Author Topic: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching (Read 7685 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** August 09, 2017, 05:24:10 AM »

So to with the Feeneyites. Sadly events leading up to Vatican 2 and after within the Novus Ordo structure which apes the Catholic Church and was founded by Montini taught all religions are more or less good having a salvific relevance.

This caused many Catholics who saw what was going on with this future Novus Ordo heresy being spread by various bishops and knew where it lead – to a relativistic mentality in regards to religion which would quite literally lead most into becoming in practice – Atheists. The reason being that once one decides all religions are more or less good then ultimately no religion is good, for if contradictory religions can all be true then truth is nonexistent and we need not follow any creed. If it is possible to be saved in false religions which have a lax or no morality that needs to be adhered to for salvation then there is no need to be a member of any religion let alone the one true religion, outside of which there is no salvation.

The sad result of this predicament was that many in order to protect the Dogma which infallibly declares that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church to over-react with an equal and opposite heresy which teaches that no one at all is saved apart from sacramental baptism and that one must be a member of the Church in order for salvation to be possible. This is really quite a natural solution for the unlearned and good willed to come to and for clergy as well who were not theologians such as Father Feeney.

But was this pious reaction a correct one? First let us look at the standard definition of “membership” before we understand what those who are now referred to as Feeneyites i.e. the followers of father Feeney are referring to when they claim only members can be inside the Church:

Only those who have been baptized, who profess the true faith, who have not miserably separated themselves from the fabric of the Body and who have not, by reason of very serious crimes, been expelled by legitimate authority, are actually to be counted as members of the Church. (Pius XII, Mytici Corporis)

As we can see one cannot be a member of the Church according to the standard technical definition since the time of Bellarmine without actually being baptized with water.

To get to the crux of the controversy we must understand a few things. First of all there are pure feeneyites who believe there is no salvation apart from water. This means that there is no such thing as baptism of blood i.e. when one dies for the faith or Christ or baptism of the Holy Ghost which is what is known as “baptism of desire” where one dies in a state of sanctifying grace having a supernatural faith and perfect charity when sacramental baptism is impossible.

A person who has died without sacramental baptism is not a member within the Church according to the Feeneyite and therefore cannot be saved within the Church. If they were good willed some basically say God would have forced baptism on them despite their inculpable ignorance of its necessity.

The council of Trent taught (after the Council of Florence) as follows:

Decree on Justification, Session VI, Chapter 4: "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."

Session VII, Concerning the Sacraments in General, Canon 4 (Denz 847): "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

Now we are mainly dealing with the errors of laypeople today. People who are not as learned as the traditional clergy and are far less learned than Bonafide theologians. Father Feeney was more learned to be sure than the average lay-person but was no theologian. Any intellectually honest person with the facts on this point will admit this. But being fluent in Latin this teaching which he could read in the original Latin gave Father Feeney an admitted difficulty with the idea that one must be sacramentally baptized in order for salvation to be possible.

Father Feeney understood what the council clearly taught, that one cannot be saved apart from baptism or the desire thereof. But in his over-reaction to universal salvation heresy (the properly reaction is to the heresy is to reject it rather than come up with an equal and opposite heresy to offset it) he became entrenched in the idea that one must be sacramentally baptized for salvation to be possible. He may have truly believed this himself interiorly or may have wanted to fight the spreading of the universal salivation heresy by holding a rigid and false interpretation of the “No Salvation Outside the Church” dogma. So in order to get out of the plain meaning of what Trent taught he came up with the idea that one can be justified by the desire for baptism (and the other requisites such as supernatural faith and perfect charity) but not saved. For him a justified person did not go to heaven but it was a mystery what happened to such a soul.

Since the time of Feeney admitting that Trent actually teaches that one is justified by baptism or the desire thereof the mainstream feeneyites of our day have concocted the idea that Trent actually teaches the opposite of what it says i.e. that the desire for baptism absolutely cannot be salvific. This is the main objection I will be dealing with i.e. there is no salvation apart from sacramental baptism or more simply put (much like the protestants teach faith alone and bible alone) there is no salvation apart from water (water alone).

The modern layperson, generally speaking who holds to the Feeneyite heresy having a lack of theological knowledge seemingly is obliged to have a lack of charity to go along with it. In the onslaught of all the authoritative teachings presented to them which contradicts their interpretation of Trent and their novel idea that there is no salvation apart from water they, like retarded apes or willfully blind Protestants taking a quote out of context in order to teach a falsity as being true, put out a certain quote with all sorts of emphasis:

It [the sacrosanct Roman Church, established by the voice of Our Lord and Saviour] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that none of those who do not exist within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jєωs, heretics, and schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but that they are going into the everlasting fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they become associated with it (nisi . . . eidem fuerint agregati) before they die. And [it firmly believes, professes, and teaches] that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such value that the Church’s sacraments are profitable unto salvation, and that fastings, almsgivings, and the other duties of piety and exercises of the Christian militancy, bring forth eternal rewards only for those who remain within it [the unity of the ecclesiastical body]: and that, however great his almsgiving may be, and even though he might shed his blood for the name of Christ, no one can be saved unless he remains within the embrace and the unity of the Catholic Church. [Denz., 714.]

They, like the Protestants who believe that the bible contradicts Catholic teaching believe the above contradicts what all the below taught before Trent:

St. Cyprian, Church Father (3^rd Century)

Tertullian, Church Father (3^rd Century)

St. Hippolytus of Rome (3rd century)

St. John Chrystostome, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century)

St. Basil, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century)

Eusebius of Caesarea, Church Father (4th Century)

St. Victor of Braga, (4th Century)

St. Genesius of Arles, (4th Century)

Rufinus, Church Father (4th Century)

St. Gregory nαzιanzen, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century)

St. Pope Siricius (4th Century)

St. Ambrose, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Church (4th Century)

St. Augustine, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th-5th Century)

St. Prosper of Aquitaine (5th century)

St. Fulgentius (6th Century)

St. John of Damascus, Doctor of the Church (7th-8th Century)

St. Bede, Doctor of the Church (8th century)

St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church (12th century)

Pope Innocent II (12th Century)

St. Bonaventure, Doctor of the Church (13^th century)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church (13^th century)

Pope Innocent III (13^th century)

St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century)

And Trent, somehow teaching the opposite of what it says set them all straight. They feel compelled (for obvious reasons) to accept Trent because the tend to accept only solemn or extraordinary teachings of the Church, and they admit what it taught in a council must be accepted.
But strangely the Catechisms, theologians, the official liturgy of the Church, canon law, Saints, Doctors and Popes went right on teaching that one can be saved by the desire for baptism after Trent, supposedly not being as qualified to interpret it correctly as the 21^st century lay feeneyites are.

Catechism of the Council of Trent (16^th century)

The New Testament, translated to English at the College of Rheims, 1582 (16^th century)

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church (16^th century)

The Douay Catechism (17^th century)

Roman Breviary (17th century)

Feeneyites often object saying “but where is BOD taught as being de fide?” As if a Catholic is only to accept what is taught de fide. The answer is as follows:

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church (18^th century): Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" (Note: Unbelievers can see the original book in Latin here. Turn to page 310 in the book (or page 157 of the PDF file).

Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: "Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious."

On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."

And after this, more taught that which the 21^st century lay feeneyites wish us to believe is contrary to what Trent taught:

Pope Pius IX (19^th century)

Baltimore Catechism (19^th and 20^th centuries)

St. Pope Pius X (early 20^th century): Catechism of Christian Doctrine (Catechism of St. Pius X):


Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913)

Canon Law (1917)

A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law (Augustine, 1918)

A Catholic Dictionary (~1931-1958)

Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston (Directly approved by Pope Pius XII, August 8, 1949)

Pope Pius XII (Oct. 29, 1951)

Obviously any sane and good willed Catholic would accept all that was taught in regards to Baptism of Blood and Baptism of the Holy Ghost “Baptism of Desire” even if only a fraction of the above authorities taught it, and they certainly wouldn’t claim them all to be wrong and insist we cannot accept the teachings on a issue that Catechisms, theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes all teach.

But our 21^st century lay Feeneyite friends do just that?

But not to the quote in question, they one they claim all the others listed above must of either somehow missed or just didn't understand like our scholarly 21st century lay feeneyite experts:

Quote

It [the sacrosanct Roman Church, established by the voice of Our Lord and Saviour] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that none of those who do not exist within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jєωs, heretics, and schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but that they are going into the everlasting fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they become associated with it (nisi . . . eidem fuerint agregati) before they die. And [it firmly believes, professes, and teaches] that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such value that the Church’s sacraments are profitable unto salvation, and that fastings, almsgivings, and the other duties of piety and exercises of the Christian militancy, bring forth eternal rewards only for those who remain within it [the unity of the ecclesiastical body]: and that, however great his almsgiving may be, and even though he might shed his blood for the name of Christ, no one can be saved unless he remains within the embrace and the unity of the Catholic Church. [Denz., 714.]

San Bernardino · « **Reply #1 on:** August 12, 2017, 01:22:55 AM »

Father Feeney is simply a diversion that modernist heretics use because they can't address the Dogmatic facts.

"Baptism" of desire and blood are doctrines of man.

All the saints who taught it contradicted themselves. Some specifically believed in 'b.o.d' and others only believed in 'b.o.b'.

St.Cyprian also taught that heretics cannot validly baptize [he was wrong]

The Majority of the Church Fathers believed that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived with original sin[they were wrong]

St. Gregory nαzιenzen rejected 'b.o.d'.

St.Fulgentius only taught 'b.o.b'

Stop cherry picking from the Saints, that's condemned:

"When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope." –Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII, Errors of the Jansenists, Dec. 7, 1690

The saints are NOT infallible, the Church is.

Also the saints who taught these erroneous doctrines ONLY applied them to unbaptized catechumens. Unlike today, where all the modernist heretics apply it to non-Catholics.

St. Augustine was one of the greatest theologians. He was not infallible. He wrote a book of Retractions. If you find a teaching in Augustine, you can’t just say, 'It’s in Augustine. I'm going to hold it no matter what', even if it doesn’t add up, even if it’s inconsistent with something of greater weight. No, you cannot just hold it. That’s a religion of man.

As Pope Benedict XIV declared in Apostolica (#6), June 26, 1749: "The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching."

Here is a quote that modernists will never use:

Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, 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."

In his decree, Pope St. Siricius infallibly teaches that all those who desire water baptism, but die without receiving it, will not be saved. He thus directly denies the concept of 'baptism of desire'. The pope even speaks of people in danger and necessity who desire water baptism. He teaches that they cannot be saved without water baptism, which he identifies as the unique help of faith. He teaches that being baptized is their only hope of salvation. Pope St. Siricius' decree is infallible. His decree also demonstrates that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, in addition to the Solemn Magisterium, directly contradicts the idea of 'baptism of desire'.

The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that it’s absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam). It also infallibly teaches that the Church and the Roman Pontiff do not and cannot exercise jurisdiction over those who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism (see the Council of Trent. Sess. 14, Chap. 2).

Since it’s absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Church and the Roman Pontiff, and a human creature cannot be subject to the Church and the Roman Pontiff without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, it follows that every human creature must receive the Sacrament of Baptism to be saved. There is simply no way around this argument.

In the first dogmatic definition of Outside the Church There is No Salvation, Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 infallibly defined that: "There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” The Church is dogmatically defined as the faithful, and any salvation outside of the faithful is emphatically excluded with the words nullus omnino (no one at all). Well, only the water baptized are part of the faithful. That’s clear from Church teaching, Tradition and liturgy. The unbaptized, including unbaptized catechumens, were explicitly excluded from the category of the faithful.

Consider, for example, the Mass of the Catechumens (the unbaptized) versus the Mass of the faithful (the baptized). Since only the water baptized are part of the faithful, as we learn from Church teaching, Tradition and liturgy, and it’s infallibly certain that there is no salvation whatsoever outside the faithful, as the Church has defined, it follows that there is absolutely no salvation for those not water baptized.

It’s interesting to note that God not only never allowed the Magisterium to teach baptism of desire or blood, even in the years leading to the fall of Rome and the Masonic synod [Vatican II], but the Magisterium in that post-Trent, post-Vatican I period officially taught the same doctrine. It repeated the true doctrine of the Church: that no one can be a member of the Church without the Sacrament of Baptism, and that no one can be saved without it.

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, Ex Cathedra: "... the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13)."

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

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, Ex Cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema."

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, Ex Cathedra: "If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema."

NOW

The quotes you provided from Trent which mentions 'desire' IS NOT REFERRING TO 'b.o.d', because if it was as you can tell from the above quote there would be a clear contradiction.

During the 16th century Catholics were 'baptizing' Jєωs by force! This is invalid. You cannot take a water bottle and chase non-Catholics if they don't want to be baptized!

The reason the word "desire" is mentioned in the context of Sess. 6, Chap. 4 is that this chapter of Trent’s decree deals with adult justification: iustificationis impii (the justification of the impious). “Impious” is a strong description that concerns those above the age of reason who are guilty of actual and mortal sin. In chapter 4 and the following chapters of the Decree on Justification, Trent is concerned with justification for those above the age of reason, as the context clearly shows. It was in Session 5 on Original Sin that Trent dealt with infants’ transition to justification. As is the case with adults, the only way for infants to be justified is through the Sacrament of Baptism. However, since adults and those above reason must also desire the sacrament in order to be justified by it, chapter 4 of Trent specified that justification cannot happen without a desire.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, p. 180: "INTENTION ... In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it..."

DZ PLEASE · « **Reply #2 on:** August 12, 2017, 01:33:08 AM »

"WhyCathinfo is LoL's Blog"

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** August 12, 2017, 09:01:53 AM »

Yes, this is the usual LoT slander against those of us who don't believe in BoD.

LoT has a combination of dull wits and bad will that won't allow him to see the distinction we make.

No Feeneyite "hates" Catholic teaching. If we hated Catholic teaching, we would leave the Church.

We DISPUTE LoT's interpretation of some Catholic teaching and consider BoD not to be Catholic teaching but, rather, a product of spectulative theology. We admit that it has become very widely held, but it's clearly nothing more than an opinion. We liken it to the opinion that was universally held for about 700 years regarding the fate of unbaptized infants ... an opinion that was eventually overturned and rejected by the Church. Dispute this if you will, but do NOT tell us that we "hate" Catholic teaching. I demand a public retraction of this mortally sinful slander.

But LoT insists upon constantly slandering us. We disagree with his interpretation of what Trent taught, so LoT slanders us by claiming that we "hate" Trent. It would be one thing for him to simply call us idiots for "misunderstanding" Trent, and quite another to say that we "hate" Trent. You could even claim that we're bad-willed in twisting the meaning of Trent. But saying that we hate Trent is crossing the line.

He's a completely bad willed and malicious idiot.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** August 12, 2017, 09:02:39 AM »

Quote from: DZ PLEASE on August 12, 2017, 01:33:08 AM

"WhyCathinfo is LoL's Blog"

He's definitely trying to turn it into that, isn't he?

I like that: LoL

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** August 12, 2017, 09:06:17 AM »

Quote from: San Bernardino on August 12, 2017, 01:22:55 AM

Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, 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."

This is a KEY teaching that BoDers ignore and even twist into being a support for their position.

Pope St. Siricius CLEARLy teaches that EVERY SINGLE person who leaves this world DESIRING Baptism but not getting it would "lose both the Kingdom and life".

DZ PLEASE · « **Reply #6 on:** August 12, 2017, 09:55:11 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 12, 2017, 09:02:39 AM

He's definitely trying to turn it into that, isn't he?

I like that: LoL

yep, no joke. Thx. Maybe an equally "mature" counter-charge of closet ("Baptophobia/Feeneyphobia"?) is in order.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #7 on:** August 12, 2017, 11:13:36 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 12, 2017, 09:06:17 AM

This is a KEY teaching that BoDers ignore and even twist into being a support for their position.

CODEX IURIS CANONICI

LIBER TERTIUS - DE REBUS
TITULUS XII. - De sepultura ecclesiastica.
CAPUT III. - De iis quibus sepultura ecclesiastica concedenda est aut neganda.

CAN. 1239.

§ 1. Ad sepulturam ecclesiasticam non sunt admittendi qui sine baptismo decesserint.
§ 2. Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
§ 3. Omnes baptizati sepultura ecclesiastica donandi sunt, nisi eadem a iure expresse priventur.

Quote

On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."

The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
"The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire."

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #8 on:** August 12, 2017, 01:38:35 PM »

Canon law is not infallible. It doesn't teach faith and morals, its a legal system. Two completely different things.

San Bernardino · « **Reply #9 on:** August 12, 2017, 02:26:44 PM »

@JohnAnthonyMarie

Notice how you completely ignore the infallible statements from Florence and Trent and go straight to fallible sources such as commentaries on canon law?

You quoted the 1917 CCL.

Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: "Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this

Code: [Select]

 applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental."

     A pope speaks infallibly from the Chair of Peter when his teaching on faith or morals binds the entire Church, which the 1917 Code doesn’t:
 
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: "...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks Ex Cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility..."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#66), June 29, 1943: "Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins, and confessors."
 
     This would mean that a disciplinary law is not a law of the "Catholic" (i.e. universal) Church unless it binds the universal Church.  Regardless, the 1917 Code doesn’t enjoy infallibility.  This is further proven by the following canons.

The 1917 Code teaches that heretics can be in good faith.
 
Canon 731.2, 1917 Code: "It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church."
 
     A heretic, by infallible definition, is of bad faith and brings down upon his head eternal punishment.
Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431: "... all heretics corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame."


    Thus, the 1917 Code’s proposition in canon 737 that Baptism is necessary "at least in desire" for salvation is not binding on the universal Church or protected by infallibility.  Regarding its law in canon 1239, that unbaptized catechumens can be given Christian burial, this contradicts the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church for 1900 years on whether unbaptized persons can be given Christian burial. 


Since the time of Jesus Christ and throughout all of history, the Catholic Church universally refused ecclesiastical burial to catechumens who died without the Sacrament of Baptism, as The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
 
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 'Baptism,' Volume 2, 1907: "A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere... The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): 'Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.'"
 
     This is the law of the Catholic Church since the beginning and throughout all of history.  So, since this issue is tied to the Faith and not merely disciplinary, either the Catholic Church was wrong since the time of Christ for refusing ecclesiastical burial for catechumens who died without baptism or the 1917 Code is wrong for granting it to them. It is either one or the other, because the 1917 Code directly contradicts the Traditional and constant law of the Catholic Church for nineteen centuries on this point which is tied to the Faith.  The answer is, obviously, that the 1917 Code is wrong and not infallible, and the Catholic Church’s law for all of history refusing ecclesiastical burial to catechumens is right. Also, it is interesting to note that the Latin version of the 1917 Code contains many footnotes to traditional popes, councils, etc. to show from where certain canons were derived. Canon 1239.2 on giving ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized catechumens has no footnote, not to any pope, previous law or council, simply because there is nothing in Tradition which supports it!!    
 
     The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) quotes an interesting decree from Pope Innocent III wherein he commented on the traditional, universal and constant law of the Catholic Church from the beginning which refused ecclesiastical burial to all who died without the Sacrament of Baptism.
 
The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Baptism," Volume 2, 1907: "The reason of this regulation [forbidding ecclesiastical burial to all unbaptized persons] is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): 'It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.'"


Just for the record as i said earlier all today who believe in 'b.o.d' and 'b.o.b' believe non-Catholics can be saved. ALL non-Catholics go to Hell, this is Catholic Dogma, only baptized Catholics who die in a state of grace are saved.

There were so many miraculous baptisms throughout Church history and this alone obliterates 'b.o.d' and 'b.o.b'.

For example the North American martyrs [St.Isaac Jogues, St.John De Brebeuf etc...] when they were converting the pagans and the Iroquois showed up to slaughter them and their converts. The catechumens who were not baptized started begging for baptism. NOW WAIT A SEC. If these catechumens already knew the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, and were about to get slaughtered by the Iroquois, according to modernists they would have received 'b.o.b'. The saints rushed to baptize them, NOTHING WAS MENTIONED OF desire and blood. Read the lives of the NA martyrs there were countless miraculous baptisms. St.Joan of Arc brought back a dead infant from the dead to baptize it! This happened many times. The fact that saints brought people back from the dead obliterates desire and blood. Also in the early Church when the martyrs were waiting in prison to die for the faith, some of them were not baptized and water miraculously started coming out from the ground! Why would this happen if they were going to be martyred? BECAUSE WATER BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION!

 Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism, Tan Books, p. 171: "Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, WHEN HE GAVE HIS APOSTLES THE COMMAND to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, THE LAW OF BAPTISM became obligatory on all who were to be saved."

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Ex Cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema."

DZ PLEASE · « **Reply #10 on:** August 12, 2017, 05:20:24 PM »

SOP. You'll see this alot if you've not already, including the ommission of any other support, development or argument.

Nvm that:
1. Where on the spectrum does canon law fall as a rule of faith?

2. If it were a rule, however proximate or remote, are we COMPETENT?

Probably using crayons on a canvas here. If so, sry. Good catch. Gets kinda old trying to right a wall.

Quote from: San Bernardino on August 12, 2017, 02:26:44 PM

@JohnAnthonyMarie

Notice how you completely ignore the infallible statements from Florence and Trent and go straight to fallible sources such as commentaries on canon law?

You quoted the 1917 CCL.

Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: "Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this
Code: [Select]
applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental." A pope speaks infallibly from the Chair of Peter when his teaching on faith or morals binds the entire Church, which the 1917 Code doesn’t: Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: "...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks Ex Cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility..." Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#66), June 29, 1943: "Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins, and confessors." This would mean that a disciplinary law is not a law of the "Catholic" (i.e. universal) Church unless it binds the universal Church. Regardless, the 1917 Code doesn’t enjoy infallibility. This is further proven by the following canons. The 1917 Code teaches that heretics can be in good faith. Canon 731.2, 1917 Code: "It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church." A heretic, by infallible definition, is of bad faith and brings down upon his head eternal punishment. Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431: "... all heretics corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame." Thus, the 1917 Code’s proposition in canon 737 that Baptism is necessary "at least in desire" for salvation is not binding on the universal Church or protected by infallibility. Regarding its law in canon 1239, that unbaptized catechumens can be given Christian burial, this contradicts the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church for 1900 years on whether unbaptized persons can be given Christian burial. Since the time of Jesus Christ and throughout all of history, the Catholic Church universally refused ecclesiastical burial to catechumens who died without the Sacrament of Baptism, as The Catholic Encyclopedia admits: The Catholic Encyclopedia, 'Baptism,' Volume 2, 1907: "A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere... The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): 'Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.'" This is the law of the Catholic Church since the beginning and throughout all of history. So, since this issue is tied to the Faith and not merely disciplinary, either the Catholic Church was wrong since the time of Christ for refusing ecclesiastical burial for catechumens who died without baptism or the 1917 Code is wrong for granting it to them. It is either one or the other, because the 1917 Code directly contradicts the Traditional and constant law of the Catholic Church for nineteen centuries on this point which is tied to the Faith. The answer is, obviously, that the 1917 Code is wrong and not infallible, and the Catholic Church’s law for all of history refusing ecclesiastical burial to catechumens is right. Also, it is interesting to note that the Latin version of the 1917 Code contains many footnotes to traditional popes, councils, etc. to show from where certain canons were derived. Canon 1239.2 on giving ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized catechumens has no footnote, not to any pope, previous law or council, simply because there is nothing in Tradition which supports it!! The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) quotes an interesting decree from Pope Innocent III wherein he commented on the traditional, universal and constant law of the Catholic Church from the beginning which refused ecclesiastical burial to all who died without the Sacrament of Baptism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Baptism," Volume 2, 1907: "The reason of this regulation [forbidding ecclesiastical burial to all unbaptized persons] is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): 'It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.'" Just for the record as i said earlier all today who believe in 'b.o.d' and 'b.o.b' believe non-Catholics can be saved. ALL non-Catholics go to Hell, this is Catholic Dogma, only baptized Catholics who die in a state of grace are saved. There were so many miraculous baptisms throughout Church history and this alone obliterates 'b.o.d' and 'b.o.b'. For example the North American martyrs [St.Isaac Jogues, St.John De Brebeuf etc...] when they were converting the pagans and the Iroquois showed up to slaughter them and their converts. The catechumens who were not baptized started begging for baptism. NOW WAIT A SEC. If these catechumens already knew the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, and were about to get slaughtered by the Iroquois, according to modernists they would have received 'b.o.b'. The saints rushed to baptize them, NOTHING WAS MENTIONED OF desire and blood. Read the lives of the NA martyrs there were countless miraculous baptisms. St.Joan of Arc brought back a dead infant from the dead to baptize it! This happened many times. The fact that saints brought people back from the dead obliterates desire and blood. Also in the early Church when the martyrs were waiting in prison to die for the faith, some of them were not baptized and water miraculously started coming out from the ground! Why would this happen if they were going to be martyred? BECAUSE WATER BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION! Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism, Tan Books, p. 171: "Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, WHEN HE GAVE HIS APOSTLES THE COMMAND to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, THE LAW OF BAPTISM became obligatory on all who were to be saved." Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Ex Cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema."

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #11 on:** August 12, 2017, 07:45:03 PM »

I'm not ignoring anything. I am merely showing where Baptism of Desire is observed by the Church.

Do you reject this canon?

DZ PLEASE · « **Reply #12 on:** August 12, 2017, 07:52:29 PM »

EXACTLY what do you mean by:
1. "… observed…"
2. "… the Church… "
If you WILL please.

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 12, 2017, 07:45:03 PM

I'm not ignoring anything. I am merely showing where Baptism of Desire is observed by the Church.

Do you reject this canon?

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #13 on:** August 12, 2017, 08:27:24 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 12, 2017, 07:45:03 PM

I'm not ignoring anything. I am merely showing where Baptism of Desire is observed by the Church.

Do you reject this canon?

By "observed" in "where Baptism of Desire is observed", I mean exactly what the Canon indicates, "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #14 on:** August 12, 2017, 08:32:19 PM »

For further clarification, the commentary is clear

The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
"The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire."

Author Topic: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching (Read 7685 times)

Lover of Truth

Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching

San Bernardino

Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching

DZ PLEASE

Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching

Ladislaus

Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching

Ladislaus

Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching

Ladislaus

Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching

DZ PLEASE

Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching

JohnAnthonyMarie

Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching

Pax Vobis

Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching

San Bernardino

Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching

DZ PLEASE

Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching

JohnAnthonyMarie

Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching

DZ PLEASE

Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching

JohnAnthonyMarie

Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching

JohnAnthonyMarie

Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching