Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on August 09, 2017, 05:24:10 AM

Title: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: 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 (3rd Century)
 
Tertullian, Church Father (3rd 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 (13th century)
  

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church (13th century)
 
Pope Innocent III (13th 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 21st century lay feeneyites are. 
 
 
Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century)
 
The New Testament, translated to English at the College of Rheims, 1582 (16th century)
 
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church (16th century)
 
The Douay Catechism (17th 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 (18th 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 (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/alphonse_theologia_moralis_5.pdf). 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 21st century lay feeneyites wish us to believe is contrary to what Trent taught:
 
Pope Pius IX (19th century)
  

Baltimore Catechism (19th and 20th centuries)
  

St. Pope Pius X (early 20th 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 21st 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.]

Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: San Bernardino 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..."

Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 12, 2017, 01:33:08 AM
"WhyCathinfo is LoL's Blog"
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Ladislaus 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.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Ladislaus on August 12, 2017, 09:02:39 AM
"WhyCathinfo is LoL's Blog"

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

I like that:  LoL
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Ladislaus on August 12, 2017, 09:06:17 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".
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 12, 2017, 09:55:11 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.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 12, 2017, 11:13:36 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."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Pax Vobis 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.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: 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."


Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE 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.
@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."


Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: 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? 
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 12, 2017, 07:52:29 PM
EXACTLY what do you mean by:
1. "… observed…"
2. "… the Church… "
If you WILL please.
I'm not ignoring anything. I am merely showing where Baptism of Desire is observed by the Church. 

Do you reject this canon?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 12, 2017, 08:27:24 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."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie 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."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 12, 2017, 08:39:02 PM
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."
Non-responsive. Must be something in the air sir. If you don't understand a request for terms, with all due you've no business mucking about with canon law.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 12, 2017, 08:45:37 PM
You are unable to defend your denial of an explicit Church reference to Baptism of Desire.  I could not care any less about your advice.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 12, 2017, 08:51:30 PM
You are unable to defend your denial of an explicit Church reference to Baptism of Desire.  I could not care any less about your advice.
Super. Take care. Bye.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 12, 2017, 08:54:46 PM
Pope Pius IX
Singulari Quadam, 1854:
   174. "It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins Divine mercy with Divine justice."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: San Bernardino on August 12, 2017, 10:00:27 PM
@JohnAnthonyMarie

I already answered your question and yes you are ignoring the infallible Teachings of the Church. I quoted Florence and Trent and you give me commentary on canons!   

Do i reject that canon? Yes, there are other errors in that Code of Canon Law as well.

1. It's a Dogma ALL who die in mortal sin or original sin go to Hell.

2. Read what i wrote earlier, you have to make a decision, no way around this:

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!!    
 
You are being totally dishonest like most modernist heretics. 'B.o.d' and 'b.o.b' is simply a doctrine of man. Are you aware St.Robert Bellarmine taught 'b.o.d' but said unbaptized catechumens are not part of the Church?

Are you aware St. Alphonsus admits that 'baptism of desire' does not take away the temporal punishment due to sin.This is a devastating problem for 'b.o.d' and its supporters.


ST. ALPHONSUS ADMITS THAT 'BAPTISM OF DESIRE' DOES NOT PROVIDE THE GRACE OF SPIRITUAL REBIRTH/BAPTISM, WHICH TRENT SAYS EVERYONE MUST HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED.


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

St. Alphonsus says that 'b.o.d' does not remove the temporal punishment due to sin. According to his explanation, someone who dies with a 'b.o.d' may need to spend time in Purgatory. That’s actually a fatal problem for the 'theory' because the Church has dogmatically defined that the grace of baptism is not merely the remission of the guilt of sin, but also the remission of all temporal punishment due to sin.

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, "Exultate Deo," Nov. 22, 1439: "Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life… The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every fault, original and actual, and also of every punishment which is owed for the fault itself. Therefore to the baptized no satisfaction is to be enjoined for past sins; but dying, before they commit any fault, they immediately attain the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God."

ALL THOSE BORN AGAIN HAVE EVERY PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN REMITTED

Likewise, the Council of Trent’s Decree on Original Sin solemnly defined that all those who are ‘born again’ have all the guilt and every punishment due to sin removed.  This grace of being 'born again' renders the recipients ‘immaculate’ and it leaves in them nothing that could retard their entrance into Heaven.

Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, #5, Ex Cathedra: "If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven."

As we can see, it’s a Dogma that the grace of baptism/spiritual rebirth/being ‘born again’ provides not only justification and the remission of the guilt of sin, but also the remission of every punishment due to sin.

TO BE JUSTIFIED EVERYONE MUST BE ‘BORN AGAIN’ – A GRACE WHICH INCLUDES THE REMISSION OF EVERY TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN

Furthermore, it’s de fide definita that UNLESS YOU RECEIVE THE GRACE OF SPIRITUAL REBIRTH/BEING ‘BORN AGAIN’ YOU CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED!

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

Is this becoming clear?

I noticed you're defending invincible ignorance also, wow what a surprise! [sarcasm]

It's interesting how the modernists who defend the demonic doctrine of invincible ignorance are actually the most ignorant of Church Teaching and Scripture.

Pope Pius IX was simply wrong, people who accept 'b.o.d' and 'b.o.d' are some of the most selective people i have come across. 

Quick destruction of invincible ignorance:

  Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (#2), April 15, 1905: "And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: 'We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.'"

Pope Gregory XVI, Probe Nostis (#6), Sept. 18, 1840: "We are thankful for the success of apostolic missions in America, the Indies, and other faithless lands... They search out those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death to summon them to the light and life of the Catholic religion... At length they snatch them from the devil’s rule, by the bath of regeneration and promote them to the freedom of God’s adopted sons."

The great "Apostle of the Rocky Mountains," Fr. Pierre De Smet, who was the extraordinary missionary to the American Indians in the 19th century, was also convinced – with all the great Catholic missionaries before him – that all the Indians whom he did not reach would be eternally lost. 

Fr. De Smet, S.J., Jan. 26, 1838: "New priests are to be added to the Potawatomi Mission, and my Superior, Father Verhaegen gives me hope that I will be sent. How happy I would be could I spend myself for the salvation of so many souls, who are lost because they have never known truth!" [Fr. E. Laveille, S.J., The Life of Fr. De Smet, p. 80]

St. Alphonsus: "See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jєωs, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost." [Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.]


MANY MANY other quotes can be provided. Here is God The Holy Ghost:

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 "And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them."

Psalms 78:6 "Pour out thy wrath upon the nations that have not known thee: and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God."

Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 13, 2017, 04:29:21 AM
I choose to accept Canon Law as authentic Catholic teaching.  This is where we disagree.  
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 13, 2017, 04:37:04 AM
I choose to accept Canon Law as authentic Catholic teaching.  This is where we disagree. 
(Oo0)
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: San Bernardino on August 13, 2017, 05:27:14 AM
I choose to accept Canon Law as authentic Catholic teaching.  This is where we disagree.  
You're in denial. 
 The 1917 CCL is NOT Catholic Teaching. You honestly reject what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Your authority is a commentary on Canon Law. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

"Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord."
Jeremiah 17:5

"David was right in saying that all people lie. Mankind’s life on earth is a struggle and like the mountain dew that soon is gone, like the flower of the field that quickly withers. We mortals are so blind that out of such a multitude of people only a small portion know the true God, primarily in this part of the world, Europe, the Spaniards being the most faithful. Among those raised in the church, few confess the faith and many of them are in sin, so nineteen out of twenty parts of mankind live in darkness and blindness." [Colahan, The Visions of Sor María de Agreda p.53]
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 13, 2017, 05:48:49 AM
You're in denial.
 The 1917 CCL is NOT Catholic Teaching. You honestly reject what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Your authority is a commentary on Canon Law. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

"Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord."
Jeremiah 17:5

"David was right in saying that all people lie. Mankind’s life on earth is a struggle and like the mountain dew that soon is gone, like the flower of the field that quickly withers. We mortals are so blind that out of such a multitude of people only a small portion know the true God, primarily in this part of the world, Europe, the Spaniards being the most faithful. Among those raised in the church, few confess the faith and many of them are in sin, so nineteen out of twenty parts of mankind live in darkness and blindness." [Colahan, The Visions of Sor María de Agreda p.53]
Would it do any good to show where canon<human law can, has, does and must change?

Nope. Wish you well if you try. Stiff necks, hard hearts and hard heads are impervious.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 13, 2017, 02:07:58 PM
Quote
Canon law may be divided into various branches, according to the points of view from which it is considered: (1) If we consider its sources, it comprises Divine law, including natural law, based on the nature of things and on the constitution given by Jesus Christ to His Church; and human or positive law, formulated by the legislator, in conformity with the Divine law. (2) If we consider the form in which it is found, we have the written law (jus scriptum) comprising the laws promulgated by the competent authorities, and the unwritten law (jus non scripture), or even customary law, resulting from practice and custom; the latter however became less important as the written law developed. (3) If we consider the subject matter of the law, we have the public law (jus publicuм) and private law (jus privatum). This division is explained in two different ways by the different schools of writers: for most of the adherents of the Roman school, e.g. Cavagnis (Instit. jur. publ. eccl., Rome, 1906, I, 8 ), public law is the law of the Church as a perfect society, and even as a perfect society such as it has been established by its Divine founder: private law would therefore embrace all the regulations of the ecclesiastical authorities concerning the internal organization of that society, the functions of its ministers, the rights and duties of its members. Thus understood, the public ecclesiastical law would be derived almost exclusively from Divine and natural law.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX, pp. 56-66
Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910, Remy Lafort, Censor
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 13, 2017, 05:28:28 PM
The below is Catholic teaching and I assure whoever reads this thread that feeneyites do not hate Catholic teaching, they defend it.


CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: San Bernardino on August 13, 2017, 08:20:10 PM
@Stubborn

correct

like i said earlier, Father Feeney [who was probably the last Catholic priest] is simply a diversion that modernist heretics use because they can't address the dogmatic facts. The modernist heretics who are calling true Catholics 'Feeneyites' commit the sin of calumny and are simply adding more punishments for themselves in Hell [unless they humble themselves and convert]. I just spoke to a modernist earlier, gave him irrefutable factual evidence for water baptism and he responds by quoting the Baltimore catechism! These people are simply in denial. There one and only goal is to go against the EENS Dogma. Their downfall is human respect, which damns the most people to Hell after the sins of pride and lust.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, Ex Cathedra: "I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all."

The quote above along with dozens of others obliterates 'baptism' of desire and blood.

Fr. Francois Laisney (Believer in Baptism of Desire), Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 9: "Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament...it does not produce the sacramental character."

There is ONLY one baptism, NOT 2 or 3. 

For the obstinate modernists:

When does 'b.o.d' take place? What if someone 'received' 'b.o.d' and then found someone to baptize him, does he get 're-baptized'? Or is he already baptized? If 'b.o.d' takes place at death where is that taught? Also if 'b.o.d/blood' is true [It's not] why were there countless miraculous baptisms throughout Church history? Why would St.Joan of Arc bring a dead infant back to life to baptize it? Why did St.Isaac Jogues and St.John De Brebeuf and the other 6 saints of the North American martyrs rush to baptize there catechumens if they were going to get martyred by the Iroquois? Wouldn't they just have been 'baptized' by blood?

Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Merry on August 13, 2017, 09:03:56 PM
Q.  What is a sacrament?

A.  A sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ to give grace.


OUTWARD sign.

Baptism of Desire is definitely NOT an OUTWARD SIGN!!!  It is NOT a sacrament.

  
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 13, 2017, 11:54:48 PM
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX, pp. 56-66
Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910, Remy Lafort, Censor
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
"SO WHAT!?/RELEVANVCE"

This is another example of the "Lover of (Lies) Truth" cold-read and driftnet method of "scholastic spray and pray/see and say". This is what crayola sola scriptura people do to "prove" from mutant scripture.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 14, 2017, 04:25:01 AM
I choose to accept Canon Law as authentic Catholic teaching.  This is where we disagree.  
First off, it is a tragedy that the idiot who started and named this thread according the inordinate hate in his heart for the good Father Feeney, will one day stand before Almighty God to be judged according to God's revelations and God's own words in Scripture, not according to Fr Fenton's corrupted ideas. It's been a while since such a brainwashed NO infected and perverted poster as Lover of Liberalism has spammed the forums with 100% lies, and it looks as if there is no stopping him.

LoL, being "born and raised in the anti-church" as he has said in the past, is, as should be expected from one "born and raised in the anti-church", so screwed up in his thinking that Catholic teaching to him is heresy and something to be hated, just like the typical NOer. For LoL, truth is wrong and wrong is right, just like the typical NOer. I believe it is primarily for this reason, (him being born and raised in the anti-church), that while he calls himself a lover of truth, he is in fact the lover of lies, just as the title of this thread testifies.

There can be no denying by either side that a BOD/BOB contradicts both the explicit words of Our Lord and the teachings of Trent, whose decrees, UNLIKE V2, are crystal clear, mean what they say and cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than what they say.

If you choose to rely on canon law over Trent, then obviously you must also choose to accept the new canon law of "the anti-church" as LoL rightly calls it, which leads me to believe you were also born and raised in the anti-church and like LoL, for lack of sufficient purgation of it's disease, still carry it's infection within you.

Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 14, 2017, 09:09:40 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..."
Feeney is the root of the Feeneyite heresy.  Hardly a diversion.  
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 14, 2017, 09:14:10 AM
There can be no denying by either side that a BOD/BOB contradicts both the explicit words of Our Lord and the teachings of Trent, whose decrees, UNLIKE V2, are crystal clear, mean what they say and cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than what they say.

If you choose to rely on canon law over Trent, then obviously you must also choose to accept the new canon law of "the anti-church" as LoL rightly calls it, which leads me to believe you were also born and raised in the anti-church and like LoL, for lack of sufficient purgation of it's disease, still carry it's infection within you.

I disagree completely with you that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood contradicts our Lord, the Christ, Jesus, or the teachings of the Council of Trent.

Your second paragraph above is completely false.  I did not place Canon Law over the Council of Trent, in my observation each is a complement of the other in the same manner that Scripture and Tradition are the two great pillars of Christianity.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 14, 2017, 09:22:35 AM
I disagree completely with you that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood contradicts our Lord, the Christ, Jesus, or the teachings of the Council of Trent.

Your second paragraph above is completely false.  I did not place Canon Law over the Council of Trent, in my observation each is a complement of the other in the same manner that Scripture and Tradition are the two great pillars of Christianity.
It is not false. You said you choose to accept Canon Law as authentic Catholic teaching. Trent specifically decrees the sacrament is necessary for salvation - a BOD is not a sacrament. So since you accept CL to support a BOD, you choose CL over Trent. It's not complicated.

And yes, a BOD contradicts the words of Our Lord, and the words of St. Paul, who said: "One Lord, one faith one baptism."

How many baptisms are there?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 14, 2017, 09:27:04 AM
It is not false. You said you choose to accept Canon Law as authentic Catholic teaching. Trent specifically decrees the sacrament is necessary for salvation - a BOD is not a sacrament. So since you accept CL to support a BOD, you choose CL over Trent. It's not complicated.

And yes, a BOD contradicts the words of Our Lord, and the words of St. Paul, who said: "One Lord, one faith one baptism."

How many baptisms are there?
Trent also teaches BOD.  Feeneyites are great a pitting the Catholic Church against itself because they are not Catholics.  They are Feeneyites and the feeneyite heresy trumps all.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 14, 2017, 09:51:05 AM
Quote
This is what crayola sola scriptura people do to "prove" from mutant scripture.
:laugh2: :laugh1:  Nice crayon reference.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 14, 2017, 10:29:49 AM
Trent also teaches BOD.  Feeneyites are great a pitting the Catholic Church against itself because they are not Catholics.  They are Feeneyites and the feeneyite heresy trumps all.
No, Trent binds us to believe under pain of mortal sin that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. A BOD, whatever it is, is not a sacrament.

Trent also binds us to believe under pain of mortal sin that the sacrament of baptism is not optional, whatever a BOD is, it's not baptism.

Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 14, 2017, 11:00:55 AM
No, Trent binds us to believe under pain of mortal sin that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. A BOD, whatever it is, is not a sacrament.

Trent also binds us to believe under pain of mortal sin that the sacrament of baptism is not optional, whatever a BOD is, it's not baptism.
Trent teaches BOD.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 14, 2017, 11:04:58 AM
:laugh2: :laugh1:  Nice crayon reference.
Thanks. Seems proper to the overall booger flicking tenor of diapered disputatio stinking up the ball pond here.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 14, 2017, 11:12:40 AM

Quote
Council of Trent (16th century): 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."

Feeneyites a programmed not to believe what the Council of Trent teaches.  That should give pause to any rational soul who considers feeneyism to be Catholic.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 14, 2017, 11:17:15 AM
Trent teaches BOD.
No, it does not.

Trent binds us to believe under pain of mortal sin that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. A BOD, whatever it is, is not a sacrament. Remember?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 14, 2017, 11:22:02 AM
Quote
Quote
Council of Trent (16th century): 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."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: San Bernardino on August 14, 2017, 11:24:38 AM
Feeneyites a programmed not to believe what the Council of Trent teaches.  That should give pause to any rational soul who considers feeneyism to be Catholic.
We know for a fact Trent was not talking about "baptism" of desire because then the Catholic Church would have contradicted itself.
Trent is not teaching baptism of desire, it mentions the word desire because Catholics during this period were baptizing people (specifically Jєωs) by force. Forced baptisms are invalid.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, 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.”
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.”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, Ex Cathedra: "I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all."

The modernist heretics who believe in desire do believe the sacrament of Baptism is optional. 
The quotes from the Magisterium [and there are more] i provided annihilate these man made doctrines [desire and blood] and the miraculous baptisms of the saints bury them.


When the Church defines a Dogma, if there is an exception IT WILL MENTION IT, example:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Can. 16: "If anyone shall say that he will for certain with an absolute and infallible certainty have that great gift of perseverance up to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation: let him be anathema."

St.Francis of Assisi and the 3 children of Fatima [and other holy men and woman throughout Church history] knew they were going to Heaven.

Now, show me where the Church taught the man made doctrines of "baptism" of desire and blood and those invincibly ignorant will be saved?

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, Ex Cathedra: "With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, Ex Cathedra: "Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism..."

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, Ex Cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

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)."

Where is the exception?

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.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 14, 2017, 11:28:22 AM
Why do you pit Catholic teaching against Catholic teaching as if the one contradicts the other?  Only a heretic would do that or the ignorant.  

The reason why there is no salvation outside the Church is that the Church is the Ark of Salvation. But listening to the Feeneyites, it seems the Ark of Salvation — outside of a few rare infallible pronouncements — is nothing but a bunch of faith-destroying dimwits who lead people to hell.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 14, 2017, 11:40:01 AM
Council of Trent (16th century): 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."



The above decree is on justification, not salvation. In the decree below, the first part is on salvation, the second part is on justification. Notice that it condemns a BOD, which after all, is justification through faith alone.

Quote
 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 [if anyone shall say] 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."

Since the ignoramus who named this thread has never read, seen or heard of the bolded part of the canon before, who thinks he will retract his calumny now that it has been explained to him for the thousandth time?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 14, 2017, 11:47:11 AM
The above decree is on justification, not salvation. In the decree below, the first part is on salvation, the second part is on justification. Notice that it condemns a BOD, which after all, is justification through faith alone.

Since the ignoramus who named this thread has never read, seen or heard of the bolded part of the canon before, who thinks he will retract his calumny now that it has been explained to him for the thousandth time?
You act as if Trent contradicts itself when it does not.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 14, 2017, 11:49:54 AM
The above decree is on justification, not salvation. In the decree below, the first part is on salvation, the second part is on justification. Notice that it condemns a BOD, which after all, is justification through faith alone.

Since the ignoramus who named this thread has never read, seen or heard of the bolded part of the canon before, who thinks he will retract his calumny now that it has been explained to him for the thousandth time?
None who  see that LoL is, like MANY, really a lover of attention, which is  just another way of saying lover of self.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 14, 2017, 12:09:22 PM
You act as if Trent contradicts itself when it does not.
Thinks Trent contradicts itself yet says otherwise.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 14, 2017, 12:35:46 PM
You act as if Trent contradicts itself when it does not.
No, I would only think Trent contradicts itself if I believed in a BOD like you do. You think Trent contradicts itself because you keep pushing a BOD, as for me, I already accepted that Trent condemns a BOD, which is justification through faith alone.

So there you have it, as long as you can get yourself to admit that "a BOD is justification through faith alone", then you have Trent explicitly condemning a BOD below........



Quote
"and [if anyone shall say] 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."

There it is - a BOD explicitly condemned by Trent.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 14, 2017, 12:43:53 PM
No, I would only think Trent contradicts itself if I believed in a BOD like you do. You think Trent contradicts itself because you keep pushing a BOD, as for me, I already accepted that Trent condemns a BOD, which is justification through faith alone.

So there you have it, as long as you can get yourself to admit that "a BOD is justification through faith alone", then you have Trent explicitly condemning a BOD below........



There it is - a BOD explicitly condemned by Trent.
"But it doesn't SAY BoD!!! Where's my wubby and juice box?"
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Ladislaus on August 14, 2017, 01:17:32 PM
There it is - a BOD explicitly condemned by Trent.

I agree that one must hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary by necessity of means for salvation ... as the instrumental cause of justification.  One COULD argue, however, that in BoD, Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification, acting upon the individual through the votum.  We cannot say that the desire justifies (that's both Pelagianism and a denial of the necessity of the Sacrament), but rather that the Sacrament justifies THROUGH the desire.  In BoD, one is not saved WITHOUT the Sacrament, but, rather, one receives the Sacrament in voto.  BoD is not a "substitute" for the Sacrament, and people do not get saved WITHOUT the Sacrament, but, rather, BoD is a different mode of receiving the Sacrament.  Anything else is a heretical denial of Trent and also Pelagianism.  Nor are there THREE Baptisms (that's a heretically-savoring rejection of the Creed), but rather three ways to receive the Sacrament of Baptism (in its effects).

But very few BoDers have this opinion.  Most are Pelagians, deny Trent, and hold a heretical ecclesiology.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 14, 2017, 01:27:45 PM
I agree that one must hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary by necessity of means for salvation ... as the instrumental cause of justification.  One COULD argue, however, that in BoD, Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification, acting upon the individual through the votum.  We cannot say that the desire justifies (that's both Pelagianism and a denial of the necessity of the Sacrament), but rather that the Sacrament justifies THROUGH the desire.  In BoD, one is not saved WITHOUT the Sacrament, but, rather, one receives the Sacrament in voto.  BoD is not a "substitute" for the Sacrament, and people do not get saved WITHOUT the Sacrament, but, rather, BoD is a different mode of receiving the Sacrament.  Anything else is a heretical denial of Trent and also Pelagianism.  Nor are there THREE Baptisms (that's a heretically-savoring rejection of the Creed), but rather three ways to receive the Sacrament of Baptism (in its effects).

But very few BoDers have this opinion.  Most are Pelagians, deny Trent, and hold a heretical ecclesiology.
I completely and absolutely agree, yet Lover of Liberalism's heretical idea of a BOD that he keeps pushing and pushing like some kind of idiot, is justification through a faith alone and is explicitly condemned by Trent in Trent's 7th Session, Canon 4 which I posted. "If anyone shall say that through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification, let him be anathema".

"...and [if anyone shall say] 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."

Whatever anybody else's idea of a BOD is, we know with certainty that LOL's idea of a BOD is justification through faith alone - and we also know, that idea is condemned.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 14, 2017, 01:42:09 PM
None who  see that LoL is, like MANY, really a lover of attention, which is  just another way of saying lover of self.
Amazing theological prowess. 
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 15, 2017, 03:20:59 AM
Amazing theological prowess.
Lover of Troll, Aug 2017
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 15, 2017, 03:31:13 AM
I agree that one must hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary by necessity of means for salvation ... as the instrumental cause of justification.  One COULD argue, however, that in BoD, Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification, acting upon the individual through the votum.  We cannot say that the desire justifies (that's both Pelagianism and a denial of the necessity of the Sacrament), but rather that the Sacrament justifies THROUGH the desire.  In BoD, one is not saved WITHOUT the Sacrament, but, rather, one receives the Sacrament in voto.  BoD is not a "substitute" for the Sacrament, and people do not get saved WITHOUT the Sacrament, but, rather, BoD is a different mode of receiving the Sacrament.  Anything else is a heretical denial of Trent and also Pelagianism.  Nor are there THREE Baptisms (that's a heretically-savoring rejection of the Creed), but rather three ways to receive the Sacrament of Baptism (in its effects).

But very few BoDers have this opinion.  Most are Pelagians, deny Trent, and hold a heretical ecclesiology.
With all due,  says who? Where is this formless(?), immaterial(?), aministerial(?) distinction-sans-difference(?) unsacrament(?) taught(?)

I suggest separate (extant?) thread as point of order,  but it seems pointless as the inmates apparently have the keys here,  to a tank they won't keep on the correct heading, much less in their OWN LANE. (go ahead, someone say armor doesn't have keys. More the miserere…er)
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 15, 2017, 06:58:11 AM

Quote
Council of Trent (16th century): 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."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 15, 2017, 07:11:50 AM
Emphasis mine.

Council of Trent (16th century): 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 [If anyone shall say] 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."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 15, 2017, 07:41:28 AM
Do you know what the word "or" means?

Council of Trent (16th century): 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."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 15, 2017, 08:02:41 AM
Do you know how many times this has already been explained to you by dozens of different posters?

If you are going to continue saying Trent taught a BOD, then from now on, you can only use the below words from the canon to prove it.

"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous,... let him be anathema."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 15, 2017, 08:16:30 AM
Do you know how many times this has already been explained to you by dozens of different posters?

If you are going to continue saying Trent taught a BOD, then from now on, you can only use the below words from the canon to prove it.

"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous,... let him be anathema."
You are either willfully blind or incredibly ignorant.  Either way you need not post on the topic.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 15, 2017, 08:29:29 AM
You are either willfully blind or incredibly ignorant.  Either way you need not post on the topic.
As long as the lying title of this thread remains, I will keep posting on this topic to post the truth, now either YOU use the words from Trent's canon: "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous,... let him be anathema." to prove a BOD or YOU stop posting on this topic - but first you MUST make a formal retraction from your heresies and  your calumniating like an heretical fool. 

Agreed?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 15, 2017, 08:46:44 AM
Do you know what the word "or" means?

Council of Trent (16th century): 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."
Tacitly meaning that it ALWAYS has ONLY ONE meaning which, "SURPRISE" involves an error of bifurcation, equivocation  AND its buddy, conflation.

For love of all holy, Catholics(?)  AT LEAST have base familiarity with COMMUNICATION and CRITTHINK.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 15, 2017, 08:57:40 AM
As long as the lying title of this thread remains, I will keep posting on this topic to post the truth, now either YOU use the words from Trent's canon: "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous,... let him be anathema." to prove a BOD or YOU stop posting on this topic - but first you MUST make a formal retraction from your heresies and  your calumniating like an heretical fool.  

Agreed?
You claim Alphonsus does not teach BOD when he teaches it is de fide.  
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 15, 2017, 09:04:52 AM
You claim Alphonsus does not teach BOD when he teaches it is de fide. 
…aaaaaand again, see? Pathology< compulsion, worse than Heroine.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 15, 2017, 09:05:36 AM
You claim Alphonsus does not teach BOD when he teaches it is de fide.  
You claim I lied by posting that St. Alphonsus taught that only heretics say that no sacrament is necessary and the whole idea is condemned by Trent when that's what he taught.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 15, 2017, 09:07:19 AM
You claim I lied by posting that St. Alphonsus taught that only heretics say that no sacrament is necessary and the whole idea is condemned by Trent when that's what he taught.
He teaches the sacraments are necessary and that BOD is de fide.  You accept the one and reject the other.  Will pretend to deny this now?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 15, 2017, 09:10:24 AM
He teaches the sacraments are necessary and that BOD is de fide.  You accept the one and reject the other.  Will pretend to deny this now?
He teaches the sacraments are necessary and that heretics say they aren't - which is what you say over and over and over. A BOD is not a sacrament it is therefore not able to save anyone.
A BOD is salvation through faith (desire?) alone, which Trent condemns and St. Alphonsus teaches.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 15, 2017, 09:13:47 AM
He teaches the sacraments are necessary and that heretics say they aren't - which is what you say over and over and over. A BOD is not a sacrament it is therefore not able to save anyone.
A BOD is salvation through faith (desire?) alone, which Trent condemns and St. Alphonsus teaches.
Does Alphonsus teach BOD?  Yes or no?  It is a simple question with a simple answer.  You show your dishonesty by avoiding the answer despite numerous clear opportunities to do so.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 15, 2017, 09:40:00 AM
He teaches the sacraments are necessary and that BOD is de fide.  You accept the one and reject the other.  Will pretend to deny this now?
BoD =/= sacrament = "Ass"
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 15, 2017, 11:39:50 AM
Does Alphonsus teach BOD?  Yes or no?  It is a simple question with a simple answer.  You show your dishonesty by avoiding the answer despite numerous clear opportunities to do so.
Does St. Alphonsus teach only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary? Yes or no? You show your dishonesty by continuing to claim he doesn't.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 15, 2017, 11:55:45 AM
Does St. Alphonsus teach only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary? Yes or no? You show your dishonesty by continuing to claim he doesn't.
Pls. rephrase to simplify/clarify. Too many needless double negatives.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 15, 2017, 12:04:00 PM
Does St. Alphonsus teach only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary? Yes or no? You show your dishonesty by continuing to claim he doesn't.
Still will not answer.  You are not an intellectually honest individual.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 15, 2017, 12:26:38 PM
Still will not answer.  You are not an intellectually honest individual.
More "… ass houses… " via LoL
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 15, 2017, 12:30:57 PM
More "… ass houses… " via LoL
Various types of things.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 15, 2017, 12:50:16 PM
Still will not answer.  You are not an intellectually honest individual.
You still will  not answer, why not? What are you afraid of.

I know the great saint Alphonsus taught contrary to Trent, but unlike you, at least he corrected himself so he no longer contradicts Trent when he says only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary in as much as a BOD "justifies by faith alone", he echo's Trent explicit condemnation: "[If anyone shall say that] although all are not necessary for every individual, without the sacraments, or without the desire for the sacraments, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

The thing you cannot get through your brain is the fact that Trent condemns a BOD exactly where you say Trent defines a BOD.

If a BOD is not "justification through faith alone", then what is it?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 15, 2017, 12:59:49 PM
You still will  not answer, why not? What are you afraid of.

I know the great saint Alphonsus taught contrary to Trent, but unlike you, at least he corrected himself so he no longer contradicts Trent when he says only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary in as much as a BOD "justifies by faith alone", he echo's Trent explicit condemnation: "[If anyone shall say that] although all are not necessary for every individual, without the sacraments, or without the desire for the sacraments, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

The thing you cannot get through your brain is the fact that Trent condemns a BOD exactly where you say Trent defines a BOD.

If a BOD is not "justification through faith alone", then what is it?
Still not answering.  I've learned not to hold my breath for you.  You admit only that which does not contradict your heresy on the surface apart from any other teaching.  Equally true teachings contrary to your interpretation you ignore, we suppose because you prefer your own belief system to that of the Catholic Church.  
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 15, 2017, 01:06:51 PM
Still not answering.  I've learned not to hold my breath for you.  You admit only that which does not contradict your heresy on the surface apart from any other teaching.  Equally true teachings contrary to your interpretation you ignore, we suppose because you prefer your own belief system to that of the Catholic Church. 
Yet more sounds of breaking ass…
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 15, 2017, 01:09:01 PM
Tertullian, Church Father (3rd Century): On Baptism, Chapter XVI, Of the Second Baptism - With Blood: "We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, "I have to be baptized with a baptism,"when He had been baptized already. For He had come "by means of water and blood,"just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost."

Scorpiace: Antidote for the Scorpion's Sting, Ch VI: "He therefore appointed as second supplies of comfort, and the last means of succour, the fight of martyrdom and the baptism--thereafter free from danger--of blood. And concerning the happiness of the man who has partaken of these, David says: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." For, strictly speaking, there cannot any longer be reckoned ought against the martyrs, by whom in the baptism (of blood) life itself is laid down. Thus, "love covers the multitude of sins;" and loving God, to wit, with all its strength (by which in the endurance of martyrdom it maintains the fight), with all its life (which it lays down for God), it makes of man a martyr."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 15, 2017, 02:16:34 PM
Still not answering.  I've learned not to hold my breath for you.  You admit only that which does not contradict your heresy on the surface apart from any other teaching.  Equally true teachings contrary to your interpretation you ignore, we suppose because you prefer your own belief system to that of the Catholic Church.  
I answered the question, you don't like the truth, in fact, you're a hater of Catholic teaching, you fit right in with the liberal faced NO bishops who have done their part to destroy the faith.

Only the heretics say that no sacrament is necessary. - St. Alphonsus

A BOD is justification through faith alone, and was explicitly condemned at Trent.  You love this truth if you are a lover of truth, but, as St. Alphonsus taught, you are a heretic for saying that no sacrament is necessary, hence you hate the above truth. You hate that feeneyites love, honor and defend the truth as taught by the Catholic Church.

I wholly side with St. Alphonsus here. You are a heretic for posting ad nausem that no sacrament is necessary - even slandering the sacrament as useless, nothing but "water and words". Heretic, that's what you are, and obstinate heretic whose only love is to flood the forums with your heresies.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 15, 2017, 02:19:51 PM
I answered the question, you don't like the truth, in fact, you're a hater of Catholic teaching, you fit right in with the liberal faced NO bishops who have done their part to destroy the faith.

Only the heretics say that no sacrament is necessary. - St. Alphonsus

A BOD is justification through faith alone, and was explicitly condemned at Trent.  You love this truth if you are a lover of truth, but, as St. Alphonsus taught, you are a heretic for saying that no sacrament is necessary, hence you hate the above truth. You hate that feeneyites love, honor and defend the truth as taught by the Catholic Church.

I wholly side with St. Alphonsus here. You are a heretic for posting ad nausem that no sacrament is necessary - even slandering the sacrament as useless, nothing but "water and words". Heretic, that's what you are, and obstinate heretic.
In case you are not avoiding the issue because it proves you wrong I'll ask yet again.

:ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat:

Did Saint Alphonsus teach BOD?

:ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat:
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 15, 2017, 03:31:14 PM
In case you are not avoiding the issue because it proves you wrong I'll ask yet again.

:ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat:

Did Saint Alphonsus teach BOD?

:ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat:
Didn't you read my answer?......
I know the great saint Alphonsus taught contrary to Trent, but unlike you, at least he corrected himself so he no longer contradicts Trent when he says only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary in as much as a BOD "justifies by faith alone", he echo's Trent explicit condemnation: "[If anyone shall say that] although all are not necessary for every individual, without the sacraments, or without the desire for the sacraments, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

The thing you cannot get through your brain is the fact that Trent condemns a BOD exactly where you say Trent defines a BOD.

If a BOD is not "justification through faith alone", then what is it?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Meg on August 16, 2017, 08:16:23 AM
The homily last night for the Feast of the Assumption had partly to do with Baptism of Desire. It was in relation to the salvation of souls. Father said that we must try to convert those family members and friends who are not Catholic, and we must pray for them, and pray for them still if they have died without converting.

He said that God can work extra-sacramentally, though we cannot count on this of course. He then gave an example by telling a true story about a Carmelite friar. I think his name was Fr. Herman, but I'm not sure about that. Anyway, this man was Jєωιѕн, and had converted to the Catholic Faith. His Jєωιѕн mother disowned him because of his conversion, but he never stopped praying for her conversion, even after she died without converting. 

Sometime after his mother's death, Father received a note from a nun who had had a mystical vision in which she saw that his mother, in being close to death and unconscious (I think she was in a coma, but don't rightly recall), she was given the grace by God to be shown who Jesus really was - the Messiah and son of God, and that the Catholic Church was the true church. She accepted this, and thus was saved. We don't know what graces God can work before a person dies. 

Anyway, I thought this story to be appropriate to this thread. 
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 16, 2017, 08:34:16 AM
The homily last night for the Feast of the Assumption had partly to do with Baptism of Desire. It was in relation to the salvation of souls. Father said that we must try to convert those family members and friends who are not Catholic, and we must pray for them, and pray for them still if they have died without converting.

He said that God can work extra-sacramentally, though we cannot count on this of course. He then gave an example by telling a true story about a Carmelite friar. I think his name was Fr. Herman, but I'm not sure about that. Anyway, this man was Jєωιѕн, and had converted to the Catholic Faith. His Jєωιѕн mother disowned him because of his conversion, but he never stopped praying for her conversion, even after she died without converting.

Sometime after his mother's death, Father received a note from a nun who had had a mystical vision in which she saw that his mother, in being close to death and unconscious (I think she was in a coma, but don't rightly recall), she was given the grace by God to be shown who Jesus really was - the Messiah and son of God, and that the Catholic Church was the true church. She accepted this, and thus was saved. We don't know what graces God can work before a person dies.

Anyway, I thought this story to be appropriate to this thread.
So, with all due miss/ma'am, and with no offense intended:
1. You just asserted that a priest stated that (human x) DIED >WITHOUT CONVERTING<. Is this intended?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Meg on August 16, 2017, 08:42:30 AM
So, with all due miss/ma'am, and with no offense intended:
1. You just asserted that a priest stated that (human x) DIED >WITHOUT CONVERTING<. Is this intended?

Read the entire post, Dizzy. She did convert.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 16, 2017, 08:58:21 AM
Didn't you read my answer?......
I know the great saint Alphonsus taught contrary to Trent, but unlike you, at least he corrected himself so he no longer contradicts Trent when he says only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary in as much as a BOD "justifies by faith alone", he echo's Trent explicit condemnation: "[If anyone shall say that] although all are not necessary for every individual, without the sacraments, or without the desire for the sacraments, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

The thing you cannot get through your brain is the fact that Trent condemns a BOD exactly where you say Trent defines a BOD.

If a BOD is not "justification through faith alone", then what is it?

Oh my gosh.  You actually believe that.  "He contradicted Trent"  then "corrected himself".  Again you are either ignorant or willfully blind.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 16, 2017, 09:00:01 AM
The homily last night for the Feast of the Assumption had partly to do with Baptism of Desire. It was in relation to the salvation of souls. Father said that we must try to convert those family members and friends who are not Catholic, and we must pray for them, and pray for them still if they have died without converting.

He said that God can work extra-sacramentally, though we cannot count on this of course. He then gave an example by telling a true story about a Carmelite friar. I think his name was Fr. Herman, but I'm not sure about that. Anyway, this man was Jєωιѕн, and had converted to the Catholic Faith. His Jєωιѕн mother disowned him because of his conversion, but he never stopped praying for her conversion, even after she died without converting.

Sometime after his mother's death, Father received a note from a nun who had had a mystical vision in which she saw that his mother, in being close to death and unconscious (I think she was in a coma, but don't rightly recall), she was given the grace by God to be shown who Jesus really was - the Messiah and son of God, and that the Catholic Church was the true church. She accepted this, and thus was saved. We don't know what graces God can work before a person dies.

Anyway, I thought this story to be appropriate to this thread.
I heard a variation of this sermon some years back from an SSPX priest (one of my favorite SSPX priests to this day), except his woman was an atheist her whole life and was in the hospital (where 1000 different chemicals - including tap and purified water - is readily available and people are all over the place who could have baptized her), but anyway, the story goes.....in her coma she was inspired by Our Blessed Mother, desired baptism before dying and was saved by the BOD.

If I recall correctly, he attributed her salvation to her straightening a stem of a flower by a statue of Our Lady one day when she was a little girl.  

In his version, apparently there was no need for some mystic to testify of her good fortune, he stated it as if her salvation was a matter of certain fact.    
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 16, 2017, 09:04:14 AM
Oh my gosh.  You actually believe that.  "He contradicted Trent"  then "corrected himself".  Again you are either ignorant or willfully blind.
The "or desire" he said was "de fide" was plainly wrong. That "or desire" is speaking about justification, not salvation - yet he said it was de fide that it meant salvation.

He was wrong, he corrected himself, he says that you, who say no sacrament is necessary, a heretic - which is proof he corrected himself. Too bad you refuse to follow his example and correct yourself. Heretic.

If a BOD is not "justification through faith alone", then what is it?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 16, 2017, 09:06:25 AM
The homily last night for the Feast of the Assumption had partly to do with Baptism of Desire. It was in relation to the salvation of souls. Father said that we must try to convert those family members and friends who are not Catholic, and we must pray for them, and pray for them still if they have died without converting.

He said that God can work extra-sacramentally, though we cannot count on this of course. He then gave an example by telling a true story about a Carmelite friar. I think his name was Fr. Herman, but I'm not sure about that. Anyway, this man was Jєωιѕн, and had converted to the Catholic Faith. His Jєωιѕн mother disowned him because of his conversion, but he never stopped praying for her conversion, even after she died without converting.

Sometime after his mother's death, Father received a note from a nun who had had a mystical vision in which she saw that his mother, in being close to death and unconscious (I think she was in a coma, but don't rightly recall), she was given the grace by God to be shown who Jesus really was - the Messiah and son of God, and that the Catholic Church was the true church. She accepted this, and thus was saved. We don't know what graces God can work before a person dies.

Anyway, I thought this story to be appropriate to this thread.
There are like 3 stories like this that keep coming up and that is about it. If I read such a story I would think that the Jєω mother may have been secretly baptized as a child by her Christian nanny, it was common for Jєωs to use Christian nannies. On the other hand, if this Jєω was saved as a Jєω, I would have to turn all the dogmas of EENS upside down and of course conclude that anyone can be saved in any religion, Jєω, Mohamedan, Hindu.... Keep in mind that this is all based on private revelation on the part of a nun.

Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of authenticated Catholic accounts of people barely hanging onto life for long periods of time (the Indians of the Americas) till a missionary wanders in to baptize them, then they died within minutes. You can read about it in Father De Smet's biography  The life of Father De Smet, The Apostle of the Rockies and also in Isaac Jogues's biography Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac Jogues. There are also hundreds of accounts of people being brought back from the dead just to be baptized then they die right after the baptism. I place one such account below.

From : Peter Claver: Saint of the Slaves, by Fr. Angel Valltiera, S.J., Burns and Oates, London, 1960, pp. 221,222.:

"The affair of the slave Augustina, who served in the house of Captain Vincente de Villalobos, was one of the strangest in the life of Claver...When Augustina was in her last agony Villalobos went in search of Claver. When the latter arrived the body was already being prepared for the shroud and he found it cold to the touch. His expression suddenly changed and he amazed everyone by crying aloud, "Augustina, Augustina." He sprinkled her with holy water, he knelt by her, and prayed for an hour. Suddenly the supposedly dead woman began to move...All fell on their knees. Augustina stared at Claver, and as if awakening from a deep sleep said, "Jesus, Jesus, how tired I am!" Claver told her to pray with all her heart and repent her sins, but those standing by, moved by curiosity, begged him to ask her where she came from. He did so, and she said these words: "I am come from journeying along a long road. It was a beautiful road, and after I had gone a long way down it I met a white man of great beauty who stood before me and said, 'Stop, you cannot go further.' I asked him what I should do, and he replied, 'Go back the way you have come, to the house you have left.' This I have done, but I cannot tell how." On hearing this Claver told them all to leave the room and leave him alone with her because he wished to hear her confession. He prepared her and told her that complete confession of her sins was of immense importance if she wanted to enter that paradise of which she had had a glimpse. She obeyed him, and as he heard her confession it became clear to Claver that she was not baptized. He straightway ordered water to be brought, and a candle and a crucifix. Her owners answered that they had had Augustina in their house for twenty years and that she behaved in all things like themselves. She had gone to confession, to Mass, and performed all her Christian duties, and therefore she did not need Baptism, nor could she receive it. But Claver was certain that they were wrong and insisted, baptizing her in the presence of all, to the great delight of her soul and his, for a few minutes after she had received the sacraments she died in the presence of the whole family."  

22 Peter Claver: Saint of the Slaves, Fr. Angel Valltiera, S.J., Burns and Oates, London, 1960, pp. 221,222.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Meg on August 16, 2017, 09:07:34 AM
I heard a variation of this sermon some years back from an SSPX priest (one of my favorite SSPX priests to this day), except his woman was an atheist her whole life and was in the hospital (where 1000 different chemicals - including tap and purified water - is readily available and people are all over the place who could have baptized her), but anyway, the story goes.....in her coma she was inspired by Our Blessed Mother, desired baptism before dying and was saved by the BOD.

If I recall correctly, he attributed her salvation to her straightening a stem of a flower by a statue of Our Lady one day when she was a little girl.  

In his version, apparently there was no need for some mystic to testify of her good fortune, he stated it as if her salvation was a matter of certain fact.    

It's probably not the same story. I can't really see many similarities between the two stories.

The SSPX priest who told this story last night is one of my favorite priests. Great sense of humor. But he can also be very serious.

Didn't Archbishop Lefebvre believe in BoD? I recall another SSPX priest many years ago preaching on BoD. 
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Meg on August 16, 2017, 09:14:34 AM
There are like 3 stories like this that keep coming up and that is about it. If I read such a story I would think that the Jєω mother may have been secretly baptized as a child by her Christian nanny, it was common for Jєωs to use Christian nannies. On the other hand, if this Jєω was saved as a Jєω, I would have to turn all the dogmas of EENS upside down and of course conclude that anyone can be saved in any religion, Jєω, Mohamedan, Hindu.... Keep in mind that this is all based on private revelation on the part of a nun.


Well, yes, it is based on the revelation of a nun, which puts it in the realm of the subjective, and therefore not absolute, of course. But it does give an indication that she was saved - not by her religion, but because of God's grace, due to her son's fervent prayers for her. Cannot God be moved to tell the truth about Our Lord and His Church to an unbaptized person, due to fervent prayers for that person? 
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 16, 2017, 09:17:47 AM
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles. Book V, Sec I, Concerning the Martyrs, para 6: (3rd-4th Century): (A compilation of writings from the Apostles and their immediate successors) "But let him who is vouchsafed the honour of martyrdom rejoice with joy in the Lord, as obtaining thereby so great a crown, and departing out of this life by his confession. Nay, though he be trot a catechumen, let him depart without trouble; for his suffering for Christ will be to him a more genuine baptism, because he does really die with Christ, but the rest only in a figure."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 16, 2017, 09:29:27 AM
I really love the truth of this teaching from St. Alphonsus.

"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching.  But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons:  for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)"


If a BOD is not "justification by faith alone", then what is it?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 16, 2017, 09:30:57 AM
I really love the truth of this teaching from St. Alphonsus.

"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching.  But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons:  for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)"



I love it too!
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 16, 2017, 09:37:34 AM
I love it too!
Oh look, there's LoL being non-responsive again…
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 16, 2017, 09:39:04 AM
St. Basil, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XV: "And ere now there have been some who in their championship of true religion have undergone the death for Christ's sake, not in mere similitude, but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood. Thus I write not to disparage the baptism by water, but to overthrow the arguments of those who exalt themselves against the Spirit; who confound things that are distinct from one another, and compare those which admit of no comparison." 
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Ladislaus on August 16, 2017, 09:52:37 AM
What's your obsession with this issue, LoT?  It's at the point of being a mental problem.  Aren't there bigger fish to fry than a handful of marginalized and ridiculed people who take the EENS dogma at face value?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 16, 2017, 09:57:32 AM
Well, yes, it is based on the revelation of a nun, which puts it in the realm of the subjective, and therefore not absolute, of course. But it does give an indication that she was saved - not by her religion, but because of God's grace, due to her son's fervent prayers for her. Cannot God be moved to tell the truth about Our Lord and His Church to an unbaptized person, due to fervent prayers for that person?
Why did you chose to leave out the rest of what I wrote? It is the most important part. There are like three stories like yours in the history of the Church, that's it. It sounds like you are choosing teachers according to your own desires. The story you posted is teaching that people in all religions can be saved, is that what you believe?

The rest of what I wrote that you left out:

Quote
Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of authenticated Catholic accounts of people barely hanging onto life for long periods of time (the Indians of the Americas) till a missionary wanders in to baptize them, then they died within minutes. You can read about it in Father De Smet's biography  The life of Father De Smet, The Apostle of the Rockies and also in Isaac Jogues's biography Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac Jogues. There are also hundreds of accounts of people being brought back from the dead just to be baptized then they die right after the baptism. I place one such account below.

Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 16, 2017, 10:01:27 AM
Read the entire post, Dizzy. She did convert.
1. Non-responsive.
2. I did, perhaps you should. .^. the question/point. To spell it out , first of all your acct is contradictory, i.e. , and subject matter/content aside, NOT CATHOLIC.

I'm trying very hard to at least be civil, perhaps you would try to do likewise?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 16, 2017, 10:04:57 AM
What's your obsession with this issue, LoT?  It's at the point of being a mental problem.  Aren't there bigger fish to fry than a handful of marginalized and ridiculed people who take the EENS dogma at face value?
All he is doing is posting quotes about BOD of the catechumen and BOB, one at a time, none of which apply to what he believes and is trying to convert others to believe; that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc can be saved. If he posted quotes that taught Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc can be saved, he would have nothing to post but the mental gymnastics of modern theologians.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Meg on August 16, 2017, 10:05:12 AM
Why did you chose to leave out the rest of what I wrote? It is the most important part. There are like three stories like yours in the history of the Church, that's it. It sounds like you are choosing teachers according to your own desires. The story you posted is teaching that people in all religions can be saved, is that what you believe?

The rest of what I wrote that you left out:

I'm quite familiar with the lives of the North American Martyrs. I recommend an excellent book about their lives, called, "Saints of the American Wilderness."

I left it out because I wasn't interested in your extreme view. You are saying that those who believe in Bod believe that those in all religions can be saved, and that's not what I'm saying at all. You take an extreme and untruthful view of what I said, and then you expect that I am supposed accept and comment on what you are saying. Until you can, in a mature manner, truthfully comment on what I said, I will not respond further to you.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 16, 2017, 10:07:40 AM
I'm quite familiar with the lives of the North American Martyrs. I recommend an excellent book about their lives, called, "Saints of the American Wilderness."

I left it out because I wasn't interested in your extreme view. You are saying that those who believe in Bod believe that those in all religions can be saved, and that's not what I'm saying at all. You take an extreme and untruthful view of what I said, and then you expect that I am supposed accept and comment on what you are saying. Until you can, in a mature manner, truthfully comment on what I said, I will not respond further to you.
If you believe that Jєωιѕн mother was saved as it is described, then why not a Mohamedan, Buddhist, Hindu, indeed any religion be saved the same way? There is in your quote not one indication that the Jєωess was a catechumen or had the explicit desire to be a Catholic in her last moments. Based on the story, I have to ask: then why not a Mohamedan, Buddhist, Hindu, indeed any religion be saved the same way?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Ladislaus on August 16, 2017, 10:10:01 AM
LoT has obvious mental problems.  I'm going to start just ignoring every one of his pathetic troll threads.  He can amuse himself with these.  I suggest that others do the same.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Meg on August 16, 2017, 10:10:46 AM
1. Non-responsive.
2. I did, perhaps you should. .^. the question/point. To spell it out , first of all your acct is contradictory, i.e. , and subject matter/content aside, NOT CATHOLIC.

I'm trying very hard to at least be civil, perhaps you would try to do likewise?

Dizzy, your mind is frequently in the gutter in many of your posts. I understand why you find it difficult to be civil, and that you are indeed trying to be so at this moment (but that will quickly change, of course).

My post was responsive. You just chose not to pay attention to it. 
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Meg on August 16, 2017, 10:11:39 AM
If you believe that Jєωιѕн mother was saved as it is described, then why not a Mohamedan, Buddhist, Hindu, indeed any religion be saved the same way?

It had nothing to do with her religion.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Ladislaus on August 16, 2017, 10:12:16 AM
You are saying that those who believe in Bod believe that those in all religions can be saved, and that's not what I'm saying at all.

Not necessarily, but that's where 99.9% of all BoDers end up.  And if I dig deep enough, I'm guessing that your views along those lines will also become evident.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 16, 2017, 10:13:00 AM
I love it too!
If a BOD is not "justification by faith alone", then what is it?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Ladislaus on August 16, 2017, 10:13:21 AM
It had nothing to do with her religion.

Except that you're saying that an unconverted Jєω can be saved, thereby rejecting the dogma EENS and promoting the notion that someone can be saved in any religion.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Ladislaus on August 16, 2017, 10:14:14 AM
If a BOD is not "justification by faith alone", then what is it?

Heck, it's not even that.  Infidels can benefit from BoD, according to these clowns.  It's more justification by "sincerity" (aka good will) alone.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 16, 2017, 10:18:36 AM
It had nothing to do with her religion.
This is what I asked: 
Quote
If you believe that Jєωιѕн mother was saved as it is described, then why not a Mohamedan, Buddhist, Hindu, indeed any religion be saved the same way? There is in your quote not one indication that the Jєωess was a catechumen or had the explicit desire to be a Catholic in her last moments. Based on the story, I have to ask: then why not a Mohamedan, Buddhist, Hindu, indeed any religion be saved the same way?

"It had nothing to do with her religion" is not an answer.  
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Meg on August 16, 2017, 10:21:29 AM
Not necessarily, but that's where 99.9% of all BoDers end up.  And if I dig deep enough, I'm guessing that your views along those lines will also become evident.

I'm don't know what you are hoping to "dig up."

Why would anyone be saved because of their false religion? They cannot be saved as such, but rather they can have a possibility in spite of their religious connection. Isn't that what Archbishop Lefebvre believed?

Why can God not grant grace of conversion, especially if that person has been prayed for by a faithful Catholic? How is it that non-Catholics come to convert to the True Faith, if not guided by Divine Providence? I myself am a convert. Little graces were thrown in my path, and I was given the strength to follow them. Not of my own volition, which is weak.

Saint Paul was a persecutor of Catholics. Yet God chose him to be an Apostle, despite his hatred of Catholics. Paul was not baptized when Our Lord spoke to him on the road to Damascus, though of course he was told by Our Lord where to go to be baptized.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Meg on August 16, 2017, 10:22:04 AM
This is what I asked:
"It had nothing to do with her religion" is not an answer.  

Then there is no further use in responding to you. 
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 16, 2017, 10:23:02 AM
Heck, it's not even that.  Infidels can benefit from BoD, according to these clowns.  It's more justification by "sincerity" (aka good will) alone.
I totally agree. I ask it that way because echoing Trent, St. Alphonsus condemns it that way.

I don't think it's even justification by sincerity, more like justification by some presumed sincerity or some presumed desire, but I say "faith alone" because St. Alphonsus stresses even that won't save anyone. If "faith alone" won't save anyone, a presumed sincerity or presumed desire doesn't stand a chance.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 16, 2017, 10:35:25 AM
I'm quite familiar with the lives of the North American Martyrs. I recommend an excellent book about their lives, called, "Saints of the American Wilderness."

I left it out because I wasn't interested in your extreme view. You are saying that those who believe in Bod believe that those in all religions can be saved, and that's not what I'm saying at all. You take an extreme and untruthful view of what I said, and then you expect that I am supposed accept and comment on what you are saying. Until you can, in a mature manner, truthfully comment on what I said, I will not respond further to you.
Double standards make for divided minds and tongues miss/ma'am.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 16, 2017, 10:40:40 AM
LoT has obvious mental problems.  I'm going to start just ignoring every one of his pathetic troll threads.  He can amuse himself with these.  I suggest that others do the same.
Character "problems" if he didnt have such a troubling vote ratio, not to mention lauds, I'd concur.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 16, 2017, 10:43:23 AM
Dizzy, your mind is frequently in the gutter in many of your posts. I understand why you find it difficult to be civil, and that you are indeed trying to be so at this moment (but that will quickly change, of course).

My post was responsive. You just chose not to pay attention to it.
So much for that…
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 16, 2017, 10:55:53 AM
Eusebius of Caesarea, Church Father (4th Century): The Church History of Eusebius, Book VI, Chapter IV: "And of women, Herais died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire, as Origen himself somewhere says."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 16, 2017, 10:58:08 AM
If a BOD is not "justification by faith alone", then what is it?
"Baptism of desire" which is really the baptism of the Holy Ghost, impossible apart from supernatural charity (thus faith alone up in smoke) and the other requisites including a supernatural faith based upon God revealing.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 16, 2017, 11:02:15 AM
Then there is no further use in responding to you.
Your non-answers are typical of people who believe that anyone of "good"  will is saved even if they are Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist... etc. , they are afraid of sincerely revealing what they believe. We who believe that dogma is the final word on a subject that was previously in doubt, spill our every thought here, while those who believe that all people of "good" will are saved, never sincerely reveal their beliefs directly.

A perfect example is LOT, he's posted more on this sub-forum ghetto than practically everyone else put together, and yet to this day no one knows precisely what he believes.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 16, 2017, 11:03:43 AM
St. Genesius of Arles, (4th Century): As noted in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "A notary martyred under Maximianus in 303 or 308. Feast, 25 Aug. He is honoured as patron of notaries, and invoked against chilblains and scurf. The Acts (Acta SS., Aug., V, 123, and Ruinart, 559), attributed to St. Paulinus of Nola, state: Genesius, native of Arles, at first a soldier became known for his proficiency in writing, and was made secretary to the magistrate of Arles. While performing the duties of his office the decree of persecution against the Christians was read in his presence. Outraged in his ideas of justice, the young catechumen cast his tablets at the feet of the magistrate and fled. He was captured and executed, and thus received baptism in his own blood. His veneration must be very old, as his name is found in the ancient martyrology ascribed to St. Jerome. A church and altar dedicated to him at Arles were known in the fourth century." 
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 16, 2017, 11:06:40 AM
I'm don't know what you are hoping to "dig up."

Why would anyone be saved because of their false religion? They cannot be saved as such, but rather they can have a possibility in spite of their religious connection. Isn't that what Archbishop Lefebvre believed?

Why can God not grant grace of conversion, especially if that person has been prayed for by a faithful Catholic? How is it that non-Catholics come to convert to the True Faith, if not guided by Divine Providence? I myself am a convert. Little graces were thrown in my path, and I was given the strength to follow them. Not of my own volition, which is weak.

Saint Paul was a persecutor of Catholics. Yet God chose him to be an Apostle, despite his hatred of Catholics. Paul was not baptized when Our Lord spoke to him on the road to Damascus, though of course he was told by Our Lord where to go to be baptized.
Will stated and if you happened to die while on your path to conversion, before being baptized, though that is where it ultimately led, and had supernatural faith and perfect charity or perfect contrition you would have been saved as God, never asking the impossible, would have taken the desire for the act.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 16, 2017, 11:14:14 AM
All he is doing is posting quotes about BOD of the catechumen and BOB, one at a time, none of which apply to what he believes and is trying to convert others to believe; that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc can be saved. If he posted quotes that taught Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc can be saved, he would have nothing to post but the mental gymnastics of modern theologians.
Let me add, that he is posting quotes about BOD of the catechumen and BOB, one at a time, when he does not believe the quotes he is posting, for he believes that people can be saved who have no desire to die for the faith (BOB) or to be catechumen or to be a Catholic and even despise the Church.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 16, 2017, 11:16:04 AM
These non-answers are typical of people who believe that anyone of "good"  will is saved even if they are Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist... etc. , they are afraid of sincerely revealing what they believe. We who believe that dogma is the final word on a subject that was previously in doubt, spill our every thought here, while those who believe that all people of "good" will are saved, never sincerely reveal their beliefs directly.

A perfect example is LOT, he's posted more on this sub-forum ghetto than practically everyone else put together, and yet to this day no one knows precisely what he believes.

Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 16, 2017, 11:16:46 AM
Let me add, that he is posting quotes about BOD of the catechumen and BOB, one at a time, when he does not believe the quotes he is posting, for he believes that people can be saved who have no desire to die for the faith (BOB) or to be catechumen or to be a Catholic and even despise the Church.
You make things up as you go along.  I'm not sure I've encountered an intellectually honest feeneyite on this forum.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 16, 2017, 11:50:06 AM
Your non-answers are typical of people who believe that anyone of "good"  will is saved even if they are Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist... etc. , they are afraid of sincerely revealing what they believe. We who believe that dogma is the final word on a subject that was previously in doubt, spill our every thought here, while those who believe that all people of "good" will are saved, never sincerely reveal their beliefs directly.

A perfect example is LOT, he's posted more on this sub-forum ghetto than practically everyone else put together, and yet to this day no one knows precisely what he believes.
… no one, and no 'else'.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 16, 2017, 11:53:39 AM
St. Augustine, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th-5th Century): The Seven Books of Augustin, Bishop of Hippo, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, Ch 22: "That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise." On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment."

Ch23: "But as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it was spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself is present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably wanting."


Ch24: "And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity..."


Ch25: "By all these considerations it is proved that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another; but that man's salvation is made complete through the two together. Nor are we to suppose that, if one of these be wanting, it necessarily follows that the other is wanting also; because the sacrament may exist in the infant without the conversion of the heart; and this was found to be possible without the sacrament in the case of the thief, God in either case filling up what was involuntarily wanting. But when either of these requisites is wanting intentionally, then the man is responsible for the omission. And baptism may exist when the conversion of the heart is wanting; but, with respect to such conversion, it may indeed be found when baptism has not been received, but never when it has been despised."

From City of God, Book XIII, Chapter 7: "Of the Death Which the Unbaptized Suffer for the Confession of Christ: For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, "Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," John 3:5 made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;" Matthew 10:32 and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it." Matthew 16:25"

A Treatise on the Soul and Its Origin, Book II, Ch17, Disobedient Compassion and Compassionate Disobedience Reprobated and Martyrdom In Lieu Of Baptism: "Truth, by the mouth of Itself incarnate, proclaims as if in a voice of thunder: "Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." And in order to except martyrs from this sentence, to whose lot it has fallen to be slain for the name of Christ before being washed in the baptism of Christ, He says in another passage, "He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."

A Treatise On the Soul and Its Origin, by Aurelius Augustin, Bishop of Hippo; In Four Books, 419, Book 1, CH 11, Title Of Chapter 11: "Martyrdom for Christ Supplies the Place of Baptism. The Faith of the Thief Who Was Crucified Along with Christ Taken As Martyrdom And Hence for Baptism".

 On the Soul and Its Origin, Book 1, Ch 10: "Moreover, from the time when He said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;" and again, "He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it; " no one becomes a member of Christ except it be either by baptism in Christ, or death for Christ."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 16, 2017, 12:07:54 PM

"… ghetto… " Very well put.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 16, 2017, 12:09:52 PM
St. John of Damascus, Doctor of the Church (7th-8th Century): Exposition of the Orthodox Faith: "The seventh is baptism by blood and martyrdom, which baptism Christ Himself underwent in our behalf, He Who was too august and blessed to be defiled with any later stains."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 16, 2017, 12:14:59 PM
You make things up as you go along.  I'm not sure I've encountered an intellectually honest feeneyite on this forum. Audacity, another hallmark of the heretic…
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 16, 2017, 12:20:24 PM
It isn't entirely true to say that none read LoL's posts, seeing as how WE HAVE THEM IN PRINT ALREADY. (hint hint)
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 16, 2017, 12:20:29 PM
St. Bede, Doctor of the Church (8th century): An Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Book 1, Ch.7, The Passion of St. Albanus and his companions, p.24: "Then and there also that soldier was beheaded, who being before restrained by the beck of the Highest, refused to inflict the stroke on the holy confessor of God; concerning whom indeed it is manifest that, albeit he was not washed in the font of baptism, yet was he cleansed by the libation of his own blood, and made worthy to enter into the heavenly kingdom."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 16, 2017, 02:04:34 PM
Why can God not grant grace of conversion, especially if that person has been prayed for by a faithful Catholic? How is it that non-Catholics come to convert to the True Faith, if not guided by Divine Providence? I myself am a convert. Little graces were thrown in my path, and I was given the strength to follow them. Not of my own volition, which is weak.

Saint Paul was a persecutor of Catholics. Yet God chose him to be an Apostle, despite his hatred of Catholics. Paul was not baptized when Our Lord spoke to him on the road to Damascus, though of course he was told by Our Lord where to go to be baptized.
The difference between those who convert and those who do not convert, is those who convert accept or corresponded with the graces God offers. Those who do not convert reject the graces God offers. Said properly, were God to see that the person would take the graces were they offered to him, they would be given.

Unlike those who would not take the graces, you corresponded to the grace God offered Meg, that is the *only* difference between the two. In His Providence, He would do the same for everyone if they would only let Him. None of us are any different in that regard. Not you, not me, not the dying infidel with a supposed desire for the sacrament.

Always remember that it was God that arranged for you to be baptized, and it is by that very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires it or is willing to receive it, there are no circuмstances that could ever prohibit God from providing the sacrament to one who sincerely desires it. As Fr. Wathen says: "If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children."

Regarding the Doctrine of the Divine Providence in the matter, he goes on: "If one is going to do it, almighty God will give one the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it. The notion of "baptism of desire"-and it is only a notion, there is no doctrine to it-falls into the same category as the Protestant form of confession, the confession of one's sins "directly to Christ." As it is stated, it sounds pious and adequate. But God says it is insufficient, because He forgives sins through the Church only, and one must submit oneself to the Church to receive this forgiveness."

  
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 16, 2017, 02:07:44 PM
Roman Breviary (17th century): St. Emerentiana, Jan 23, p.805: "A Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God."

 St. Recipicius, Nov 10, p. 1095: “During the reign of the emperor Decius, as Tryphon was preaching the faith of Jesus Christ and striving to persuade all men to worship the Lord, he was arrested by the henchmen of Decius. First, he was tortured on the rack, his flesh torn with iron hooks, then hung head downward, his feet pierced with red hot nails. He was beaten by clubs, scorched by burning torches held against his body. As a result of seeing him endure all these tortures so courageously, the tribune Respicius was converted to the faith of Christ the Lord. Upon the spot he publicly declared himself to be a Christian. Respicius was then tortured in various ways, and toggether with Tryphon, dragged to a statue of Jupiter. As Tryphon prayed, the statue fell down. After this occurredboth were mercilessly beaten with leaden tipped whips and thus attained to glorious martyrdom.”
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Meg on August 16, 2017, 03:19:36 PM
Will stated and if you happened to die while on your path to conversion, before being baptized, though that is where it ultimately led, and had supernatural faith and perfect charity or perfect contrition you would have been saved as God, never asking the impossible, would have taken the desire for the act.

Makes sense.

If Saint Paul had died before being baptized by Ananias, it doesn't make sense of course that he would have gone to Hell before he had a chance to be baptized, though those who are against Bod might claim that Saint Paul would have gone to Hell.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 16, 2017, 03:24:13 PM
Will stated and if you happened to die while on your path to conversion, before being baptized, though that is where it ultimately led, and had supernatural faith and perfect charity or perfect contrition you would have been saved as God, never asking the impossible, would have taken the desire for the act.
You say this heresy as if it is a dogmatic fact.

What happened to Trent's decreeing that the sacraments are necessary for salvation? Do you think God cannot provide the sacraments in certain situations or that only certain situations make it impossible for God to provide the sacrament He Himself established as a requirement for salvation?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 16, 2017, 03:28:22 PM
Makes sense.

If Saint Paul had died before being baptized by Ananias, it doesn't make sense of course that he would have gone to Hell before he had a chance to be baptized, though those who are against Bod might claim that Saint Paul would have gone to Hell.
No, no, no.

Those of us against a BOD claim that because there could have been nothing to prevent his being baptized, that God would have provided St. Paul with the sacrament by the very same providence with which you were baptized.

That is what the Doctrine of Divine Providence teaches.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 16, 2017, 03:30:43 PM
Makes sense.

If Saint Paul had died before being baptized by Ananias, it doesn't make sense of course that he would have gone to Hell before he had a chance to be baptized, though those who are against Bod might claim that Saint Paul would have gone to Hell.
"Sense". Omniscient, omnipotent being creates universe and all other creatures… can't arrange a bit of H2O.

"Sense"

Nyquil and crazypills rule the age.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 17, 2017, 03:20:56 AM
You're contradicting one enslaved to contradiction, and is therefore completely impervious to reason.
1)Here he is saying that the conversion doesn't even need to take place yet to be saved: "if you happened to die while on your path to conversion...you would have been saved". Contra EENS!* 2)He is also teaching that supernatural faith, perfect charity and perfect contrition CAN be attained not only without Baptism but even without conversion, but merely on your path to conversion!!! This is contra Dogma!** 3) Then he teaches us that God can command something (Baptism) but then waive that command as it is impossible. Also contra Catholic Teaching that God does not command impossibilities.***

No Catholic saint, theologian, father etc... ever taught this.

* Florence Sess.8:"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith..."
**Trent Sess.6 Ch.7: "This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church...previously to the sacrament of Baptism"
***Trent Sess.6 Ch.11:"For God does not command impossibilities..."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 21, 2017, 12:18:36 PM
If you were confronted with martyrdom before having the chance to be baptized you would have to deny Christ in order to get baptized.  This shows the brutal insanity of those who insist on the novel "No Salvation Apart from Water" heresy.   :facepalm:
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 21, 2017, 02:19:45 PM
Makes sense.

If Saint Paul had died before being baptized by Ananias, it doesn't make sense of course that he would have gone to Hell before he had a chance to be baptized, though those who are against Bod might claim that Saint Paul would have gone to Hell.
That is exactly right.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 21, 2017, 02:22:46 PM
1)Here he is saying that the conversion doesn't even need to take place yet to be saved: "if you happened to die while on your path to conversion...you would have been saved". Contra EENS!* 2)He is also teaching that supernatural faith, perfect charity and perfect contrition CAN be attained not only without Baptism but even without conversion, but merely on your path to conversion!!! This is contra Dogma!** 3) Then he teaches us that God can command something (Baptism) but then waive that command as it is impossible. Also contra Catholic Teaching that God does not command impossibilities.***

No Catholic saint, theologian, father etc... ever taught this.

* Florence Sess.8:"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith..."
**Trent Sess.6 Ch.7: "This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church...previously to the sacrament of Baptism"
***Trent Sess.6 Ch.11:"For God does not command impossibilities..."
Point granted.  I should have worded "before becoming an actual member".  Though in a certain sense the conversion process starts when you gain the actual grace to consider the Catholic Faith and ends when you join the Catholic Church, the point when you can be saved is after you have obtained a supernatural faith while at the same time having the supernatural virtue of charity, any time from this point until becoming a baptized member of the Catholic Church one can be saved within the Church.  
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 21, 2017, 02:28:05 PM
@JohnAnthonyMarie

I already answered your question and yes you are ignoring the infallible Teachings of the Church. I quoted Florence and Trent and you give me commentary on canons!  

Do i reject that canon? Yes, there are other errors in that Code of Canon Law as well.

1. It's a Dogma ALL who die in mortal sin or original sin go to Hell.

2. Read what i wrote earlier, you have to make a decision, no way around this:

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!!    
 
You are being totally dishonest like most modernist heretics. 'B.o.d' and 'b.o.b' is simply a doctrine of man. Are you aware St.Robert Bellarmine taught 'b.o.d' but said unbaptized catechumens are not part of the Church?

Are you aware St. Alphonsus admits that 'baptism of desire' does not take away the temporal punishment due to sin.This is a devastating problem for 'b.o.d' and its supporters.


ST. ALPHONSUS ADMITS THAT 'BAPTISM OF DESIRE' DOES NOT PROVIDE THE GRACE OF SPIRITUAL REBIRTH/BAPTISM, WHICH TRENT SAYS EVERYONE MUST HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED.


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

St. Alphonsus says that 'b.o.d' does not remove the temporal punishment due to sin. According to his explanation, someone who dies with a 'b.o.d' may need to spend time in Purgatory. That’s actually a fatal problem for the 'theory' because the Church has dogmatically defined that the grace of baptism is not merely the remission of the guilt of sin, but also the remission of all temporal punishment due to sin.

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, "Exultate Deo," Nov. 22, 1439: "Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life… The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every fault, original and actual, and also of every punishment which is owed for the fault itself. Therefore to the baptized no satisfaction is to be enjoined for past sins; but dying, before they commit any fault, they immediately attain the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God."

ALL THOSE BORN AGAIN HAVE EVERY PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN REMITTED

Likewise, the Council of Trent’s Decree on Original Sin solemnly defined that all those who are ‘born again’ have all the guilt and every punishment due to sin removed.  This grace of being 'born again' renders the recipients ‘immaculate’ and it leaves in them nothing that could retard their entrance into Heaven.

Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, #5, Ex Cathedra: "If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven."

As we can see, it’s a Dogma that the grace of baptism/spiritual rebirth/being ‘born again’ provides not only justification and the remission of the guilt of sin, but also the remission of every punishment due to sin.

TO BE JUSTIFIED EVERYONE MUST BE ‘BORN AGAIN’ – A GRACE WHICH INCLUDES THE REMISSION OF EVERY TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN

Furthermore, it’s de fide definita that UNLESS YOU RECEIVE THE GRACE OF SPIRITUAL REBIRTH/BEING ‘BORN AGAIN’ YOU CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED!

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

Is this becoming clear?

I noticed you're defending invincible ignorance also, wow what a surprise! [sarcasm]

It's interesting how the modernists who defend the demonic doctrine of invincible ignorance are actually the most ignorant of Church Teaching and Scripture.

Pope Pius IX was simply wrong, people who accept 'b.o.d' and 'b.o.d' are some of the most selective people i have come across.

Quick destruction of invincible ignorance:

  Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (#2), April 15, 1905: "And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: 'We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.'"

Pope Gregory XVI, Probe Nostis (#6), Sept. 18, 1840: "We are thankful for the success of apostolic missions in America, the Indies, and other faithless lands... They search out those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death to summon them to the light and life of the Catholic religion... At length they snatch them from the devil’s rule, by the bath of regeneration and promote them to the freedom of God’s adopted sons."

The great "Apostle of the Rocky Mountains," Fr. Pierre De Smet, who was the extraordinary missionary to the American Indians in the 19th century, was also convinced – with all the great Catholic missionaries before him – that all the Indians whom he did not reach would be eternally lost.

Fr. De Smet, S.J., Jan. 26, 1838: "New priests are to be added to the Potawatomi Mission, and my Superior, Father Verhaegen gives me hope that I will be sent. How happy I would be could I spend myself for the salvation of so many souls, who are lost because they have never known truth!" [Fr. E. Laveille, S.J., The Life of Fr. De Smet, p. 80]

St. Alphonsus: "See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jєωs, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost." [Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.]


MANY MANY other quotes can be provided. Here is God The Holy Ghost:

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 "And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them."

Psalms 78:6 "Pour out thy wrath upon the nations that have not known thee: and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God."
He "admits" in regard to the character not in regards to the remission of guilt which is what is necessary for salvation.  One with the character can be damned one in a state of sanctifying grace cannot.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 21, 2017, 02:30:11 PM
It's amazing that hardly any, if any, BODers/InIviners ever quote the entire paragraph of this FALLIBLE allocution to Cardinals. Here is the full text and the part they leave out in bold.
Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem: For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.  

1. Pope Pius IX is saying that the invincible ignorance will not save a person but that God does not find fault in this matter of their ignorance. This is unlike those who are culpable for their ignorance, they are at fault. It does not mean those individuals will not be damned for their other sins since there is no remission of sins outside the Church.
2. In the section they never quote he clearly implies that while here on Earth, we are to believe that Baptism is necessary and to seek other avenues for salvation is not allowed discussion. So the supporters of salvific ignorance are disobeying the Pope when they further this point.
3. The Doctors they love to quote are completely and explicitly against this. St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.” St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760): “How many are born among the pagans, among the Jєωs, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn292) (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn291)
Anything put in the Acta by a valid Pope must be accepted by a Catholic.  Are you a Catholic?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 21, 2017, 02:35:09 PM
You're in denial.
 The 1917 CCL is NOT Catholic Teaching. You honestly reject what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Your authority is a commentary on Canon Law. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

"Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord."
Jeremiah 17:5

"David was right in saying that all people lie. Mankind’s life on earth is a struggle and like the mountain dew that soon is gone, like the flower of the field that quickly withers. We mortals are so blind that out of such a multitude of people only a small portion know the true God, primarily in this part of the world, Europe, the Spaniards being the most faithful. Among those raised in the church, few confess the faith and many of them are in sin, so nineteen out of twenty parts of mankind live in darkness and blindness." [Colahan, The Visions of Sor María de Agreda p.53]
The Church is infallible in canon law as it pertains to doctrine.  Of course disciplines can change:
R. P. AUGUSTE-ALEXIS GOUPIL, S.J.
LA RÈGLE DE LA FOI pg. 22: http://catholicapedia.net/Docuмents/cah ... oi_48p.pdf (http://catholicapedia.net/Docuмents/cahier-saint-charlemagne/docuмents/C301_RP-Goupil_la-Regle-de-la-foi_48p.pdf)

The Proximate Rule of Faith
Infallibility of Church Discipline:

37.- A. The Church is infallible in Her discipline.

What is an example of a disciplinary law? They are not Divine ordinances, as for example the indissolubility of Holy Matrimony; rather ecclesiastical laws enacted by the authority of the Church; for example: The celibacy of the Clergy; the keeping of Sunday as a Holy Day. These laws are general laws as opposed to laws restricted to a particular country or province, as for example the keeping of certain feasts as holy days of obligation; rather, general or universal laws for the whole Church or at least for a branch of the Church; therefore the Code of Canon Law for the Latin rite is considered a universal law. 

It is certain that the Church has the same authority to not only enact laws, but also to reform or abrogate these same laws; therefore all of Her laws can be modified.

How does a disciplinary law participate in a dogmatic truth? A law, in itself, strictly speaking, is neither true nor false; it does not expressly affirm or deny anything; it orders or prohibits us from doing something. Therefore, it does not fall under a definition of the Magisterium; rather it belongs to the Church’s power of jurisdiction. Nonetheless, a disciplinary decree includes a dogmatic decree. For when the Church issues a law, She affirms that the law is just, which implies two conditions: a) That this law is in conformity with faith and morals of the Divine Law; consequently any doctrine touching faith or morals is included in that Ecclesiastical law, this law is infallibly true. Therefore if the Church commands that prayers should be offered for the departed; one can conclude infallibly that the prayers of the living are useful for the souls in Purgatory.

b) In addition, that the above mentioned just law tends towards the good of the society. It is therefore impossible that a universal law of the Church should be harmful to the Christian society. We do not pretend to affirm that an ecclesiastical law which is generally good, cannot cause some particular inconveniences; we do however affirm that the common good is procured through this law, and that it offers more advantages than inconveniences. 

We do not state that a Church law is the very best in each case, nor the most opportune, that is why it is permissible to respectfully seek its modification or even abrogation; but we affirm that as such, it is useful for the good of souls.

Finally, its possible that a good law may result in causing harm to a particular individual who becomes guilty of infringing on the law; but this prejudice comes from the individuals malice, and not from the law itself, according to the words of St. Paul: “And I died. And the commandment that was ordained to life, the same was found to be unto death to me.” (Rom. 7.10).

Proofs:
From Sacred Scripture in the acts of the Apostles XV, 28, the Apostles issued a disciplinary law and they declared that it emanated from the Holy Ghost as well as themselves: “For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things.”
Ecclessiastical Docuмents:

The Council of Trent declares (Denzinger-954 Can. 7.): “ If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.’’

St. Thomas in the Summa responds to the arguments against the rites of the Mass by affirming that [IIIa q.LXXXIII, 5, sed contra]: On the contrary, The custom of the Church stands for these things: and the Church cannot err, since she is taught by the Holy Ghost. 

Theological Reason: In the Church, the power of the Magisterium and that of government cannot be separated; one implies the other; it is the same individuals who teach and govern, and they teach because they govern (see n. 7). Thus the very same universal disciplinary law emmanates from the supreme power of jurisdiction which is infallible. As a consequence, a practical decree that would incluye a profession of error would be the equivalent of an erroneous doctrinal decree, which is impossible.

Note.
One can easily see that the present question belongs to the mixed object of the Magisterium. In effect, the fact that a disciplinary law is in concordance with the Divine rule of faith and morals, has a relation to the principal object (a revealed truth); that this same law is useful to the common good, is a question that belongs to the secondary object (a dogmatic fact). These together constitute the mixed object.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 21, 2017, 02:42:04 PM
It's amazing that hardly any, if any, BODers/InIviners ever quote the entire paragraph of this FALLIBLE allocution to Cardinals. Here is the full text and the part they leave out in bold.
Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem: For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.  

1. Pope Pius IX is saying that the invincible ignorance will not save a person but that God does not find fault in this matter of their ignorance. This is unlike those who are culpable for their ignorance, they are at fault. It does not mean those individuals will not be damned for their other sins since there is no remission of sins outside the Church.
2. In the section they never quote he clearly implies that while here on Earth, we are to believe that Baptism is necessary and to seek other avenues for salvation is not allowed discussion. So the supporters of salvific ignorance are disobeying the Pope when they further this point.
3. The Doctors they love to quote are completely and explicitly against this. St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.” St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760): “How many are born among the pagans, among the Jєωs, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn292) (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn291)
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/allocution.htm
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 21, 2017, 02:44:15 PM
THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF PAPAL ALLOCUTIONS
By Joseph Clifford Fenton
from the
American Ecclesiastical Review
( circa 1956, pp. 109-117)
     The papal allocution is a comparative newcomer among the important vehicles of the Holy Father's ordinary magisterium.  The first Sovereign Pontiff to employ the allocution extensively for doctrinal purposes was Pope Pius IX.  The first allocution cited in Denzinger's Enchiridion symbolorum is the Acerbissimum vobiscuм, delivered by Pope Pius IX in a Secret Consistory on Sept. 27, 1852.[1]

     Some indication of the frequency with which Pope Pius IX used allocutions to bring out important doctrinal truths may be gleaned from the fact that there are seventeen of these allocutions among the thirty-two sources from which the teachings of the famous Syllabus errorum were derived.  The Acerbissimum vobiscuм was one of these sources.  Like the "Acerbissimum," all of the other allocutions used in drawing up the "Syllabus" were delivered by the Holy Father in Secret Consistories.[2]

     Like Pope Pius IX, the present Holy Father [Pope Pius XII] has used the consistorial allocution as an important instrument of his ordinary magisterium.  To point to only two examples, during the course of the Marian Year of 1954 he issued doctrinal decisions of outstanding moment in the consistorial allocutions Si diligis and Magnificate Dominum.[3]  Pope Pius XII, however, has also made doctrinal statements of great importance in allocutions delivered to private groups, that is, to groups other than those which include the hierarchy.  Thus, for example, he has set forth some basic points of Catholic teaching about what should be the relation between the Church and the state in two allocutions, the Ci riesce[4] delivered to the National Convention of the "Unione dei Giuristi Italiani" on Dec. 6, 1953, and the Vous avez voulu,[5] spoken on Sept. 7, 1955, to the tenth annual Convention of the Historical Sciences.

     Despite the fact that there is nothing like an adequate treatment of the papal allocutions in existing theological literature, every priest, and particularly every professor of sacred theology, should know whether and under what circuмstances these allocutions addressed by the Sovereign Pontiffs to private groups are to be regarded as authoritative, as actual expressions of the Roman Pontiff's ordinary magisterium.  And, especially because of the tendency towards an unhealthy minimism current in this country and elsewhere in the world today, they should also know how doctrine is to be set forth in the allocutions and the other vehicles of the Holy Father's ordinary magisterium if it is to be accepted as authoritative.  The present brief paper will attempt to consider and to answer these questions.

     The first question to be considered is this: Can a speech addressed by the Roman Pontiff to a private group, a group which cannot in any sense be taken as representing either the Roman Church or the universal Church, contain doctrinal teaching authoritative for the universal Church?

     The clear and unequivocal answer to this question is contained in the Holy Father's encyclical letter Humani generis, issued Aug. 12, 1950.  According to this docuмent: "if, in their 'Acta' the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."[6]

     Thus, in the teaching of the Humani generis, any doctrinal decision made by the Pope and included in his "Acta" are authoritative.  Now many of the allocutions made by the Sovereign Pontiff to private groups are included in the "Acta" of the Sovereign Pontiff himself, as a section of the Acta apostolicae sedis.  Hence, any doctrinal decision made in one of these allocutions that is published in the Holy Father's "Acta" is authoritative and binding on all the members of the universal Church.

     There is, according to the words of the Humani generis, an authoritative doctrinal decision whenever the Roman Pontiffs, in their "Acta," "de re hactenus controversa data opera sententiam ferunt."  When this condition is fulfilled, even in an allocution originally delivered to a private group, but subsequently published as part of the Holy Father's "Acta," an authoritative doctrinal judgment has been proposed to the universal Church.  All of those within the Church are obliged, under penalty of serious sin, to accept this decision.

     Occasionally we encounter some utterly misleading comment on the meaning of the expression "data opera" in this section of the text of the Humani generis.  In the excellent "Harper's Latin Dictionary" the expression "operam dare" is explained as meaning "to bestow care or pains on, to give attention to" something.  It should be quite clear that this does not add any new note to a pontifical doctrinal judgment or decision.  According to the terms of the tremendous responsibility he has received from Our Lord Himself, the Sovereign Pontiff is definitely expected to give special and outstanding attention to any doctrinal decision he gives at any time and in any way, when he speaks as Pope and uses either his solemn or his ordinary magisterium.  Hence, there is and there can be no such thing as a decision in the field of Catholic doctrine, given by the Pope acting in his public capacity, precisely as the pastor and the teacher of all Christians, which is not set down "data opera."

     There is an authoritative papal statement, according to the text of the Humani generis, whenever the Sovereign Pontiff takes the trouble to issue a decision on a point which has hitherto been controverted, and inserts that decision in his own "Acta."  Basically, such a decision is made in one of two ways.  When there is a real controversy, two contradictory and hence mutually exclusive resolutions of an individual question are being urged, one by one group, another by that group's opponents.  The Roman Pontiff issues an authoritative decision in that controversy in a positive way when he accepts and presents one of these opposing solutions as "doctrina catholica," or, in some cases, as "de fide" or as "doctrina certa."  There is a negative pontifical judgment when the Sovereign Pontiff repudiates one of the two opposing theses as teaching which it is sinful or rash to hold, or, in the case of an infallible definition, as heretical or erroneous.

     Now the questions may arise: is there any particular form which the Roman Pontiff is obliged to follow in setting forth a doctrinal decision in either the positive or the negative manner? Does the Pope have to state specifically and explicitly that he intends to issue a doctrinal decision on this particular point?  Is it at all necessary that he should refer explicitly to the fact that there has hitherto been a debate among theologians on the question he is going to decide?

     There is certainly nothing in the divinely established constitutional law of the Catholic Church which would in any way justify an affirmative response to any of these inquiries.  The Holy Father's doctrinal authority stems from the tremendous responsibility Our Lord laid upon him in St. Peter, whose successor he is.  Our Lord charged the Prince of the Apostles, and through him, all of his successors until the end of time, with the commission of feeding, of acting as a shepherd for, of taking care of, His lambs and His sheep.[7]  Included in that responsibility was the obligation, and, of course, the power, to confirm the faith of his fellow Christians.

     And the Lord said: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.  But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."[8]

     St. Peter had, and has in his successor, the duty and the power to confirm his brethren in their faith, to take care of their doctrinal needs.  Included in his responsibility is an obvious obligation to select and to employ the means he judges most effective and apt for the accomplishment of the end God has commissioned him to attain.  And in this era, when the printed word possesses a manifest primacy in the field of the dissemination of ideas, the Sovereign Pontiffs have chosen to bring their authoritative teaching, the doctrine in which they accomplish the work of instruction God has commanded them to do, to the people of Christ through the medium of the printed word in the published "Acta."

     The Humani generis reminds us that the doctrinal decisions set forth in the Holy Father's "Acta" manifestly are authoritative "according to the mind and will" of the Pontiffs who have issued these decisions.  Thus, wherever there is a doctrinal judgment expressed in the "Acta" of a Sovereign Pontiff, it is clear that the Pontiff understands that decision to be authoritative and wills that it be so.

     Now when the Pope, in his "Acta," sets forth as a part of Catholic doctrine or as a genuine teaching of the Catholic Church some thesis which has hitherto been opposed, even legitimately, in the schools of sacred theology, he is manifestly making a doctrinal decision.  This certainly holds true even when, in making his statement, the Pope does not explicitly assert that he is issuing a doctrinal judgment and, of course, even when he does not refer to the existence of a controversy or debate on the subject among theologians up until the time of his own pronouncement.  All that is necessary is that this teaching, hitherto opposed in the theological schools, be now set forth as the teaching of the Sovereign Pontiff, or as "doctrina catholica."

     Private theologians have no right whatsoever to establish what they believe to be the conditions under which the teaching presented in the "Acta" of the Roman Pontiff may be accepted as authoritative.  This is, on the contrary, the duty and the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff himself.  The present Holy Father has exercised that right and has done his duty in stating clearly that any doctrinal decision which the Bishop of Rome has taken the trouble to make and insert into his "Acta" is to be received as genuinely authoritative.

     In line with the teaching of the Humani generis, then, it seems unquestionably clear that any doctrinal decision expressed by the Sovereign Pontiff in the course of an allocution delivered to a private group is to be accepted as authoritative when and if that allocution is published by the Sovereign Pontiff as a part of his own "Acta."  Now we must consider this final question: What obligation is incuмbent upon a Catholic by reason of an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Sovereign Pontiff and communicated to the universal Church in this manner?

     The text of the Humani generis itself supplies us with a minimum answer.  This is found in the sentence we have already quoted: "And if, in their 'Acta,' the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."

     Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved.  Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided.  A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

     Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his "Acta," has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine.  It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church.  This holds true always an everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition.

     The Humani generis must not be taken to imply that a Catholic theologian has completed his obligation with respect to an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Holy Father and presented in his published "Acta" when he has merely refrained from arguing or debating against it.  

The Humani generis reminded its readers that "this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals."[9]  Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and "to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See."[10]  In other words, the Humani generis claimed the same internal assent for declarations of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals which previous docuмents of the Holy See had stressed.

     We may well ask why the Humani generis went to the trouble of mentioning something as fundamental and rudimentary as the duty of abstaining from further debate on a point where the Roman Pontiff has already issued a doctrinal decision, and has communicated that decision to the Church universal by publishing it in his "Acta."  The reason is to be found in the context of the encyclical itself.  The Holy Father has told us something of the existing situation which called for the issuance of the "Humani generis."  This information is contained in the text of that docuмent.  The following two sentences show us the sort of condition the Humani generis was written to meet and to remedy:

     "And although this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth on matters of faith and morals for any theologian, as the agency to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the entire deposit of faith - that is, the Sacred Scriptures and divine Tradition - to be guarded and defended and explained, still, the duty by which the faithful are obligated also to shun those errors which approach more or less to heresy, and therefore 'to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,' is sometimes ignored as if it did not exist.  What is said in encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs about the nature and constitution of the Church is habitually and deliberately neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they claim to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks."[11]

     Six years ago, then, Pope Pius XII was faced with a situation in which some of the men who were privileged and obligated to teach the truths of sacred theology had perverted their position and their influence and had deliberately flouted the teachings of the Holy See about the nature and the constitution of the Catholic Church.  And, when he declared that it is wrong to debate a point already decided by the Holy Father after that decision has been published in his "Acta," he was taking cognizance of and condemning an existent practice.  There actually were individuals who were contradicting papal teachings.  They were so numerous and influential that they rendered the composition of the Humani generis necessary to counteract their activities.  These individuals were continuing to propose teachings repudiated by the Sovereign Pontiff in previous pronouncements.  The Holy Father, then, was compelled by these circuмstances to call for the cessation of debate among theologians on subjects which had already been decided by pontifical decisions published in the "Acta."

     The kind of theological teaching and writing against which the encyclical Humani generis was directed was definitely not remarkable for its scientific excellence.  It was, as a matter of fact, exceptionally poor from the scientific point of view.  The men who were responsible for it showed very clearly that they did not understand the basic nature and purpose of sacred theology.  For the true theologian the magisterium of the Church remains, as the Humani generis says, the immediate and universal norm of truth.  And the teaching set forth by Pope Pius IX in his Tuas libenter is as true today as it always has been.

     But when we treat of that subjection by which all Catholic students of speculative sciences are obligated in conscience so that they bring new aids to the Church by their writings, the men of this assembly ought to realize that it is not enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but [they ought also to realize] that they must submit to the doctrinal decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations and also to those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that, even though the opinions opposed to them cannot be called heretical, they still deserve some other theological censure.[12]

     It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes.  It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching.  The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian.

     The man who is privileged to teach the science of sacred theology should never allow himself to lose sight of the fact that he is one of those called in by the apostolic college to aid in a teaching work to which that apostolic college alone has been divinely commissioned.  The doctrine which the theologian is expected to teach clearly, accurately, and unequivocally is not some teaching which has been discovered by men, but rather the supernatural revelation of the Triune God.  The teacher of or writer in sacred theology is carrying out his task by the orders and under the direction of the apostolic magisterium itself.  He accomplishes his work successfully only in the measure that be whole-heartedly accepts the doctrinal decisions addressed to the universal Church by the visible head of the Church.
 
Joseph Clifford Fenton
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D. C.
ENDNOTES:

[1] Denz., 1640.
[2] The most important of these allocutions was the Singulari quadam, delivered on Dec. 9, 1854, the day after the solemn definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, to the Cardinals and Bishops gathered in Rome for the definition.
[3] The Latin text and the English translation of the Si diligis are printed in The American Ecclesiastical Review, CXXXI, 2 (Aug., 1954), 127-37.  The English translation of the Magnificate Dominum is carried in AER, CXXXII, 1 (Jan., 1955), 52-63.  For a brief commentary on the Si diligis, cf. Fenton, The Papal Allocution 'Si diligis,' AER, CXXXI, 3 (Sept., 1954), 186-98.
[4] The English translation of the Ci riesce was printed in AER, CXXX, 2 (Feb., 1954), 129-38.  The same issue of AER carries a brief commentary on this allocution.  Cf. Fenton, The Teachings of the 'Ci riesce,' ibid., 114-23.
[5] The English translation of the allocution Vous avez voulu is printed in AER, CXXXIII, 5 (Nov., 1955), 340-51.  A commentary on one section of this allocution is carried in the same issue.  Cf. Fenton, The Holy Father's Statement on Relations between the Church and the State, ibid., 323-31.
[6] Denz., 3013; AER, CXXIII, 5 (Nov., 1950), 389.
[7] Cf. John, 21: 15-19.
[8] Luke, 22:31 f.
[9] Denz., 3013; AER, CXXIII, 5 (Nov., 1950), 388.
[10] The words are quoted from the Vatican Council's [Vatican I] constitution Dei Filius, Denz., 1820.
[11] Denz., 3013; AER, CXXIII, 5 (Nov., 1950), 388 f.
[12] Denz., 1684.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 23, 2017, 08:41:00 AM
I accept this teaching by Pope Pius IX. All those who die in "invincible ignorance" will not be judged in that matter. It does not mean they will not be judged according to their other sins which can not be remitted outside the Catholic Church, which the "invincibly ignorant" are NOT a part of.
It is quite true that one not guilty in that matter could be quite guilty in another.  That is a given.  But you would have difficulty finding an authoritative teach that would claim such a one MUST be guilty in a another matter.  But the Feeneyites cannot accept Catholic teaching, so they grovel and squirm, lie and deny.  You seem a bit above that however.  I do hope the Truth finds you.

Take it in context he is talking about how there is now salvation outside the Church and then goes on to say:  

Quote
But, nevertheless, we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that [ignorance] be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. Now, who is there who would arrogate to himself the power to indicate the extent of such [invincible] ignorance according to the nature and the variety of peoples, regions, talents, and so many other things? For really when, loosed from these bodily bonds, we see God as He is, we shall certainly understand with what intimate and beautiful a connection the divine mercy and justice are joined together. But, while we live on earth, weighed down by this mortal body that darkens the mind, let us hold most firmly, from Catholic doctrine, that there is one God, one faith, one baptism. It is wrong to push our inquiries further than this.

    For the rest, as the cause of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers to God that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ. And let us do all in our power to bring about the common salvation of men, for the hand of the Lord is not shortened and the gifts of heavenly grace will never be lacking to those who sincerely wish and pray to be comforted in this light. Truths of this kind must be deeply implanted in the minds of the faithful so that they may not be corrupted by the false doctrines that tend to encourage the religious indifference (doctrinis eo spectantibus, ut religionis foveant indifferentiam) which we see being spread abroad and strengthened to the ruination of souls. [Denz., 1646-48]

Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 23, 2017, 08:46:30 AM
Quote
This, then, is the teaching which Pope Pius IX insisted that the Bishops of the Catholic Church should give to their people, in order to keep out of the minds of those people the false doctrines which could ruin their spiritual lives. The Singulari Quadam brings out the following teachings much more clearly and explicitly than previous ecclesiastical declarations on the necessity of the Church for salavation [sic] had done.

(1) It is a ruinous error to imagine that one can have grounds of hope that people now dead, and who had not entered into the Church in any way during the course of their lives, are saved.

(2) The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is in no way opposed to the truth that God is all-merciful and all-just.

(3) The doctrine that no one is saved outside the Catholic Church is a truth revealed by God through Jesus Christ, and a truth which all men must believe with the assent of divine faith. It is a Catholic dogma.

(4) Invincible ignorance, of the true Church or of anything else, is not considered by God as a sin. The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church in no way implies that invincible ignorance is sinful.

(5) It is an impious and deadly error to hold that salvation may be attained in any religion.

(6) It is not within the field either of our competence or of our rights to search out the way in which God's mercy and His justice operate in any given case of a person ignorant of the true Church or of the true religion. We shall see how these divine attributes have operated in the light of the Beatific Vision itself.

(7) It is the business of the Church to work and to pray that all men will attain salvation in the Church.

[8] God is never outdone in generosity. The person who tries to come to Him will never be forsaken. As a matter of fact, the movement toward God, like all good things, originates from God Himself. Fenton
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 23, 2017, 11:18:09 AM
You are the one claiming the Pope is teaching "salvation outside the Church".
You are the one that is lying.

I make no such claim.  Provide the quote.  Feeneyites rely on lies, calumny and detraction to "defend" their heretical position.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 23, 2017, 11:42:35 AM
I understood this to mean that you believe that the Pope is now saying there is salvation outside the Church. This is what you said.
If this is not what you meant it doesn't really matter. You are saying that invincible ignorance saves. The person doesn't know God, his laws or revelation, and has not been Sacramentally Baptized (which is where true justification begins) which couldn't be better definition for outside the Church.
I am not saying that.  This is the classic feeneyite defense mechanism when they cannot logically defend their heresy. False accusation.  Ignorance by itself neither save or damns a man.  Nor water by itself.  But sanctifying grace.  Do you dare to disagree?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 23, 2017, 12:40:50 PM
So you don't deny that you were saying that the Pope is teaching that there is now salvation outside the Church?

You're saying that one can receive sanctifying grace without all those things that I mentioned. How could a man, ignorant of all things Catholic, receive sanctifying grace, or perfect contrition/charity? Those things are meaningless without Faith which is only bestowed upon Baptism.

St. Thomas says that such a person will be led to the Catholic faith if they are invincibly ignorant. You are saying a person can be saved without that faith. The Church has declared there is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Faithful. You make that a meaningless formula because the faithful are Baptized members of the Church.
I do deny that.  I accept EENS.  It is indeed possible to be in a state of sanctifying grace apart from baptism when sacramental baptism is impossible.  Supernatural Faith and perfect charity is given to us by God.  He gives us the actual graces necessary to seek and find the truth.  It is a process.  Those who are not aware of the necessity of baptism, through no fault of their own, can obtain sanctifying grace before being baptized.  This is the teaching of the Church.  
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 23, 2017, 01:13:54 PM
"… impossible…" Man, the faith is rolling off this one like the waves at Laguna at no tide…
I do deny that.  I accept EENS.  It is indeed possible to be in a state of sanctifying grace apart from baptism when sacramental baptism is impossible.  Supernatural Faith and perfect charity is given to us by God.  He gives us the actual graces necessary to seek and find the truth.  It is a process.  Those who are not aware of the necessity of baptism, through no fault of their own, can obtain sanctifying grace before being baptized.  This is the teaching of the Church. 
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 23, 2017, 01:44:13 PM
"… impossible…" Man, the faith is rolling off this one like the waves at Laguna at no tide…
Impossible for the heretic who trusts himself more than legitimate Church authorities, the OUM and Trent.  
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 23, 2017, 01:56:16 PM
Impossible for the heretic who trusts himself more than legitimate Church authorities, the OUM and Trent. 
"Thtop hitteen yurthelf!" *thwack
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 23, 2017, 02:04:05 PM
"Thtop hitteen yurthelf!" *thwack
Okay dokey. 
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 24, 2017, 04:58:16 AM
Even the Church in the Roman Catechism merely said "if" a man were to die without baptism due to an unforeseen accident . . .

Good post tornpage, I just want to reiterate that the Roman Catechism does not say "if a man were to die without baptism due to an unforeseen accident . . ." -  in that particular teaching, the catechism never mentions anything about dying at all, nor, in that particular teaching, does it even mention anything about salvation, or even damnation for that matter. Note that the catechism does not even say that their good intentions and repentance guarantees a state of "grace and righteousness", only that it avails them to it.  

That particular teaching is strictly about the reasons the Church delays baptism to catechumens. The reason the catechism gives first, is precisely because unforeseen accident or not, there is no danger of death!  The primary reason though, is for the purpose of the required preparatory education prior to being baptized and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a BOD.

The teaching that the BODers willfully ignore in the catechism, the teaching that actually DOES apply, is the section titled: "In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be Baptised At Once".

Go figure.



Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 24, 2017, 08:15:07 AM

Quote
This is plain in both the first and the second parts of the teaching on this subject set forth in the Cantate Domino. The first part asserts that the various classes of individuals "outside" the Catholic Church not only cannot become partakers of eternal life, but also that "they are going into the everlasting fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels" unless they become united to the Church before they pass from this world. In this assertion, which, incidentally, has been designated as "rigorous" by opponents of the Church and by some badly instructed Catholics. Pope Eugenius IV merely took cognizance of the reality of Our Lord's work of redemption. Fenton

Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 25, 2017, 11:13:56 AM
When the Church teaches that one must have a perfect charity before one can be saved, the Church is talking about authentic charity. Not a mushy or even very sincere feeling that we actually love God. It is also very important to understand that perfect charity includes the desire to do good to others i.e.to love others for the love of God. As we have seen, non-members of the Church can have this perfect charity and die in a state of sanctifying grace.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 25, 2017, 11:16:51 AM
Stubborn,

Indeed I was interpreting what I take it to say.

The exact langauge is:
None of this contradicts the other teachings I have shown pertaining to BOD itself.  Of course it is best to get baptized while there is still a chance.  
As you may or may not know tornpage, Feeneyites pick and chose what they accept in catechisms.  They use it to defend one thing and then condemn it when it teaches another.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 25, 2017, 12:18:29 PM
Stubborn,

Indeed I was interpreting what I take it to say.

The exact langauge is:
Yes, it says first: The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, as I said, this is presicely because "there is no danger of death". So that's the first strike against using this to support a BOD.

Next it says: "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."

As I said: "it never mentions anything about dying at all, nor, in that particular teaching, does it even mention anything about salvation, or even damnation for that matter. Note that the catechism does not even say that their good intentions and repentance guarantees a state of "grace and righteousness", only that it avails them to it."

For that matter, the unforeseen accident could mean anything, even the priest getting a flat tire on the way to the Church. One thing WE KNOW that it does not mean, is the catechumen's accidental death - because "The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned."
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 25, 2017, 12:26:27 PM
None of this contradicts the other teachings I have shown pertaining to BOD itself.  Of course it is best to get baptized while there is still a chance.  

As you may or may not know tornpage, Feeneyites pick and chose what they accept in catechisms.

 They use it to defend one thing and then condemn it when it teaches another.
This.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 25, 2017, 12:31:30 PM
Yes, it says first: The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, as I said, this is presicely because "there is no danger of death". So that's the first strike against using this to support a BOD.

Next it says: "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."

As I said: "it never mentions anything about dying at all, nor, in that particular teaching, does it even mention anything about salvation, or even damnation for that matter. Note that the catechism does not even say that their good intentions and repentance guarantees a state of "grace and righteousness", only that it avails them to it."

For that matter, the unforeseen accident could mean anything, even the priest getting a flat tire on the way to the Church. One thing WE KNOW that it does not mean, is the catechumen's accidental death - because "The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned."
Distinctions are heresy...
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 25, 2017, 12:32:44 PM
Distinctions are heresy...
Distinctions clarify.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 25, 2017, 12:34:33 PM
Just need to understand that the catechism never mentions anything about dying at all, nor, in that particular teaching, does it even mention anything about salvation, or even damnation for that matter. Note that the catechism does not even say that their good intentions and repentance guarantees a state of "grace and righteousness", only that it avails them to it. 

We know the catechism would never mean that an unforeseen accident means an accidental death - that would mean the catechism is preaching against the Divine Providence of God, as if the catechumen's death were unexpected or a surprise to God - which is entirely conciliar thinking, used in heretic's attempts to promote a BOD.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 25, 2017, 12:36:10 PM
Just need to understand that the catechism never mentions anything about dying at all, nor, in that particular teaching, does it even mention anything about salvation, or even damnation for that matter. Note that the catechism does not even say that their good intentions and repentance guarantees a state of "grace and righteousness", only that it avails them to it.  

We know the catechism would never mean that an unforeseen accident means an accidental death - that would mean the catechism is preaching against the Divine Providence of God, as if the catechumen's death were unexpected or a surprise to God - which is entirely conciliar thinking, used in heretic's attempts to promote a BOD.
Why do you care what a catechism says when you just say they are "Not infallible" when they teach something you disagree with?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 25, 2017, 12:37:11 PM
Distinctions clarify.
So it would seem...
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 25, 2017, 12:38:32 PM
Just need to understand that the catechism never mentions anything about dying at all, nor, in that particular teaching, does it even mention anything about salvation, or even damnation for that matter. Note that the catechism does not even say that their good intentions and repentance guarantees a state of "grace and righteousness", only that it avails them to it.  

We know the catechism would never mean that an unforeseen accident means an accidental death - that would mean the catechism is preaching against the Divine Providence of God, as if the catechumen's death were unexpected or a surprise to God - which is entirely conciliar thinking, used in heretic's attempts to promote a BOD.
Logic? "Anathema Sit!"
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 25, 2017, 12:44:34 PM
So Catechisms are useful for understanding the faith even according to the feeneyites?
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 25, 2017, 12:55:04 PM
Deceit. Which one of us ever said that Catechisms are not useful for understanding the faith?
How is asking a question deceit?  So they are useful unless YOU disagree with them on a particular point.  
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 25, 2017, 12:57:41 PM
Why do you care what a catechism says when you just say they are "Not infallible" when they teach something you disagree with?
The point, which went over your head as usual, is you cannot use this catechism to support a BOD in any way, shape or form. It teaches the truth when you read what is written.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 25, 2017, 01:06:05 PM
The point, which went over your head as usual, is you cannot use this catechism to support a BOD in any way, shape or form. It teaches the truth when you read what is written.
The point is, according to you.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 25, 2017, 01:07:12 PM
They can be very "useful," like the Catechism of Trent here:
How DARE you quote things v. LoL?! You even made it...not irrelevant?

Of ALL the NERVE! :jester:
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 25, 2017, 01:08:10 PM
The point is, according to you.
:fryingpan:
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 25, 2017, 01:09:43 PM
The point, which went over your head as usual, is you cannot use this catechism to support a BOD in any way, shape or form. It teaches the truth when you read what is written.
Things are over ones head much more frequently when ducking them.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 25, 2017, 01:11:25 PM
How is asking a question deceit?  So they are useful unless YOU disagree with them on a particular point.  
see, e.g., "Leading Question", or just catch a "Matlock" rerun.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Stubborn on August 25, 2017, 01:11:35 PM
Things are over ones head much more frequently when ducking them.
Can't upthumb you any more but, EXACTLY!! x a million.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 25, 2017, 01:13:50 PM
:fryingpan:
Nope, point's still there. Maybe a cutoff saw will work better than just beating it out.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 25, 2017, 01:16:38 PM
see, e.g., "Leading Question", or just catch a "Matlock" rerun.
Nope.  Can't deny you use them do defend what you prefer to believe and be-little them when they don't.  Like a protestant with a bible.   :cheers:
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 25, 2017, 01:29:03 PM
Nope.  Can't deny you use them do defend what you prefer to believe and be-little them when they don't.  Like a protestant with a bible.   :cheers:
"This is the weather the cuckoo likes, a gambling birdhouse velocity." :fryingpan:
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 25, 2017, 01:30:37 PM
"This is the weather the cuckoo likes, a gambling birdhouse velocity." :fryingpan:
Can't deny the accusation.   :cheers:
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 25, 2017, 02:26:52 PM
From John Daly:

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared in its definition “Firmiter” that:
 
There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all
can be saved .... (Denzinger 430)
 
Pope Boniface VIII in his bull Unam Sanctam (1302) declares:
 
At the instance of faith, we are bound to believe and hold the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and her we do firmly believe and simply confess, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins .... Hence we declare, say, define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature that he be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Denzinger 468, 469)
 
In its decree Cantate Domino for the Jacobites, the Council of Florence (1439) pronounced as follows:
 
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those who are outside the Catholic Church – not only pagans, but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics – can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of the ecclesiastical body that only those
remaining in her can profit unto salvation by the Sacraments of the Church, and that they alone will receive eternal rewards for their fasting and almsgiving, their works of piety and exercises of Christian soldiery; and that no one, no matter how great his almsgiving, and even if he shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
 
(iv) In its decree on Original Sin (17th June 1536), the Council of Trent referred, in its opening words, to
 
…our Catholic Faith, without which it is impossible to please God.  (Denzinger 789)
 
– an authoritative interpretation of St. Paul’s affirmation that “without faith it is impossible to please God.” (Hebrews 11:6)
 
(v) In his encyclical Mirari Vos of 1832, Pope Gregory XVI wrote the following:
 
We are now proceeding against another exceedingly fertile cause of the evils by which we grieve to see the Church afflicted at present, namely indifferentism: i.e. that perverse opinion, which is everywhere gaining ground thanks to the wiles of evil men, according to which the eternal salvation of the soul can be obtained by the profession of any faith provided that the norm of upright and decent morals be observed ....(Denzinger 1613)
 
(vi) In his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur (1863), Pope Pius IX speaksas follows:
 
But here ... it is necessary once more to mention and reprehend a most grave error by which some Catholics are wretchedly deluded – namely, those who think that men living in errors and as strangers to the true Faith and Catholic unity can arrive at eternal life. Nothing indeed could be more opposed to Catholic doctrine. (Denzinger 1677)
 
(vii) The same pontiff in his Syllabus of Errors (1864) condemned the proposition that “men in any religion can find the path of, and arrive at, eternal salvation.” (Denzinger 1716)
 
(viii) And the following protest is taken from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis (1950):
 
Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.
 
These statements of the Magisterium could be supplemented by many others, as well as by the unanimous voice of Holy Scripture, the Fathers, the Doctors and the saints. The doctrine thus taught, without the smallest degree of equivocation or ambiguity, is:
 
(a) that it is absolutely impossible to be saved, to have one’s sins forgiven, or even to please God at all, except when united by faith to the unity of the Catholic Church and in submission to the legitimate Roman Pontiff; and
 
(b) that this doctrine is so firm and universal that it admits of not even a single exception – not even in the case of those who lay down their lives for Christ in a “Christian” sect.
Readers are unlikely to disagree with the above summary of the doctrine of the Magisterium on this point; for the wording of the texts is sufficient to dispel all doubt for anyone who is prepared to accept them at face value without attempting to force upon them a quite unnatural “interpretation” – or rather falsification – in order to make them accord better with what seems appropriate to him or with what he has learnt from some second-rate catechism or explanation of Catholic doctrine put together by a popularizing author rather than by a theologian of real status and merit.18 However it must also be made clear that these texts of the Magisterium do not represent the complete picture, in that a subtle theological distinction must be made before it is possible to attain a thorough understanding of how the conditions necessary for salvation may be fulfilled in practice even in exceptional situations.
 
Three Quite Recent Statements of the Magisterium
 
There have been three texts of the Magisterium19 which, without contradicting the other texts, or restricting the universality of their application, or even modifying their natural meaning in the slightest degree, have nevertheless gone further than them, in broaching two subjects not expressly addressed in those earlier decrees:
 
 (a) the reconciliation, in a manner consonant with the perfect justice of God, of the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church with the existence of men who are invincibly and therefore inculpably ignorant of the existence of this Church, and/or
of the obligation of joining her; and
 
(b) the exact borderline between those who are considered to be inside the Church, and those who are considered to be outside her, according to the terms of the dogma.
 
Long before the Magisterium had addressed these topics, some theological writers who had taken it upon themselves to address them and had reached conclusions concerning them that were simply incompatible with the dogmatic teaching of the Church already quoted.
 
It was to correct such errors – many of them actually heretical – that the Magisterium intervened and pointed out the correct limits of orthodoxy on these questions; but, alas!, these very interventions, whether because they were studied only superficially or because they were consciously distorted, were seized on by the liberals, the minimizers,
the indifferentists, as confirmations of the very errors they had set out to correct! Although no excuse can be made to exonerate those who thus abused the teaching of the Church, it must certainly be admitted that these statements of the Magisterium contain delicate theological nuances, and that to be properly understood they must be
read attentively and thoughtfully, preferably with the assistance of some trustworthy theological work specifically considering this topic.
 
The first of these pronouncements is Pope Pius IX’s allocution Singulari Quadam, delivered on 9th December 1854, of which I shall quote, and then analyse, the relevant section:
 
Not without sorrow have we learnt that another error, no less lethal [than the rationalistic error he has been condemning in the previous paragraphs], has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world and lodged itself in the minds of many Catholics who think there to be good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who are by no means within the true Church of Christ [‘qui in vera Christi Ecclesia nequaquam versantur’]. For this reason they constantly wonder about the fate and condition after death of those who were not attached [‘addicti’] to the Catholic Faith, and, convinced by arguments of not the slightest force, they await a response from us in favour of this perverse notion. ( ...) As our Apostolic office requires, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused so that, as far as you can, you may drive out of men’s minds this opinion, no less impious than deadly, that the path of eternal salvation can be found in any religion. Use all the skill and learning at your disposal to show to the people committed to your care that these dogmas of the Catholic Faith are by no means opposed to the Divine mercy and justice.
 
It must be held by faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church, that this Church is the sole ark of salvation, and that whosoever does not enter her shall perish in the flood; but it must also be held as certain that those who are ignorant of the true religion, if their
ignorance be invincible, are subject to no guilt on this account in the eyes of the Lord. But who would claim the ability to designate the limits of such ignorance in accordance with the nature and variety of peoples, religions, characters and of so many other things? (Denzinger 1646-7)
 

Such are the words of Pope Pius IX on the topic we are examining, words which, according to Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton, “have all too frequently been misinterpreted by Catholic writers who have examined them superficially.” (The Catholic Church and Salvation, p. 42)
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: San Bernardino on August 25, 2017, 04:18:38 PM
@Lover of Richard Cushing

Like i said before "baptism" of desire/blood is a man made doctrine and was never taught by the Church. Some saints taught it and they all contradicted each other. Some specifically taught desire others blood. 


Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: "This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.'"


But NONE of them taught it like the diabolical modernists preach it today, which according to them can be applied to ANYONE. Virtually all who believe in desire/blood also believe in invincible ignorance. Instead of actually trying to convert people to the one true Faith in this time of supreme darkness and promoting the flawless work of MHFM. These dunces are dedicated specifically to promote desire/blood and invincible ignorance. 

Council of Trent obliterates desire simply by saying:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, 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 Ghost' [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema."

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, 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."

The passage that lovers of Cushing bring up where Trent mentions desire is simply referring to adult justification.

Catholics during these times were 'baptizing' Jєωs by force! Invalid. 

That's why Trent mentions desire. Same reason that Florence mentions the words of consecration is because during the time of Florence some priests weren't saying the right words! St.Bernardino calling their Masses 'Masses of ignorance'.

Same way the lovers of Cushing twist Trent is the same way that the puffed up with diabolical pride schismatic Greeks twist Constantinople I and say that it never mentions the Filioque. 

How can the Church anathematize someone for saying Baptism is optional, then go and 'teach' desire? This is why Lovers of Cushing ALWAYS contradict themselves. Here is a perfect example from Brother Peter's book:

Another example would be the famous book, The Catechism Explained, by Fr. Spirago and Fr. Clarke.  Like Dr. Ott’s book, The Catechism Explained taught baptism of desire and that there is salvation “outside” the Church. Yet despite this fact, these "theologians" (Frs. Spirago and Clarke) were compelled to admit the following truth, which is confessed universally by all purported Catholic theologians.
 
Fr. Francis Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: "3.  BAPTISM IS INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY TO SALVATION. Hence children who die unbaptized cannot enter heaven. Our Lord says: 'Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven' (John 3:5). He makes no exception, not even in the case of infants... Baptism is no less indispensable in the spiritual order than water in the natural order..." 

This shows, again, how the universal teaching of theologians is that baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation, and that Our Lord’s words in John 3:5 have no exceptions. The fact that Frs. Spirago and Clarke proceed to contradict this statement and teach baptism of desire (and the heresy of salvation "outside" the Church) just shows their own inconsistency – and the inconsistency of all who favor baptism of desire.
 
Fr. Francis Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: "... for adults the simple desire is sufficient, if actual baptism is impossible."

 How can water baptism be indispensably necessary for salvation (as they just told us), if the simple desire for it is sufficient in its place?  That is a direct contradiction. And anyone who says that it is not simply denies the law of non-contradiction.  One cannot say that:
 
Water Baptism is indispensably necessary for salvation
 
And at the same time....
 
Water Baptism is not indispensably necessary for salvation (desire can replace it)
 
   These two statements are contradictory, but this is exactly what people were being taught all over the world in catechisms since the late 1800’s. They were being taught the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously they were taught the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition). This shows that even in the time of growing apostasy, heresy and modernism that was the period from approximately 1850 to 1950, all theologians and catechisms still affirmed the universally taught truth on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation, even though they did not remain consistent with it.

The miraculous baptisms throughout history also annihilate desire/blood.

Michael Malone who was a member of the Harlot of Babylon [The modern day 'Church' in Rome and the prophesied end times counter-church] says:

"The Fathers of the Church, therefore, taken as a whole, can only be said to have verified definitively the official and authentic teaching of the one true Church that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be baptized in the water of the actual sacrament instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.  And to exalt the personal theological opinions of a handful – even an impressive and well-known handful – to the rank of ecclesiastical Tradition or even magisterial infallibility is not only an exercise in sophomoric legerdemain [verbal sleight of hand], but also a brand of facile short-sightedness unconscionable in any serious study of Patristic Theology." [Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten, p. 404.]

What Spirago and Clarke said regarding Baptism being impossible was condemned by Trent!


Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, Ex Cathedra: "... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do..." 

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 to 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."

As proven above, God commanded all men to be baptized. The supporters of the theory of baptism of desire argue that for some people the command to be baptized is impossible to fulfill.

True Catholics actually try to convert and baptize non-Catholics. Lovers of Cushing [SSPX, CMRI, SSPV etc] are hellbent on promoting desire/blood and invincible ignorance and trying to exalt fallible statements to the levels of the Magisterium and make exceptions to Dogmas!
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 25, 2017, 04:49:45 PM
@Lover of Richard Cushing

Like i said before "baptism" of desire/blood is a man made doctrine and was never taught by the Church. Some saints taught it and they all contradicted each other. Some specifically taught desire others blood.


Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: "This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.'"


But NONE of them taught it like the diabolical modernists preach it today, which according to them can be applied to ANYONE. Virtually all who believe in desire/blood also believe in invincible ignorance. Instead of actually trying to convert people to the one true Faith in this time of supreme darkness and promoting the flawless work of MHFM. These dunces are dedicated specifically to promote desire/blood and invincible ignorance.

Council of Trent obliterates desire simply by saying:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, 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 Ghost' [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema."

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, 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."

The passage that lovers of Cushing bring up where Trent mentions desire is simply referring to adult justification.

Catholics during these times were 'baptizing' Jєωs by force! Invalid.

That's why Trent mentions desire. Same reason that Florence mentions the words of consecration is because during the time of Florence some priests weren't saying the right words! St.Bernardino calling their Masses 'Masses of ignorance'.

Same way the lovers of Cushing twist Trent is the same way that the puffed up with diabolical pride schismatic Greeks twist Constantinople I and say that it never mentions the Filioque.

How can the Church anathematize someone for saying Baptism is optional, then go and 'teach' desire? This is why Lovers of Cushing ALWAYS contradict themselves. Here is a perfect example from Brother Peter's book:

Another example would be the famous book, The Catechism Explained, by Fr. Spirago and Fr. Clarke.  Like Dr. Ott’s book, The Catechism Explained taught baptism of desire and that there is salvation “outside” the Church. Yet despite this fact, these "theologians" (Frs. Spirago and Clarke) were compelled to admit the following truth, which is confessed universally by all purported Catholic theologians.
 
Fr. Francis Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: "3.  BAPTISM IS INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY TO SALVATION. Hence children who die unbaptized cannot enter heaven. Our Lord says: 'Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven' (John 3:5). He makes no exception, not even in the case of infants... Baptism is no less indispensable in the spiritual order than water in the natural order..."

This shows, again, how the universal teaching of theologians is that baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation, and that Our Lord’s words in John 3:5 have no exceptions. The fact that Frs. Spirago and Clarke proceed to contradict this statement and teach baptism of desire (and the heresy of salvation "outside" the Church) just shows their own inconsistency – and the inconsistency of all who favor baptism of desire.
 
Fr. Francis Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: "... for adults the simple desire is sufficient, if actual baptism is impossible."

 How can water baptism be indispensably necessary for salvation (as they just told us), if the simple desire for it is sufficient in its place?  That is a direct contradiction. And anyone who says that it is not simply denies the law of non-contradiction.  One cannot say that:
 
Water Baptism is indispensably necessary for salvation
 
And at the same time....
 
Water Baptism is not indispensably necessary for salvation (desire can replace it)
 
   These two statements are contradictory, but this is exactly what people were being taught all over the world in catechisms since the late 1800’s. They were being taught the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously they were taught the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition). This shows that even in the time of growing apostasy, heresy and modernism that was the period from approximately 1850 to 1950, all theologians and catechisms still affirmed the universally taught truth on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation, even though they did not remain consistent with it.

The miraculous baptisms throughout history also annihilate desire/blood.

Michael Malone who was a member of the Harlot of Babylon [The modern day 'Church' in Rome and the prophesied end times counter-church] says:

"The Fathers of the Church, therefore, taken as a whole, can only be said to have verified definitively the official and authentic teaching of the one true Church that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be baptized in the water of the actual sacrament instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.  And to exalt the personal theological opinions of a handful – even an impressive and well-known handful – to the rank of ecclesiastical Tradition or even magisterial infallibility is not only an exercise in sophomoric legerdemain [verbal sleight of hand], but also a brand of facile short-sightedness unconscionable in any serious study of Patristic Theology." [Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten, p. 404.]

What Spirago and Clarke said regarding Baptism being impossible was condemned by Trent!


Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, Ex Cathedra: "... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do..."

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 to 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."

As proven above, God commanded all men to be baptized. The supporters of the theory of baptism of desire argue that for some people the command to be baptized is impossible to fulfill.

True Catholics actually try to convert and baptize non-Catholics. Lovers of Cushing [SSPX, CMRI, SSPV etc] are hellbent on promoting desire/blood and invincible ignorance and trying to exalt fallible statements to the levels of the Magisterium and make exceptions to Dogmas!
"...Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: "This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.'"

...theologians being, to LoL, the Teaching Authority of the Church.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 28, 2017, 08:34:43 AM
FR. A. TANQUERY, Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II - 1945 (1024-1)

The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.

Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.

b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Ladislaus on August 29, 2017, 08:06:20 AM
Fenton Diaries ( November 23, 1968 ):

Quote
“I have just about made up my mind to start a new book. I shall write on the notion of the Church. Nothing like this has appeared since the Council. Within the book I hope to have quite a bit to say about the Council. I must be very careful. If a sincere Catholic writes a book it’s either ignored or brutally attacked. I must make no mistakes. My main thesis will have to be that the Catholic theology on the Church has been improved but in no way changed by the Council. 
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 29, 2017, 08:08:30 AM
FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:

Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Ladislaus on August 29, 2017, 08:10:18 AM
from Lover of Heresy's great Catholic "authority" on Catholic ecclesiology ...

Fenton Diaries ( November 23, 1968 ):

Quote
I have just about made up my mind to start a new book. I shall write on the notion of the Church. Nothing like this has appeared since the Council. Within the book I hope to have quite a bit to say about the Council. I must be very careful. If a sincere Catholic writes a book it’s either ignored or brutally attacked. I must make no mistakes. My main thesis will have to be that the Catholic theology on the Church has been improved but in no way changed by the Council. 
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 29, 2017, 08:11:19 AM
from Lover of Heresy's great Catholic "authority" on Catholic ecclesiology ...

Fenton Diaries ( November 23, 1968 ):
MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:

The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 29, 2017, 01:33:27 PM
from Lover of Heresy's great Catholic "authority" on Catholic ecclesiology ...

Fenton Diaries ( November 23, 1968 ):

Clarity check again. Irrespective of LoL's endorsement, is your contention with the word/s"
1. improved
2. changed
3. (other)
Title: Re: Why Feeneyites Hate Catholic Teaching
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 30, 2017, 02:19:27 PM
FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J.Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, 1921

Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.