
Feeneyite:
"You need to deny Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood"
Catholic responds:
"But the Council of Trent teaches this, how can I deny something taught by a Council?"
Feeneyite:
"No, the Council doesn't mean what it says, when it says 'Baptism or the Desire,' You need to trust my interpretation of the Council." Desire doesn't mean desire. I know what it really means."
Catholic responds:
"But why is it that every theologian who has commented on Trent all read it one way, that Trent teaches Baptism of Desire, when it taught with the words, "Baptism or the Desire...," yet you read it your own way and have not a single approved Catholic source since the Council of Trent that reads it the way you do?"
Feeneyite:
"Yes, but I understand Trent better than all the theologians and Catechisms since Trent. My reading comprehension and understanding of theology is also greater than the Holy Office. My superior reading comprehension makes it clear that when Trent taught " Baptism of the Desire for it," it really didn't mean that at all. I also have a cool theory that "desire" really means a vow, not a desire, even though no other approved and trained translator has ever translated it this way.
You should trust both my superior reading comprehension and my translating abilities and ignore all theologians, seminary manuals, catechisms and the Holy Office and put your trust in me!"
Catholic responds:
"Are you aware that you are talking just like every heretic in Church history?"
Feeneyite:
"No, this time is different, because i know this truth, and as I said, I know that when Trent said "desire" it didn't really mean "desire." It is for me to explain what Trent really meant, don't trust St. Alphonsus, the Holy Office, and so many other theologians on this, I know better. "
Catholic responds:
"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. I won't follow you. You look like, talk like and act like every heretic in Church history. I have spotted you. I believe what the Catholic Church has taught in the Council of Trent, in its approved catechisms, in seminary manuals approved for the training of priests all across the world, in the writings of the approved theologians, and what the Holy Office taught. I running away from you."
Ahoy captain! I see a straw man falacy off the starboard bow!
-
Not only not signing it, but very likely never having seen it. It's highly suspicious that it would not appear in Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Problem there is that for it to appear in AAS, it would have to be reviewed and approved by Pius XII.
Rahner had to cite The Pilot as his source for that nonsensical Modernist letter in Enchiridion Symbolorum ... a first. :laugh1:
Clueless Trads are oblivious to how Vatican II founded its heretical ecclesiology on "the letter" and cited it in the footnotes.
It's sad to me that trads aren't so privy to this, for people who are supposed to be 'traditional' they are not doing their due diligence. I suppose they are just blindly following their superiors, and if the blind lead the blind..
-
I have yet to see one of these morons address the question of how Father Feeney rejected Trent, since Father believed in justification by votum (Trent did not use the term "Baptism of Desire"). And we won't see it. That's because they're intellectually
Wouldn't that also be initial justification and would mean a person who dies with it goes to heaven? I also recall some saying Fr Feeney was wrong on justification and contrads Trent in the bread of life, but I'm not familiar with it.
-
I recall a strong anti-Feeney sentiment amongst French priests of the SSPX back in the 1980s. Yet, were one to syllogise their attitude and argument, it would run thus:
Major: American Catholics are hopelessly infected with the Calvinistic values of the USA environment
Minor: Leonard Feeney is an American Catholic
Conclusion: Feeney's theology is Calvinistic
Corollary: Calvinism is bad, therefore Feeney is the DEVIL!
The problem with this syllogism, as with all bad logic, is that the author of the syllogism should have argued from a particular premise, not a universal premise. The Major ought to read, "Some American Catholics are hopelessly infected with the Calvinistic values of the USA environment." And we would answer, so what is your conclusion? You have no conclusion; because you cannot argue from a particular premise.
-
It's sad to me that trads aren't so privy to this, for people who are supposed to be 'traditional' they are not doing their due diligence. I suppose they are just blindly following their superiors, and if the blind lead the blind..
Which leads to the obvious question, cui bono? The ongoing tirades against Fr. Feeney have a worldly purpose, not a spiritual one.
-
7) permitted some of the first Ecuмenical gatherings
Of the 260 or so popes in history, there's a good chance 100-150 of them are in hell right now.
in every sense of the word, Pius XII's papacy led inexorably to Vatican II.
8) During WWII, enabled countless doubtful conversions of you know who and also created fake jobs within the Vatican for some of their most illustrious to safely ride it out in anticipation of 1948.
-
8) During WWII, enabled countless doubtful conversions of you know who and also created fake jobs within the Vatican for some of their most illustrious to safely ride it out in anticipation of 1948.
Oh, yeah, forgot about that one ... fake Baptismal certificates to say the least, which I personally find to be of highly questionable morality. Church has always taken Baptismal certificates VERY seriously, requiring them for some of the other Sacraments and accepting them as proof of Baptism. If there are many fakes floating around out there, then the calls many of them into question as to whether they mean anything at all.
-
Oh, yeah, forgot about that one ... fake Baptismal certificates to say the least, which I personally find to be of highly questionable morality. Church has always taken Baptismal certificates VERY seriously, requiring them for some of the other Sacraments and accepting them as proof of Baptism. If there are many fakes floating around out there, then the calls many of them into question as to whether they mean anything at all.
Right, I have always had I problem with Pius XII "faking" baptismal certificates for the Jews. We can never do evil that good become of it, as St. Paul tells us. I have never verified that Pope Pius did this. It could be that that Pius never happened. Are the fake certificates out there?
-
The problem with this syllogism, as with all bad logic, is that the author of the syllogism should have argued from a particular premise, not a universal premise. The Major ought to read, "Some American Catholics are hopelessly infected with the Calvinistic values of the USA environment." And we would answer, so what is your conclusion? You have no conclusion; because you cannot argue from a particular premise.
This is not meant to be a real syllogism. It is composed this way intentionally to reflect the thought and attitudes of French SSPX clergy in the 1980s and 90s
Did you ever interact with them? If so, you would understand.
-
Bellato starting this thread in the Anonymous subforum was an abuse of the subforum.
It is NOT so you (and others) can take cheap shots at your opponents without consequences.
It is for SENSITIVE TOPICS ONLY, where you have good reason to keep your privacy.
The difference between the two is stark, there is ZERO grey area, and it's not rocket science.
"My spouse is withdrawing from me..." <---- OK
"I feel tempted to despair" <---- OK
"Sedevacantists are real jerks aren't they" <---- Not OK
"Ladislaus should be _____" <--- Not OK
The last 2 are obviously using Anonymous as a CLOAK for some agenda. Whether it's promoting a cause, a group, or attacking an individual.
YOU SHOW ME A GREY AREA TOPIC and I'll quickly, happily, tell you which category it belongs in.
-
The difference between the two is stark, there is ZERO grey area, and it's not rocket science.
Thanks, Matthew. There was another thread that digressed, but IMO the thread itself was legitimate, reporting on the "goings on" at Sanford SSPX chapel. It's quite possibly coming from someone who attends the chapel and would prefer not to be known by the priests and therefore put in a difficult situation while trying to attends Mass, receive the Sacraments, etc.
-
Given that Bellato has made only 129 posts in nearly 8.5 years, that also suggests it was a troll job rather than as the result of normal participation in the forum.
It's also an abuse of polling, where the poll question begs the question.
It's the equivalent of making a poll, "How evil are Feeneyites?" Polls are meant to find out, say, what percentage of participants in CI think one way or another, and not as a satirical trolling slam against them.
-
This is not meant to be a real syllogism. It is composed this way intentionally to reflect the thought and attitudes of French SSPX clergy in the 1980s and 90s
Did you ever interact with them? If so, you would understand.
I appreciate the clarification, and I was not accusing you of being the author of the syllogism, faulty as it is. I was in the SSPX seminary in the 90's for three years, and the general attitude then was that liberalism was unique to America, "Americanism" if you will. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic world, in Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, even in Italy, had all been liberalized by the early 1900's. And what Fr. Feeney was fighting - liberalism (Harvard)- was not just an American phenomenon. That was my point.
-
7) permitted some of the first Ecuмenical gatherings
Such as?
-
I was in the SSPX seminary in the 90's for three years, and the general attitude then was that liberalism was unique to America, "Americanism" if you will. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic world, in Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, even in Italy, had all been liberalized by the early 1900's. And what Fr. Feeney was fighting - liberalism (Harvard)- was not just an American phenomenon. That was my point.
I was at STAS in the late 1980s.
And, indeed, Liberalism was and had been ubiquitous in western society since the Renaissance.
Back in the 80s and into the 90s, a goodly number of the unbathed Frenchies (when visting Ecône I thought I was smelling the sulphurs of hell) were rashly critical of Fr. Feeney because of their own false critiques and prejudices of American Catholics in addition to their poor formation in soteriology.
-
Amen, I can verify the "unbathed Frenchies." What is it with France that they do not believe in general hygiene? I always dreaded the Sunday soccer matches because I knew that Vespers was going to be a "rough," knowing that the Frenchmen had no problem with body odor.
The condemnation of Fr. Feeney was never about some subtle theological distinction, whether unbaptized catechumens make it to heaven, etc. It was about the doctrine that one must become a Catholic if he wants to be saved. This is basic Catholic theology, and it is because of this theology that all twelve of the Apostles were put to death. "You are in the world, but you are not of the world. The world will hate you."
-
The condemnation of Fr. Feeney was never about some subtle theological distinction, whether unbaptized catechumens make it to heaven, etc. It was about the doctrine that one must become a Catholic if he wants to be saved. This is basic Catholic theology, and it is because of this theology that all twelve of the Apostles were put to death. "You are in the world, but you are not of the world. The world will hate you."
This! ^^^ 🎯
-
Such as?
Seems like a good time to re-post evidence against the criminal who started the whole smear campaign against the dogma and Fr. Feeney - and for his efforts was later elevated to Cardinal....
Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing)
Archbishop of Boston Cushing, was made a Cardinal of the Catholic Church by Pope John XXXIII in 1958.
He was also one of the cardinal electors in the 1963 papal conclave, which selected Pope Paul VI.
He was on good terms with practically the entire Boston elite.
Cushing built useful(?) relationships with Jєωs, Protestants, and institutions outside the usual Catholic community.
At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jєωs of deicide charge.
He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church.[16] In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades.
He was a member of the NAACP.
Oh, and his sister was married to a Jєω
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1928&dat=19450525&id=_JYgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=P2gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3355,4088610) May 1945 - Cushing attends interfaith dinner
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=958&dat=19481127&id=YTlQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Y1YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2185,630152) Nov. 1948 - Archbishop Cushing, dwelling on the need for brotherhood, pledged the friendship of American Catholics with Jєωs.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19490427&id=P-lOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EAAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1853,4616441) April 1949 - Archbishop Cushing says teaching the dogma of No salvation outside the Church is “teaching ideas leading to bigotry.” Group is censured for publishing quarterly magazine contending that persons dying outside the Church could not be saved.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19490422&id=2FwbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QE0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=1867,2814290) April 1949 - New catechism is changed, now upholds Boston College and Archbishop Cushing claim that there is salvation outside the Church.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19491029&id=0bwhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s5wFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5541,3830000) Oct. 1949 - Fr. Feeney silenced by Archbishop Cushing for preaching there is no salvation outside the Church.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19490427&id=P-lOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EAAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1853,4616441) April 1949 - Cushing states: “This absolute requirement of an explicit desire to join the Catholic Church, as a condition of salvation is clearly wrong. All theologians hold that faith and charity or perfect contrition involving an implicit desire to join the Church suffice for salvation.” (Sounds like LoT, Ambrose, &etc.)
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19530220&id=ogMiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=k00EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2424,1672479) Feb. 1953 - Cushing excommunicated “heresy priest” for disobedience, not for heresy.
Link (http://www.jta.org/1970/11/04/archive/Jєωιѕн-leaders-express-sorrow-at-death-of-cardinal-cushing)
Nov. 1970 - Cardinal Cushing receives praise from the Jєωs
Jєωιѕн leaders expressed sorrow today over the death yesterday at the age of 75 of Richard Cardinal Cushing. Archbishop of Boston since 1944 and a friend of Israel and the Jєωs. Philip E. Hoffman, president of the American Jєωιѕн Committee, said “Jєωιѕн people throughout the world will always remember with satisfaction Cardinal Cushing’s efforts to achieve an honest and meaningful statement on the Roman Catholic Church and the Jєωs five years ago in Rome at the Second Vatican Council.” Cardinal Cushing he said, “was at the forefront in this tremendously important endeavor,” and “the positive results of Vatican Council II will be a lasting memorial to the Cardinal.” World Jєωry. Mr. Hoffman said, “has lost a friend and champion.” Seymour Graubard, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. said Jєωs the world over will always remember the dramatic plea Cardinal Cushing made on the floor of Vatican Council II five years ago in Rome. “His distinctive voice echoed through the chamber as he asked the Council to “cry out” against “any inequity, hatred or persecution of our Jєωιѕн brothers,”
The UAHC official added that Cardinal Cushing “was a liberal in the truest sense of the word, practicing the principles of ecuмenism long before the term became fashionable.”
Cardinal Cushing, whose efforts at ecuмenism extended to ѕуηαgσgυє oratory, received a rare tribute when he implored Vatican Council II to reject the doctrine of Jєωιѕн guilt for the death of Jesus. The bishops, who normally do not applaud speakers, did so for him.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19770701&id=Qo1jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=93kNAAAAIBAJ&pg=7089,109998) July 1977 - Fr. Feeney, silenced in 1949, excommunicated in 1953 for condemning the teachings of Boston College that persons outside the Church could attain salvation after death, was reinstated in 1972 without having to recant his position.
-
Seems like a good time to re-post evidence against the criminal who started the whole smear campaign against the dogma and Fr. Feeney - and for his efforts was later elevated to Cardinal....
Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing)
Archbishop of Boston Cushing, was made a Cardinal of the Catholic Church by Pope John XXXIII in 1958.
He was also one of the cardinal electors in the 1963 papal conclave, which selected Pope Paul VI.
He was on good terms with practically the entire Boston elite.
Cushing built useful(?) relationships with Jєωs, Protestants, and institutions outside the usual Catholic community.
At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jєωs of deicide charge.
He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church.[16] In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades.
He was a member of the NAACP.
Oh, and his sister was married to a Jєω
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1928&dat=19450525&id=_JYgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=P2gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3355,4088610) May 1945 - Cushing attends interfaith dinner
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=958&dat=19481127&id=YTlQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Y1YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2185,630152) Nov. 1948 - Archbishop Cushing, dwelling on the need for brotherhood, pledged the friendship of American Catholics with Jєωs.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19490427&id=P-lOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EAAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1853,4616441) April 1949 - Archbishop Cushing says teaching the dogma of No salvation outside the Church is “teaching ideas leading to bigotry.” Group is censured for publishing quarterly magazine contending that persons dying outside the Church could not be saved.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19490422&id=2FwbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QE0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=1867,2814290) April 1949 - New catechism is changed, now upholds Boston College and Archbishop Cushing claim that there is salvation outside the Church.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19491029&id=0bwhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s5wFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5541,3830000) Oct. 1949 - Fr. Feeney silenced by Archbishop Cushing for preaching there is no salvation outside the Church.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19490427&id=P-lOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EAAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1853,4616441) April 1949 - Cushing states: “This absolute requirement of an explicit desire to join the Catholic Church, as a condition of salvation is clearly wrong. All theologians hold that faith and charity or perfect contrition involving an implicit desire to join the Church suffice for salvation.” (Sounds like LoT, Ambrose, &etc.)
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19530220&id=ogMiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=k00EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2424,1672479) Feb. 1953 - Cushing excommunicated “heresy priest” for disobedience, not for heresy.
Link (http://www.jta.org/1970/11/04/archive/Jєωιѕн-leaders-express-sorrow-at-death-of-cardinal-cushing)
Nov. 1970 - Cardinal Cushing receives praise from the Jєωs
Jєωιѕн leaders expressed sorrow today over the death yesterday at the age of 75 of Richard Cardinal Cushing. Archbishop of Boston since 1944 and a friend of Israel and the Jєωs. Philip E. Hoffman, president of the American Jєωιѕн Committee, said “Jєωιѕн people throughout the world will always remember with satisfaction Cardinal Cushing’s efforts to achieve an honest and meaningful statement on the Roman Catholic Church and the Jєωs five years ago in Rome at the Second Vatican Council.” Cardinal Cushing he said, “was at the forefront in this tremendously important endeavor,” and “the positive results of Vatican Council II will be a lasting memorial to the Cardinal.” World Jєωry. Mr. Hoffman said, “has lost a friend and champion.” Seymour Graubard, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. said Jєωs the world over will always remember the dramatic plea Cardinal Cushing made on the floor of Vatican Council II five years ago in Rome. “His distinctive voice echoed through the chamber as he asked the Council to “cry out” against “any inequity, hatred or persecution of our Jєωιѕн brothers,”
The UAHC official added that Cardinal Cushing “was a liberal in the truest sense of the word, practicing the principles of ecuмenism long before the term became fashionable.”
Cardinal Cushing, whose efforts at ecuмenism extended to ѕуηαgσgυє oratory, received a rare tribute when he implored Vatican Council II to reject the doctrine of Jєωιѕн guilt for the death of Jesus. The bishops, who normally do not applaud speakers, did so for him.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19770701&id=Qo1jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=93kNAAAAIBAJ&pg=7089,109998) July 1977 - Fr. Feeney, silenced in 1949, excommunicated in 1953 for condemning the teachings of Boston College that persons outside the Church could attain salvation after death, was reinstated in 1972 without having to recant his position.
I'm aware of all that and more, I know interfaith meetings were held under Pius XII, I wonder, however, whether he gave his explicit approval or whether it is possible he was unaware as with Fr. Feeney.
-
I'm aware of all that and more, I know interfaith meetings were held under Pius XII, I wonder, however, whether he gave his explicit approval or whether it is possible he was unaware as with Fr. Feeney.
I remember in one of his talks, Fr. O'Connor was saying the one who wields the most power is not the one in charge, it's the one who is second in command, because he's the one who gets all the info first hand, then filters as he sees fit before passing whatever info he wants to to his boss. In this case we're talking about the pope and whomever he depended on.
So I don't think PPXII was completely unaware, but who really knows? I don't know who fed PPXII whatever information he got, but that's the guy, IMO, who gets the lion's share of the blame for what happened in those days.
-
Amen, I can verify the "unbathed Frenchies."
Yes, I've posted this story before. After we entered STAS, we had to read/study the seminary rule. There was a provision in there about bathing/showering once a week, saying that seminarians should bathe/shower once a week. We nearly all found this to be a tremendous mortification. One day, Bishop Williamson "got wind" of this and informed us during his spiritual conference that we had to understand that the rule was written by the French for French seminaries, and the provision meant that you had to bathe/shower AT LEAST once a week. After the spiritual conference and dinner, the showers were running non-stop until just before Compline. :laugh1:
-
The condemnation of Fr. Feeney was never about some subtle theological distinction, whether unbaptized catechumens make it to heaven, etc. It was about the doctrine that one must become a Catholic if he wants to be saved. This is basic Catholic theology, and it is because of this theology that all twelve of the Apostles were put to death. "You are in the world, but you are not of the world. The world will hate you."
Of course, but the enemies of EENS have made it about "Baptism of Desire" on purpose. To an extent, I consider the question of BoD for Catechumens or catechumen-like individuals, to be an academic dispute and a question of speculative theology, since it hasn't been settled by the Church. Problem comes from BoD being used used as the chief weapon for undermining EENS dogma. And every time you try to set aside the BoD issue and focus on EENS, the anti-EENS crowd keep returning to BoD and hiding behind it.
-
I'm aware of all that and more, I know interfaith meetings were held under Pius XII, I wonder, however, whether he gave his explicit approval or whether it is possible he was unaware as with Fr. Feeney.
I believe that there were some that he explicitly permitted ad experimentum. Of course, once you do that, all the Modernists will interpret that as license to go hog wild with their Ecuмenical endeavors.
Pius XII did lots of stuff like that, such as permitting discussion of evolution, where he should have just completely shut it down. Once you open that can of worms, there's no closing it. You give the Modernists an inch, and they'll take a mile. He needed to hammer down with an iron fist on these developments, like St. Pius X did.
-
Yes, I've posted this story before. After we entered STAS, we had to read/study the seminary rule. There was a provision in there about bathing/showering once a week, saying that seminarians should bathe/shower once a week. We nearly all found this to be a tremendous mortification. One day, Bishop Williamson "got wind" of this and informed us during his spiritual conference that we had to understand that the rule was written by the French for French seminaries, and the provision meant that you had to bathe/shower AT LEAST once a week. After the spiritual conference and dinner, the showers were running non-stop until just before Compline. :laugh1:
Yup. I used to stand in the shower at 5:58 a.m. waiting for the 6:00 a.m. bell to turn on the shower.
Remember those awful fans in the lavatory windows? If they were not running to ventilate the shower room, the restroom temperature would drop into the 40s during winter. 🥶
-
By not signing the pseudo holy office letter?
.
No, a real pope excommunicated Leonard Feeney and posted the excommunication notice in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis so there could be no question as to its authenticity.
"What you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven."
-
.
No, a real pope excommunicated Leonard Feeney and posted the excommunication notice in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis so there could be no question as to its authenticity.
"What you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven."
The excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney had as much legitimacy as the excommunications of Msgrs. Lefebvre and de Castro-Mayer.
-
The excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney had as much legitimacy as the excommunications of Msgrs. Lefebvre and de Castro-Mayer.
.
No, Feeney was excommunicated by a true pope. Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. Castro Meyer were "excommunicated" by heretics and anti-popes.
-
Since I don't much about Fr. Feeney, I am hoping someone can give me a quick answer. Did Fr Feeney continue to say the Latin Mass up until his death?
-
No, Feeney was excommunicated by a true pope. Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. Castro Meyer were "excommunicated" by heretics and anti-popes.
Well, that was not the argument of Msgr. Lefebvre as given in press conferences, sermons, and writings in 1988. His Grace argued everything on the basis of canon 1323 4° & 7° from the new 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici.
He also argued that everything that had done subsequently to the 1974 Apostolic Visitation to the Écône seminary was contingent to the non-canonical "trial" of 1975 that condemned him and ordered the SSPX disbanded. This was a failure of justice and canonical jurisprudence. This is the same argument made by Fr. Feeney in regards to his disobedience case. Exactly the same.
-
Since I don't much about Fr. Feeney, I am hoping someone can give me a quick answer. Did Fr Feeney continue to say the Latin Mass up until his death?
Yes. And his supposed excommunication was lifted in 1972 without any recantation of his opinion on EENS or BOD/BOB since these had nothing to do with the supposed excommunication that was on zccount of disobedience. Further, his regularisation required only that he recite the creed. He chose to recite the Quicuмque Creed that repeats EENS. 😄
-
No, Feeney was excommunicated by a true pope. Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. Castro Meyer were "excommunicated" by heretics and anti-popes.
Well, the material grounds for the excommunication were faulty. Cushing and Father Feeney's Jesuit superiors were manifest heretics and had therefore ipso facto vacated their offices, and so there wasn't anyone for Father Feeney to be disobedient to.
Even if you believe it was legit (it was not, as his only crime was teaching EENS dogma while those around him denied it), he wasn't excommunicated for his doctrine.
-
Since I don't much about Fr. Feeney, I am hoping someone can give me a quick answer. Did Fr Feeney continue to say the Latin Mass up until his death?
Yes, we traveled to MA in 1973 for the TLM celebrated by him. I'm 99% sure he never said the NOM.
-
Yes, we traveled to MA in 1973 for the TLM celebrated by him. I'm 99% sure he never said the NOM.
I would have loved to meet Father Feeney and assist at one of his Masses, as well as that of Archbishop Thuc (a friend of mine, now Bishop Neal Webster, served Mass for him) ... but our paths never crossed.
-
Well, the material grounds for the excommunication were faulty. Cushing and Father Feeney's Jesuit superiors were manifest heretics and had therefore ipso facto vacated their offices, and so there wasn't anyone for Father Feeney to be disobedient to.
.
You are presuming Feeney is correct. But he is not correct. The idea of baptism of desire by implicit faith was taught by numerous theologians and none of them had been condemned. So Feeney does not have the authority to condemn a doctrine just because he disagrees with it.
Those days were very different from today inasmuch as there was a true pope who condemned error, so it's easy for people now to think theologians were all just writing heresy back then, but that is an anachronistic idea. In the time of Leonard Feeney, theologians were not permitted to write heresy, so Feeney's accusations of heresy were incorrect. And since they were incorrect, he still had a superior whom he disobeyed.
Let's leave the theology aside for a second and just look at this situation from a common sense point of view for a second. Does it really make sense that all these theologians were teaching heresy during the reign of an unquestionably true pope, and only one priest in the world happened to notice this? Really?
Even if you believe it was legit (it was not, as his only crime was teaching EENS dogma while those around him denied it)
I have said consistently that Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience. It's the Feeneyites who want to say he was excommunicated for his teaching, in order to make him into some sort of doctrinal hero.
Feeney was excommunicated for a protracted period of disobedience to his religious superiors, finally including the most sacred tribunal in the world, the Holy Office, who ordered him to come to Rome, whom he disobeyed.
It's obvious to me, from reading "The Loyolas and the Cabots", that for Feeney it was never about doctrine anyway. It was about having a creepy personality cult of people who worshiped him to the point where they refused to ever receive the sacraments from any other priest. He just used this supposed heresy as a tool for controlling those people who followed him, as a way of telling them he was the only priest they could ever get the sacraments from. This was clear from the beginning of the book. When he was first ordered to leave that place, that woman who ran it went in to the bishop and said they didn't want Feeney to leave. The bishop told her she should be willing to accept the ministrations of any priest, a most correct and Catholic principle. She responded that she refused to accept any priest who didn't teach them the same ideas as Feeney did. See? The goal was control all along.
This is made even more obvious when he was asked to go to Rome. If the purity of Catholic doctrine and the salvation of souls had been his goal all along, he would have jumped at the chance to go to Rome and report on the people who were causing so much scandal in America. But no, doctrine was never the goal. By that point he already had his weird little group of people who worshiped him, so he didn't need anything else after that, which is why he round-filed all the subsequent mail he got from his Jesuit superiors, the diocese of Boston, and even the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, which is its real name. The most sacred congregation on earth, operated directly by Christ's vicar. He continued to offer Mass and administer the sacraments even after his suspension and excommunication, which was sacrilegious.
Shame on that evil, wretched man.
-
Shame on that evil, wretched man.
Copied again so it is yours in time, and eternity.
JoeZ
-
Let's leave the theology aside for a second and just look at this situation from a common sense point of view for a second. Does it really make sense that all these theologians were teaching heresy during the reign of an unquestionably true pope, and only one priest in the world happened to notice this? Really?
Lets just ignore the teaching of the Church and go with personal opinions and feelings*
You're entire post is fallacious straw manning, in typical BoDer fashion you ignored everything that was contrary to your personal subjective cope.
-
Seems like a good time to re-post evidence against the criminal who started the whole smear campaign against the dogma and Fr. Feeney - and for his efforts was later elevated to Cardinal....
Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing)
Archbishop of Boston Cushing, was made a Cardinal of the Catholic Church by Pope John XXXIII in 1958.
He was also one of the cardinal electors in the 1963 papal conclave, which selected Pope Paul VI.
He was on good terms with practically the entire Boston elite.
Cushing built useful(?) relationships with Jєωs, Protestants, and institutions outside the usual Catholic community.
At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jєωs of deicide charge.
He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church.[16] In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades.
He was a member of the NAACP.
Oh, and his sister was married to a Jєω
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1928&dat=19450525&id=_JYgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=P2gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3355,4088610) May 1945 - Cushing attends interfaith dinner
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=958&dat=19481127&id=YTlQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Y1YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2185,630152) Nov. 1948 - Archbishop Cushing, dwelling on the need for brotherhood, pledged the friendship of American Catholics with Jєωs.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19490427&id=P-lOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EAAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1853,4616441) April 1949 - Archbishop Cushing says teaching the dogma of No salvation outside the Church is “teaching ideas leading to bigotry.” Group is censured for publishing quarterly magazine contending that persons dying outside the Church could not be saved.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19490422&id=2FwbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QE0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=1867,2814290) April 1949 - New catechism is changed, now upholds Boston College and Archbishop Cushing claim that there is salvation outside the Church.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19491029&id=0bwhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s5wFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5541,3830000) Oct. 1949 - Fr. Feeney silenced by Archbishop Cushing for preaching there is no salvation outside the Church.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19490427&id=P-lOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EAAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1853,4616441) April 1949 - Cushing states: “This absolute requirement of an explicit desire to join the Catholic Church, as a condition of salvation is clearly wrong. All theologians hold that faith and charity or perfect contrition involving an implicit desire to join the Church suffice for salvation.” (Sounds like LoT, Ambrose, &etc.)
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19530220&id=ogMiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=k00EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2424,1672479) Feb. 1953 - Cushing excommunicated “heresy priest” for disobedience, not for heresy.
Link (http://www.jta.org/1970/11/04/archive/Jєωιѕн-leaders-express-sorrow-at-death-of-cardinal-cushing)
Nov. 1970 - Cardinal Cushing receives praise from the Jєωs
Jєωιѕн leaders expressed sorrow today over the death yesterday at the age of 75 of Richard Cardinal Cushing. Archbishop of Boston since 1944 and a friend of Israel and the Jєωs. Philip E. Hoffman, president of the American Jєωιѕн Committee, said “Jєωιѕн people throughout the world will always remember with satisfaction Cardinal Cushing’s efforts to achieve an honest and meaningful statement on the Roman Catholic Church and the Jєωs five years ago in Rome at the Second Vatican Council.” Cardinal Cushing he said, “was at the forefront in this tremendously important endeavor,” and “the positive results of Vatican Council II will be a lasting memorial to the Cardinal.” World Jєωry. Mr. Hoffman said, “has lost a friend and champion.” Seymour Graubard, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. said Jєωs the world over will always remember the dramatic plea Cardinal Cushing made on the floor of Vatican Council II five years ago in Rome. “His distinctive voice echoed through the chamber as he asked the Council to “cry out” against “any inequity, hatred or persecution of our Jєωιѕн brothers,”
The UAHC official added that Cardinal Cushing “was a liberal in the truest sense of the word, practicing the principles of ecuмenism long before the term became fashionable.”
Cardinal Cushing, whose efforts at ecuмenism extended to ѕуηαgσgυє oratory, received a rare tribute when he implored Vatican Council II to reject the doctrine of Jєωιѕн guilt for the death of Jesus. The bishops, who normally do not applaud speakers, did so for him.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19770701&id=Qo1jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=93kNAAAAIBAJ&pg=7089,109998) July 1977 - Fr. Feeney, silenced in 1949, excommunicated in 1953 for condemning the teachings of Boston College that persons outside the Church could attain salvation after death, was reinstated in 1972 without having to recant his position.
To add to this per ascent of Mt Carmel on twitter.
Cushing was named the man of the year by the Committee of Catholics for Human Rights, which was later exposed as a communist front organization.
The president of the Catholic Committee on Human Rights was (perhaps not coincidentally) a Jew who converted to Catholicism, and whose brother was a formal member of the American Communist Party.
-
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.
Ok thinking about what has been said in this thread and re-reading this decree, it actually seems strange to me that baptism of desire could come from this decree.
"desire thereof", this either refers to the laver of regeneration or to justification itself, so that either desiring the justification justifies someone or that desiring the laver of regeneration justifies someone, this second opinion does not necessarily mean baptism by desire, since the laver is only the washing? or is it the entire sacrament? but baptism gives more than just justification, also the sacramental character.
Who was the first to write that Trent taught Baptism of desire?
There is also another issue, does the laver of regeneration justify someone who does not have the correct internal dispositions? If there is such a case then it would not make sense for this decree to mean either one or the other, but both being needed.
-
.
You are presuming Feeney is correct. But he is not correct.
You are ignoring the major part that +Cushing played in all of this. Do you think +Cushing was correct in saying and doing all these things (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/what-should-feeneyites-be-condemned-as/msg927995/#msg927995)?
Would you say he was a good bishop, or would you say he was one of the enemies?
Let's hear your thoughts on +Cushing.
-
You are ignoring the major part that +Cushing played in all of this. Do you think +Cushing was correct in saying and doing all these things (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/what-should-feeneyites-be-condemned-as/msg927995/#msg927995)?
Would you say he was a good bishop, or would you say he was one of the enemies?
Let's hear your thoughts on +Cushing.
.
A lot of the things listed there are pretty bad, but I didn't see anything that indicates Abp. Cushing was a heretic, at least before Vatican 2.
You are the one claiming that the idea of implicit faith is heretical, or that baptism of desire based on implicit faith is heretical. And yet this idea has been taught by theologians for many years, long before Vatican 2. It is even taught in the classic "DeHarbes" catechism from the 19th century.
You need something more than your own opinion to say something is heretical, as the Church pointed out to Feeney. You need a theologian to back it up, and I have not seen any Feeneyite put forward any theologian who said baptism of desire through implicit faith is heretical.
Moreover, even if your position were correct, it still would not justify any of Feeney's actions, nor would it excuse him from the guilt of disobedience, nor would it render his excommunication null. Your arguments are all just a red herring to take away from the evil the Feeney perpetrated.
I'm curious what you would say to this one -- if Feeney were so desperate to correct doctrinal errors in Massachusetts, why did he refuse to go to the highest doctrinal authority in the Church for vindication? You would think he would have been there in Rome from the very beginning of this controversy, pounding on the door of the Holy Office every morning before it opened, begging them to excommunicate Abp. Cushing and everyone else who taught implicit faith, and set the record straight.
I explained in my earlier post why I think he didn't do this, but I'm curious why you think so.
-
.
A lot of the things listed there are pretty bad, but I didn't see anything that indicates Abp. Cushing was a heretic, at least before Vatican 2.
You are the one claiming that the idea of implicit faith is heretical, or that baptism of desire based on implicit faith is heretical. And yet this idea has been taught by theologians for many years, long before Vatican 2. It is even taught in the classic "DeHarbes" catechism from the 19th century.
You need something more than your own opinion to say something is heretical, as the Church pointed out to Feeney. You need a theologian to back it up, and I have not seen any Feeneyite put forward any theologian who said baptism of desire through implicit faith is heretical.
Moreover, even if your position were correct, it still would not justify any of Feeney's actions, nor would it excuse him from the guilt of disobedience, nor would it render his excommunication null. Your arguments are all just a red herring to take away from the evil the Feeney perpetrated.
I'm curious what you would say to this one -- if Feeney were so desperate to correct doctrinal errors in Massachusetts, why did he refuse to go to the highest doctrinal authority in the Church for vindication? You would think he would have been there in Rome from the very beginning of this controversy, pounding on the door of the Holy Office every morning before it opened, begging them to excommunicate Abp. Cushing and everyone else who taught implicit faith, and set the record straight.
I explained in my earlier post why I think he didn't do this, but I'm curious why you think so.
Cushing was a heretic because he publicly denied EENS by calling it nonsense... don't get too caught up in the BoD part which came years after.
-
Ok thinking about what has been said in this thread and re-reading this decree, it actually seems strange to me that baptism of desire could come from this decree.
"desire thereof", this either refers to the laver of regeneration or to justification itself, so that either desiring the justification justifies someone or that desiring the laver of regeneration justifies someone, this second opinion does not necessarily mean baptism by desire, since the laver is only the washing? or is it the entire sacrament? but baptism gives more than just justification, also the sacramental character.
Who was the first to write that Trent taught Baptism of desire?
There is also another issue, does the laver of regeneration justify someone who does not have the correct internal dispositions? If there is such a case then it would not make sense for this decree to mean either one or the other, but both being needed.
Ask yourself this question; why didn't the fathers at Trent just say baptism or the desire thereof?
Because the term laver of regeneration is used here to mean the ritual of baptism alone, absent the intent to be baptized. Trent is saying that minister, form, and matter are necessary as well as intent. So minister, form, matter, and intent of the sacrament are necessary for justification. It's such a simple Catholic thought that a child can understand.
JoeZ
-
.
A lot of the things listed there are pretty bad, but I didn't see anything that indicates Abp. Cushing was a heretic, at least before Vatican 2.
Again, you are ignoring the role +Cushing played in censoring Fr. Feeney. You can tell me what I think all day long but I asked if you think +Cushing was correct in saying and doing all those ecuмenical, anti-Catholic things. I presume you believe he was incorrect. I presume you would agree that +Cushing, being one of the major front runners of the NO, was one who was well ahead of his time. I say he was ahead of his time because those things he did back then were basically unheard of, but are common place since V2.
+Cushing, the Judas, publicly denied the dogma EENS whereas Fr. Feeney publicly preached he dogma EENS. He told Fr. Feeney to shut up about the dogma, when Fr. Feeney refused, THAT'S when +Cushing pulled rank and resources to slander and silence Fr. Feeney. You demonstrate that this pleases you. Just letting you know.
-
A lot of the things listed there are pretty bad, but I didn't see anything that indicates Abp. Cushing was a heretic, at least before Vatican 2.
You're kidding, right? Cushing said publicly (manifestly): "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's gonna tell me that Christ came to die for any select group." That nobody includes the Church with her dogmatic definitions of EENS.
This is just intellectual dishonesty on your part. You hold practically all Novus Ordites to be manifest heretics for holding things like Religious Liberty (of which Cushing was also an ardent proponent), but then decide that Cushing is exempt simply because it causes serious problems for your sedevacantist position.
-
Ask yourself this question; why didn't the fathers at Trent just say baptism or the desire thereof?
Because the term laver of regeneration is used here to mean the ritual of baptism alone, absent the intent to be baptized. Trent is saying that minister, form, and matter are necessary as well as intent. So minister, form, matter, and intent of the sacrament are necessary for justification. It's such a simple Catholic thought that a child can understand.
JoeZ
Yes, and this is the argument for the different reading of Trent than the BoDer one ... and I find it convincing.
Someone can receive the laver without the votum (all the proper dispositions), but that person is NOT justified. While the Sacrament (the laver) is validly administered, it fails to have its effect of justifying an individual absent the votum.
In fact, Trent explicitly condemned it as heretical to say that the Sacrament justifies even if the individual does not have the proper dispositions (pre-empting the Protestant smear that we believed that the Sacrament is some kind of magic that doesn't require cooperation of the will, and the word votum in Latin is related linguistically to the world "to will").
There are so many problems with the BoDer reading of this passage in Trent that I find it 99% certain that this was not intended.
Here's the problem in a nutshell, by way of analogy.
"I cannot write a letter without a pencil or a pen." This means that either OR suffices (the BoDer reading).
"We cannot have the wedding without the bride or the groom." This means that BOTH are required and that if either one is missing we cannot have the wedding.
If you read Trent the first way, as most BoDers do, the logical corollary thereof is that one can be justified by the laver WITHOUT the votum (condemned as heretical by Trent) or else can be justified by the votum WITHOUT the Sacrament. I won't go into more detail, since we've spent dozens of pages on it.
-
In fact, Trent explicitly condemned it as heretical to say that the Sacrament justifies even if the individual does not have the proper dispositions
Re the odd case of Saint Genesius of Rome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesius_of_Rome#Hagiography):
One day Genesius, leader of a theatrical troupe in Rome, was performing before the Roman Emperor Diocletian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian). Intending to expose Christian religious rites to ridicule by his audience, he pretended to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesius_of_Rome#cite_note-mershman-2)
As the play continued, however, Genesius suddenly while performing had a conversion experience on stage. He announced his new faith, and refused to renounce it, even when ordered to do so by emperor Diocletian.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesius_of_Rome#cite_note-3) Genesius persisted in his faith, and he was finally ordered to be beheaded.
According to Butler's (https://www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/lives-of-the-saints/volume-viii-august/st-genesius-a-comedian-martyr):
Note 1. The baptism which he received on the stage was no more than a representation of that sacrament, for want of a serious intention of performing the Christian rite; but St. Genesius was baptized in desire, with true contrition, and also in his own blood.
Or did Trent consider the pre-Edict martyrs as a distinct set rather than as grounds for antiquarian precedent?
-
Re the odd case of Saint Genesius of Rome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesius_of_Rome#Hagiography):
According to Butler's (https://www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/lives-of-the-saints/volume-viii-august/st-genesius-a-comedian-martyr):
Or did Trent consider the pre-Edict martyrs as a distinct set rather than as grounds for antiquarian precedent?
I have read that his conversion came about as he was being "mock baptised", so that it actually was a valid baptism. This may be of use to someone who can read Latin, St. Genesius' entry in Acta Sanctorum