Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ladislaus on June 30, 2025, 12:13:31 PM
-
So, I was blocked on X by "Novus Ordo Watch" because they can't handle the truth and pretend to carry on their cognitive dissonance ...
(https://i.ibb.co/DH7wXN4L/NO-Watch.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/cXMjNw5G/NO-Watch2.jpg)
True or False, Derksen? If you deny it, please find me examples of Trad bishop and priests who do not hold the position of Roncalli that you posted, namely, rejecting that "non-Catholics must convert to Catholicism to be saved."
Maybe instead of docuмenting every single Clown Mass in the Novus Ordo, they could actually check their own doctrine ... since they hold the very same error they condemn Roncalli for.
Pathetic hypocrisy.
-
It's your own fault, you mentioned "Feeneyites" and blew their whole tradition. :laugh1:
-
I don't care so much about the banning ... as their nonsense has gotten incredibly tedious anyway ... with them providing absolutely nothing of value. They bloviate about how the Novus Ordo is a false religion, a non-Catholic sect ... but then do nothing but watch and analyze every single move they make, evey time a clown dances down the aisle in a Novus Ordo church (not unlike Tradition in Action that way).
But the ABSURDITY of their condemning Roncalli for saying people did not have to convert to the Catholic religion in order to be saved ... while the Trad clergy these gusy support ALL HOLD THE SAME THING. Are they really that stupid ... or just intellectually dishonest?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=336CC1vwb5E
-
Only difference between them and the Conciliar usurpers (on this point) is that the trads will pay mouth service to EENS before denying it..which I think is actually worse
-
Only difference between them and the Conciliar usurpers (on this point) is that the trads will pay mouth service to EENS before denying it..which I think is actually worse
Yes, I think you're right ... that it is worse, since you falsely give the impression that you believe in it, where the Conciliars make it clear that they do not.
There was the one exception with Bishop McKenna stating that EENS wasn't so much a dogma as it was some kind of "warning" sent to non-Catholics to convert .. which means, I take it, that he considered being in the Church necessary by necessity of precept only.
This is so very sad ... where not only do you have the Conciliar apostasy, nearly the entire Trad movement is a completely sh**show.
It's also very true that almost everyone who's ever walked onto a sedevacantist chapel reports back that they got a "cult" vibe from it, where it's undeniable that a "leaven of the Pharisees" has largely infected SV groups. I think the CMRI less so ... but then they too have their issues, especially with EENS.
Here's the thing about EENS (with most of them using BoD as a distraction, since there are in fact some ways to articulate it that do not inherently undermine EENS, but labor under other issues) ... if you believe that non-Catholics can be saved YOU HAVEN'T GOT A SINGLE (THEOLOGICAL) LEG TO STAND ON in rejecting Vatican II.
It's so simple that a child can understand it.
MAJOR: No Salvation Outside the Church [dogma]
MINOR: Non-Catholics can be saved (without converting before they die)
CONCLUSION: Non-Catholics can be in the Church (without converting before they die)
What does that do to ecclesiology? Now the Church consists not only of Catholics but also can include varieties of non-Catholics, people who are formally Catholics (somehow ... Anonymous Catholics I guess), but also various heretics, schismatics, and even infidels (per most Trad clergy) ... in varying degrees of material proxmity to the "subsistent core" of the Church (i.e. to the Catholics). They are indeed then our "separated brethren", brethren because they are after all in the Church, but separated (materially) due to belonging to different religions. Since, then these are in the Church, they are no longer in need of conversion, per se, but would benefit from being drawn closre to this "fullness of truth", which they neverthless possess at least partially in varying degrees.
Even Religious Liberty follows.
MAJOR: I have a right to save my soul and to please God.
MAJOR: I save my soul and please God by following my (even erroneous) beliefs and conscience.
CONCLUSION: I have a right to follow my (even erroneous) beliefs and conscience.
In fact, if you get in the way of following my conscience, you may ironically be impeding my salvation, dissuading me from doing what I must to please God and save my soul ... even if what you're presenting to me is the truth.
Subjective soteriology translates to a right to follow the subjective requirements for salvation.
None of this is the least bit difficult. But there's this incredible cognitive dissonance ... and it's especially strong among the SVs, about which I'll post later.
-
Trad clergy -
(From the bishop of the church I go to:)
Iffy on EENS and pretty much an "okayer" of NFP...
Yep.
-
Trad clergy -
(From the bishop of the church I go to:)
Iffy on EENS and pretty much an "okayer" of NFP...
Yep.
Yeah, that abous sums it up.
-
So the reason that SVs in particular are so hostile to EENS (much more so than R&R) is because in their battles with R&R they ended up making the (age-old) error of moving to the opposite extreme, exaggerating the scope of papal infallibility practically to the point of absurdity, attributing to it an almost absolute inerrancy. See, if they conceded that a Pope can teach error in fallible statements, then their battle with R&R becomes whether the teaching of V2 meets the notes of inallibility ... which could go back and forth in see-saw fashion without any kind of clear winner. If they concede that any papal teaching can be erroneous, then why not 2, or 3, or 5? What's the limit? Is there a point at which a difference in degree becomes a different in kind? SVs tout the infallibility of theological consensus, but I've asked them to produce a single post VI and pre VII theologians who holds that popes can never err. You'll find exactly 0 ... and they just ignore the question.
In any case, due to their exaggeration of infallibility, for them the old Suprema Haec [sic] might as well be Pius IX's solemn dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception, for all intents and purposes. Father Cekada then also invented this theory about how the consensus of theologians also should be considered inerrant for all intents and purposes also ... something that both historical examples falsify and which a true theologian like Msgr. Fenton explicitly rejects. I then ask how it is that all theologians (with Bishop Guerard des Lauriers being the only exception that I now of) considered Vatican II Catholic and the New Mass Catholic ... and of course all theologians between VI and VII held that there theoretically COULD be some error in papal teaching.
-
For the V2 church, Traditionalists are the only people who are condemned.
For Traditionalism, Feeneyites are the only people who are condemned.
-
For the V2 church, Traditionalists are the only people who are condemned.
For Traditionalism, Feeneyites are the only people who are condemned.
I don’t think you thought this through…… :laugh1:
-
So, I was blocked on X by "Novus Ordo Watch" because they can't handle the truth and pretend to carry on their cognitive dissonance ...
(https://i.ibb.co/DH7wXN4L/NO-Watch.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/cXMjNw5G/NO-Watch2.jpg)
True or False, Derksen? If you deny it, please find me examples of Trad bishop and priests who do not hold the position of Roncalli that you posted, namely, rejecting that "non-Catholics must convert to Catholicism to be saved."
Maybe instead of docuмenting every single Clown Mass in the Novus Ordo, they could actually check their own doctrine ... since they hold the very same error they condemn Roncalli for.
Pathetic hypocrisy.
Many of these online trads resort to blocking because they can't refute the facts. They have an especial aversion to Fr Feeney and EENS.
-
I don’t think you thought this through…… :laugh1:
No, it's completely accurate.
-
So the reason that SVs in particular are so hostile to EENS (much more so than R&R) is because in their battles with R&R they ended up making the (age-old) error of moving to the opposite extreme, exaggerating the scope of papal infallibility practically to the point of absurdity, attributing to it an almost absolute inerrancy. See, if they conceded that a Pope can teach error in fallible statements, then their battle with R&R becomes whether the teaching of V2 meets the notes of inallibility ... which could go back and forth in see-saw fashion without any kind of clear winner. If they concede that any papal teaching can be erroneous, then why not 2, or 3, or 5? What's the limit? Is there a point at which a difference in degree becomes a different in kind? SVs tout the infallibility of theological consensus, but I've asked them to produce a single post VI and pre VII theologians who holds that popes can never err. You'll find exactly 0 ... and they just ignore the question.
In any case, due to their exaggeration of infallibility, for them the old Suprema Haec [sic] might as well be Pius IX's solemn dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception, for all intents and purposes. Father Cekada then also invented this theory about how the consensus of theologians also should be considered inerrant for all intents and purposes also ... something that both historical examples falsify and which a true theologian like Msgr. Fenton explicitly rejects. I then ask how it is that all theologians (with Bishop Guerard des Lauriers being the only exception that I now of) considered Vatican II Catholic and the New Mass Catholic ... and of course all theologians between VI and VII held that there theoretically COULD be some error in papal teaching.
There was a recent video here posted on aliens and ai, i couldn't help but notice something. The guy said that to every Catholic believes the same thing then it's true because something about the Holy Ghost. This doesn't sound right to me and sounds similar to what many say about universal accpetianc or stuff used against EENS because "everyone believed against it".
-
For the V2 church, Traditionalists are the only people who are condemned.
For Traditionalism, Feeneyites are the only people who are condemned.
Not only that, but one gets the impression that the SVs who vocally denounce the Conciliars as Modernist heretics consider the "Feeneyites" to be worse heretics than even the Modernist Conciliars. I bet if you asked them whether Father Feeney or Bergoglio was the worse heretic, many / most would ansewr Father Feeney. You can almost hear them begin foaming at the mouth with the mere mention of Father Feeney. That does not come from a good place, but from somewhere diabolical. At most you can say, "well, I think the Feeneyites take it too far to the extreme.", i.e. perhaps take the EENS dogmatic definitions "too literally" or something, representing an excess of zeal. But, no, Feeneyites are "horrible apostates" ... for believing EENS dogma verbatim, and somehow believing that EENS doesn't mean the opposite of what it actually says, i.e. where they hold that you're a heretic if you believe that only Catholics can be saved. You can say it's about Baptism of Desire ... except that they could hardly care less about that. BoD is just an excuse they use to gut EENS dogma, which they find distasteful and almost odious. So they "re-interpret" it so that what the Church REALLY means by it is ... the opposite of what it actually says. Whenever you see such inversions, again the scent of sulfur makes its presence known. But most of them go around blithely saying that pagans, heretics, Hindus, Muslmis, etc. ... can all be saved, i.e. verbatim denying EENS dogma. At the VERY LEAST it's proximate to heresy and offensive to pious ears, to make statements that verbatim contradict a dogmatic definiton of the Church. To get the REAL interpretation of what the Church means, you have to read a dozen pages from theologians who lived hundreds of years after the definitions were made. So, a simple Catholic can't just say, "oh, this says that only Catholics can save their souls" ... but instead is required to digest about 10 pages of distinctions and nuances that truly explain what those one- or two- sentence definitions REALLY mean, namely the opposite of what they say, and if you don't believe the opposite of what it says, then you're a heretic. You could completely prescind from any discussion of BoD ... which in fact I have not mentioned direction on X at all, just the notion of there being no salvation for non-Catholics.
Perhaps the closest thing to a halfway solid argument they have is that you're rejecting the Council of Trent, making you a heretic. So, even if you understand Trent the way they claim it should be understood, Father Feeney believed that there can be justification by desire. That's what Trent teaches (even by your reading). Please explain the heresy. You get crickets. Then you add onto it that Father Feeney did not invent the distinction between justification and salvation, but that post-Tridentine theologians like the Dominican Melchior Cano distinguished between the two, holding that infidels (for instance) could be justified but not saved ... and Cano was not condemned for that distinction. So, again, please tell me the heresy one commits by believing in justificaition by desire. You could ARGUE that's a false distinction ... but, guess what ... you're not the Church, so you know what they say about opinions, that like certain body parts, everybody has one. As for "Suprema Haec", apart from the fact that it isn't even considered "authentic Magisterium" by Canonical standards (never appeared in AAS), many theologians disputed the infallibility of decrees from the Holy Office. I then ask these SVs how many of them are geocentrists? Again, I heard crickets. Well ... the Holy Office condemned non-geocentrism as being proximate to heresy.
(https://stopthemillenniumhollywood.com/wp-content/uploads/images/sorryI.jpg)
-
There was a recent video here posted on aliens and ai, i couldn't help but notice something. The guy said that to every Catholic believes the same thing then it's true because something about the Holy Ghost. This doesn't sound right to me and sounds similar to what many say about universal accpetianc or stuff used against EENS because "everyone believed against it".
Yeah, the SVs use the "all theologians hold it" ... but then ignore the fact that "all theologians" went along with Vatican II and the New Mass. 97-99% of all the Episcopal Sees were held by Arians during that Crisis.
-
Not only that, but one gets the impression that the SVs who vocally denounce the Conciliars as Modernist heretics consider the "Feeneyites" to be worse heretics than even the Modernist Conciliars. I bet if you asked them whether Father Feeney or Bergoglio was the worse heretic, many / most would ansewr Father Feeney. You can almost hear them begin foaming at the mouth with the mere mention of Father Feeney. That does not come from a good place, but from somewhere diabolical. At most you can say, "well, I think the Feeneyites take it too far to the extreme.", i.e. perhaps take the EENS dogmatic definitions "too literally" or something, representing an excess of zeal. But, no, Feeneyites are "horrible apostates" ... for believing EENS dogma verbatim, and somehow believing that EENS doesn't mean the opposite of what it actually says, i.e. where they hold that you're a heretic if you believe that only Catholics can be saved. You can say it's about Baptism of Desire ... except that they could hardly care less about that. BoD is just an excuse they use to gut EENS dogma, which they find distasteful and almost odious. So they "re-interpret" it so that what the Church REALLY means by it is ... the opposite of what it actually says. Whenever you see such inversions, again the scent of sulfur makes its presence known. But most of them go around blithely saying that pagans, heretics, Hindus, Muslmis, etc. ... can all be saved, i.e. verbatim denying EENS dogma. At the VERY LEAST it's proximate to heresy and offensive to pious ears, to make statements that verbatim contradict a dogmatic definiton of the Church. To get the REAL interpretation of what the Church means, you have to read a dozen pages from theologians who lived hundreds of years after the definitions were made. So, a simple Catholic can't just say, "oh, this says that only Catholics can save their souls" ... but instead is required to digest about 10 pages of distinctions and nuances that truly explain what those one- or two- sentence definitions REALLY mean, namely the opposite of what they say, and if you don't believe the opposite of what it says, then you're a heretic. You could completely prescind from any discussion of BoD ... which in fact I have not mentioned direction on X at all, just the notion of there being no salvation for non-Catholics.
Perhaps the closest thing to a halfway solid argument they have is that you're rejecting the Council of Trent, making you a heretic. So, even if you understand Trent the way they claim it should be understood, Father Feeney believed that there can be justification by desire. That's what Trent teaches (even by your reading). Please explain the heresy. You get crickets. Then you add onto it that Father Feeney did not invent the distinction between justification and salvation, but that post-Tridentine theologians like the Dominican Melchior Cano distinguished between the two, holding that infidels (for instance) could be justified but not saved ... and Cano was not condemned for that distinction. So, again, please tell me the heresy one commits by believing in justificaition by desire. You could ARGUE that's a false distinction ... but, guess what ... you're not the Church, so you know what they say about opinions, that like certain body parts, everybody has one. As for "Suprema Haec", apart from the fact that it isn't even considered "authentic Magisterium" by Canonical standards (never appeared in AAS), many theologians disputed the infallibility of decrees from the Holy Office. I then ask these SVs how many of them are geocentrists? Again, I heard crickets. Well ... the Holy Office condemned non-geocentrism as being proximate to heresy.
(https://stopthemillenniumhollywood.com/wp-content/uploads/images/sorryI.jpg)
So, what happens to a soul that is justified but not saved? They get to spend eternity with minimal suffering in the upper parts of Hell? Something close to what children in Limbo experience?
-
And both Fr. Feeney and Fr. Wathen understood that the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam is the foundational dogma. This is ultimately the dogma which caused to Apostles to lose their lives. It is the dogma which caused the Jews to spit on Fr. Feeney at the corner of Bow and Arrow Streets when he would preach.
In fact, when is the last time a traditional priest or bishop even gave a smack down sermon on "No salvation outside the Church"? If one can be saved outside the Church, then why would he even bother changing anything about himself? Just continue to shack up with the girlfriend and walk the three dogs because I can go to the youthful church down the street and be saved!
-
Yeah, the SVs use the "all theologians hold it" ... but then ignore the fact that "all theologians" went along with Vatican II and the New Mass. 97-99% of all the Episcopal Sees were held by Arians during that Crisis.
I'm still watching that video, and they keep saying "sensus fidelium", that "every" Catholic believed the same thing meaning it was true. I don't think I've seen this doctrine anywhere. The only thing I've seen is that if the fathers have a unanimous interpretation of scripture then that is true.
-
I had a very negative response from an Américan Avrillé Dominican priest when I mentioned Father Feeney in favourable light.
-
I'm still watching that video, and they keep saying "sensus fidelium", that "every" Catholic believed the same thing meaning it was true. I don't think I've seen this doctrine anywhere. The only thing I've seen is that if the fathers have a unanimous interpretation of scripture then that is true.
Snip from a sermon on liberal heretics within the Church given by Fr. Wathen....
"...One of the saints, [St. Vincent of Lerins (died 445)]... made a statement concerning heresy and orthodoxy which I find both wonderfully intriguing as well as important. He says that the true faith is that which has been held by all people, that is, all the faithful people in the Church, all the time.
Which is to say that any idea that has not been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, is not Catholic. Which is to say that at any given time an idea can be widely held even by the vast majority of the people, as is liberalism among Catholics today.
Also an heretical idea can be shown to have been held by a small group of people within the Church all through history or during a number of generations of history. But the true doctrine of the Church is that which has been held always by everyone..."
There is also Pope Pius IX's Tuas Libenter (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/tuas-libenter/) where he teaches essentially the same thing....
"...Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith. But, since it is a question of the submission obliging in conscience all those Catholic who are engaged in that study of the speculative sciences so as to procure for the Church new advantages by their writings, the members of the Congress must recognize that it is not sufficient for Catholic savants to accept and respect the dogmas of the Church which We have been speaking about: they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure."
-
Snip from a sermon on liberal heretics within the Church given by Fr. Wathen....
"...One of the saints, [St. Vincent of Lerins (died 445)]... made a statement concerning heresy and orthodoxy which I find both wonderfully intriguing as well as important. He says that the true faith is that which has been held by all people, that is, all the faithful people in the Church, all the time.
Which is to say that any idea that has not been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, is not Catholic. Which is to say that at any given time an idea can be widely held even by the vast majority of the people, as is liberalism among Catholics today.
Also an heretical idea can be shown to have been held by a small group of people within the Church all through history or during a number of generations of history. But the true doctrine of the Church is that which has been held always by everyone..."
There is also Pope Pius IX's Tuas Libenter (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/tuas-libenter/) where he teaches essentially the same thing....
"...Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith. But, since it is a question of the submission obliging in conscience all those Catholic who are engaged in that study of the speculative sciences so as to procure for the Church new advantages by their writings, the members of the Congress must recognize that it is not sufficient for Catholic savants to accept and respect the dogmas of the Church which We have been speaking about: they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure."
Ok thanks for explaining it. I was a bit unsure due to the same kind of people saying that BoD is true for a similar reason.
-
I don't care so much about the banning ... as their nonsense has gotten incredibly tedious anyway ... with them providing absolutely nothing of value. They bloviate about how the Novus Ordo is a false religion, a non-Catholic sect ... but then do nothing but watch and analyze every single move they make, evey time a clown dances down the aisle in a Novus Ordo church (not unlike Tradition in Action that way).
But the ABSURDITY of their condemning Roncalli for saying people did not have to convert to the Catholic religion in order to be saved ... while the Trad clergy these gusy support ALL HOLD THE SAME THING. Are they really that stupid ... or just intellectually dishonest?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=336CC1vwb5E
I just saw a video posted from lofton saying that Muslims, and people of other religions, can be saved “through the goodness found in their religion”
Maybe this is just semantics to you, but it seems like that’s the difference. “Feeneyites” (I’m not using the term as a pejorative, just a descriptor) say salvation of non Catholics never happens. Non feeneyite trads see it as the exception, an outlier, something that could happen by God’s grace despite everything else. But most of the NO seems to see it as NORMATIVE. Something that happens through, rather than merely despite, false religions
I could maybe see a philosophical argument that this is just straining at words, but in practice, it does seem to make a pretty big difference. Lefebvre seemed to care a lot more about evangelizing non Catholics than a lot of the NO does
(similar debates exist in Orthodoxy, although I feel like in Orthodoxy everyone is a lot less sure of themselves and there’s a lot more “we don’t quite know, but this is what we tentatively think”)
-
I just saw a video posted from lofton saying that Muslims, and people of other religions, can be saved “through the goodness found in their religion”
Maybe this is just semantics to you, but it seems like that’s the difference. “Feeneyites” (I’m not using the term as a pejorative, just a descriptor) say salvation of non Catholics never happens. Non feeneyite trads see it as the exception, an outlier, something that could happen by God’s grace despite everything else. But most of the NO seems to see it as NORMATIVE. Something that happens through, rather than merely despite, false religions.
Yes, there are many people who see this as simply semantics, and that's why their thoughts on this doctrine are so muddled. If you break it down, as compared to other sacraments, the NECESSITY of LEAVING one's former religion is not optional. And, further, it's just step 1.
Woe to these Trad clerics who push this garbage and error. They proclaim BOD but don't even follow St Thomas or St Bellarmine's (and others') strict standards.
1. Belief in the Incarnation/Trinity
2. Catechumen of the Church
Let's simply analyze the case of the muslim.
a. Does muslimism believe in the Trinity or Incarnation? No. These doctrines are completely at odds with muslimism.
b. If a muslim believes in the Trinity/incarnation, is he still a muslim? No, that would be in contradiction.
c. Can a muslim who desires to STAY a muslim, truly desire to enter the Church? No.
d. Can a muslim who desires to STAY a muslim, truly believe in the incarnation/trinity? No. He may intellectually think it's possible, but if he truly believed, then he would leave.
So you see, the idea of saying that "a muslim can be saved in their religion" means you are saying that an OPEN and PUBLIC heretic, a hater of Christianity, can be saved through Christianity. This is foundationally foreign to any catholic mode of thinking. No saint has ever breathed something so diametrically opposed to the message of Christ.
How does one receive the other sacraments? Action is involved, and promises.
a. Penance -- you have to 1) confess your sins and 2) have a firm purpose.
b. Confirmation -- you have to 1) prepare and pick your confirmation name and 2) seek out a bishop.
c. Marriage -- you have to 1) vow to your spouse, 2) have intention of 'forever'.
So, in the same way, *if* one believes in BOD (according to St Thomas/St Bellarmine), then you have to admit the following parameters:
1. Person has to believe in necessary doctrines (Incarnation/Trinity, at minimum).
2. Person has to have the vow/promise/desire of baptism.
What is glossed over in the whole "muslim debate" is that you can't desire something you don't know. This is a philosophical truism.
BOD only applies to those who KNOW about baptism. And if you know about baptism, that means you know a) what Catholicism is, b) what the Church is, c) that there is a pope, and priests, and sacraments, etc.
But a "muslim who is still a muslim" can't really desire baptism, because he hasn't even made up his mind to reject the errors of muslimism. How can he TRULY desire to enter the Church, when he hasn't decided to reject errors which are contrary to the Church?
If a man is dating 2 women and he asks 1 to marry him, is his proposal of marriage legitimate, being that he is still dating the other woman? Most people would say this man is confused (at best) or a scoundrel (at worst). But to neither woman is this man truly in love, nor is he being truthful with, nor even is he truthful with himself.
So it is with BOD. The requirement of St Thomas/St Bellarmine for BOD to ONLY apply to catechumens is an important one. For it shows that the person
a) has forsaken/rejected all other religions, errors and heresies (action)
b) is truly open, willing and ABLE to commit, accept and receive the graces of the Church (promise)
If a person can't even reject their prior religion, then there is a 0% shot that they are serious about Catholicism, much less baptism. This is why it is a SERIOUS ERROR to describe BOD as applying to people "in other religions" or to say that people "can be saved in other religions". As Christ told us,
"He who is not with Me, is against Me." At the very least, a BOD-candidate has to WANT Christ and His Church. You can't want Christ, if you can't reject Budda, Muhammed, etc.
-
So I think most people are not against EENS. The opinion of Bishop Williamson was for example: If they are in x religion, but in "good faith", god may enlighten them at the moment of their death and they will be saved AS catholics (not necessarily my opinion).
After your standards, would it be a heresy to say: "Maybe God converted him and safed him at the moment of his death" ?
Because there are some old stories from saints, where (for example) Our Lord told the seer, that the Freemason (excommunicated ipso facto) was safed by him for the love he showed him on the day of his first communion.
-
Also @Ladislaus:
The Sedevacantism position should primarily be about the where the church is and not about the pope. The pope question should always be second.
I Catholic Church cannot teach error
II Vatican II and hierarchy impose a new religion on the faithful
III Vatican II is not Catholic
Ergo: They have founded a new church at Vatican II, because they invented ideas like "God is the same for Muslims, Jews and Christians". The Pope lost office by promulgating a new religion, not by merely teaching error.
Please excuse my ignorance, but I think the debate about the pope loses sight of the real problem: "What constitutes the real Catholic Church right now?"
-
So I think most people are not against EENS. The opinion of Bishop Williamson was for example: If they are in x religion, but in "good faith", god may enlighten them at the moment of their death and they will be saved AS catholics (not necessarily my opinion).
Yes, the phrase "as catholics" is the key to avoiding heresy.
If one says the following, they are a (material) heretic, because their description is a denial of dogma:
a. God can save/enlighten a muslim on his deathbed.
b. God can save non-catholics who are "of good faith".
c. God can save non-cathoics who are "sincere" and who desire "to do what God wills".
The problem with the above is that it gives the impression that religion doesn't matter. This denies EENS and it denies the entire PURPOSE of Christ starting His Church.
The proper, catholic, doctrinal way to explain the above scenarios is:
a. God can save/enlighten a muslim to convert to catholicism on his deathbed.
b. God can convert non-catholics to catholicism who are "of good faith".
c. God can convert non-catholics who are "sincere" and who desire "to do what God wills".
The key phrase is "convert to catholicism". If you leave this part out, you are a heretic, by definition. The doctrine of EENS requires conversion to catholicism, which is the only way to heaven.
So in saying "God can save a muslim" you are speaking contradiction. God only saves Catholics. It should be said, "God can save a muslim by giving him the graces to convert to Catholicism". This isn't semantics. This is very precise and important theology.
-
Maybe this is just semantics to you, but it seems like that’s the difference. “Feeneyites” (I’m not using the term as a pejorative, just a descriptor) say salvation of non Catholics never happens. Non feeneyite trads see it as the exception, an outlier, something that could happen by God’s grace despite everything else. But most of the NO seems to see it as NORMATIVE. Something that happens through, rather than merely despite, false religions
Novus Ordo: There is salvation outside the Church because other religions are salvific (see for example Unitatis Redintegratio).
RCI, CMRI, etc.: There is salvation outside the Church because you can belong to Her soul without belonging to Her body, God is not bounded to save only within the society that He created to save men (the Church), good will and ignorance are salvific, etc..
There is really no practical difference between those two postures, since they affirm the same thing (that there is salvation outside the Church). The difference is something purely nominal: what is the hidden cause of this salvation outside the Church? Actually, the Novus Ordo position seems less far-fetched and less hypocritical. To be clear: both are heretical.
Also, the primary reason why we must believe the strict interpretation of EENS is not for the sake of others (what's the chance that today you'll meet an invincibly ignorant person?). It is for the sake of our own salvation. See the quotes by Fr. Feeney in this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/every-single-time/msg989252/#msg989252).
-
The actions/declarations/conversion must be done BEFORE death. Think of it that way.
ONE MUST CONVERT, with INTENT to be baptized (in acute fashion as a catechumen) with water into the one Catholic faith professing fully in the Apostles Creed. (Profession of Faith)
THE BOD thing, to me, seems like something we leave up to God, if everything was done above besides the water being poured. God's providence will always be purely just/merciful.
-
It would seem the complaint is that it muddies the waters. The same logic could be applied as well to the death of anyone. If in an augenblick Herr Hitler between pulling the trigger and the muzzle flash repented ....
It is an interesting theological idea, but potentially scandalous depending on how it's presented... would God desire this level of confusion?
-
If in an augenblick Herr Hitler between pulling the trigger and the muzzle flash repented ....
You believe that 100 percent Jєωιѕн narrative? lol
-
You believe that 100 percent Jєωιѕн narrative? lol
He escaped to drink non-alcoholic Pilsner on the Copacabana?
-
Maybe this is just semantics to you, but it seems like that’s the difference. “Feeneyites” (I’m not using the term as a pejorative, just a descriptor) say salvation of non Catholics never happens. Non feeneyite trads see it as the exception, an outlier, something that could happen by God’s grace despite everything else. But most of the NO seems to see it as NORMATIVE. Something that happens through, rather than merely despite, false religions
OK, but if you look at the Novus Ordo Watch quote, they attacked John XXIII saying that it's possible for people to be saved without converting, not just for making it normative or normal or common. At the end of the day, there's not much theological difference between saying 1 out of 1,000 can be saved without converting or saying that 900 out of 1,000 can be saved. It's all speculation anyway, since we don't know the actual numbers. But if you say that 1 can be saved without conversion, then why not 10, why not 100? ... and certainly none are prevented from being saved by any kind of theological necessity.
So, for instance, even among Catholics ... you could claim that 99% of Catholics are saved, or argue that 1% are saved, but that's speculation regarding the state of souls more than it entails some theological principle.
-
So, what happens to a soul that is justified but not saved? They get to spend eternity with minimal suffering in the upper parts of Hell? Something close to what children in Limbo experience?
Depends on the soul. I don't intend to turn this thread into a debate about the details. I personally hold that some can in fact be in a Limbo-like state approximating the state of infants in Purgatory. Some might experience varying degrees of happiness or unhappiness depending on the state of their soulus. But, Father Feeney said, "we don't know." And he's right. God did not reveal it. We're just speculating.
But the main point is ... it's NOT HERESY AGAINST TRENT to hold that one can be justified (but not saved) by BoD, since Trent uses the term justification, and the term is distinct from salvation, and we have post-Tridentine theologians who make that distinction.
I do believe that some can enter states with varying degrees of natural happiness ... perhaps a type of "Happy Hunting Ground".
And this is one of the reasons that people have an aversion to EENS dogma, this monolothic view of Hell where, a Jєωιѕн grandma who was kind, generous, and perhaps even gave her life for her grandchildren ... ends up in the same one-temperature cauldron, as it were, along side Joe Stalin or various brutal serial killers. This monolothic view, which was dispelled by even one of the Church's EENS definitions, which states that people in Hell suffering punishments proportionate to their deeds. Well, the corollary to that is that there's a proportional lack of punishment, i.e. less punishment, and possibly even very little if any punishment, depending on their degree of natural virtue vs. their sins, etc.
I started a thread on this notion at one point, but for now it suffices to say that it's not a "heretical denial of Trent" to hold the position Father Feeney did, leaving the only thing that condemns his position as being the dubious Suprema Haec, which not only lacks the marks of infallibility, but even lacks the note of authenticity per Canon Law, which stated that in order for a docuмent to be deemed "authentic" (as in even merely authentic) Magisterium, it had to appear in Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
-
What is glossed over in the whole "muslim debate" is that you can't desire something you don't know. This is a philosophical truism.
Indeed, Msgr. Fenton (who supported BoD) stated that the majority theological opinion was that one needs to have explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation to be saved (the teaching of St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus) ... so the "Muslim" scenario has little to do even with BoD proper, but more a "faith of desire". So if they can attack us for rejecting the teaching of these Doctors on BoD (clearly they were opining, not teaching), then, guess what, we attack YOU for rejecting their teaching that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation. But, see, the use St. Thomas as a weapon when he supports their position, and then ignore him when he rejects their positions. Intellectual dishonesty in spades.
I hold that the necessity of explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation for salvation is objectively de fide, not just majority theological opinion. Why? Because it was held and taught unanimously for the first nearly-1500 years of Church history. If anything qualifies as an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, it would be this, and if this isn't it, then there's no such thing. But in the late 1400s, after the discovery of the New World, a Franciscan and a couple of Jesuits began to float Rewarder God theory, since they didn't want to accept that all these natives in the undiscovered continents had been lost for 1500 years. So they did theology based on emotion.
Let me get this straight. So it's OK for those guys to come along and reject 1500 years of unanimous Catholics teaching and belief, whereas if the Feeneyites reject the theological consensus of a couple hundreds years at most, they're heretics, right? Talk about self-serving contradictions and dishonesty. In point of fact, for about 700 years, all theologians held the position of St. Augustine regarding the fate of unbaptized infants in Limbo, from about 400 - 1100 or so. But then Abelard (who also rejected BoD) became the first to question it. St. Thomas eventually adopted and taught the notion of Limbo, and from there it's become the dominant position. So which theological consensus was effectively inerrant? When they taught one thing for 700 years, or the opposite for the last 700 years?
Oh, and then the Holy Office affirmed the teaching that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are "necessary by necessity of means for salvation" ... and forbade priests to baptize those who merely professed belief in a Rewarder God. But the anti-Feeneyite SVs hit you over the head with Suprema Haec as if it were a dogmatic definition, but simply ignore this other ruling from the Holy Office, and ignore also the Holy Office teaching regarding geocentrism (since I don't know a single SV geocentrist). It's pick or choose according to their confirmation bias, where they ignore stuff that doesn't fit in with what they've decided ahead of time that they want to believe.
Oh, and speaking of unanimous teaching of theologians, all theologians unanimously approved of Vatican II and considered it and the NOM to be Catholic ... except perhaps one (Bishop Guerard des Lauriers). These are in many cases the very same theologians the SVs might cite against BoD, but then they somehow believe they all apostasized en masse on one sunny afternoon in, say, 1962 or 1963, exact date TBD.
-
Depends on the soul. I don't intend to turn this thread into a debate about the details. I personally hold that some can in fact be in a Limbo-like state approximating the state of infants in Purgatory. Some might experience varying degrees of happiness or unhappiness depending on the state of their soulus. But, Father Feeney said, "we don't know." And he's right. God did not reveal it. We're just speculating.
But the main point is ... it's NOT HERESY AGAINST TRENT to hold that one can be justified (but not saved) by BoD, since Trent uses the term justification, and the term is distinct from salvation, and we have post-Tridentine theologians who make that distinction.
I do believe that some can enter states with varying degrees of natural happiness ... perhaps a type of "Happy Hunting Ground".
And this is one of the reasons that people have an aversion to EENS dogma, this monolothic view of Hell where, a Jєωιѕн grandma who was kind, generous, and perhaps even gave her life for her grandchildren ... ends up in the same one-temperature cauldron, as it were, along side Joe Stalin or various brutal serial killers. This monolothic view, which was dispelled by even one of the Church's EENS definitions, which states that people in Hell suffering punishments proportionate to their deeds. Well, the corollary to that is that there's a proportional lack of punishment, i.e. less punishment, and possibly even very little if any punishment, depending on their degree of natural virtue vs. their sins, etc.
I started a thread on this notion at one point, but for now it suffices to say that it's not a "heretical denial of Trent" to hold the position Father Feeney did, leaving the only thing that condemns his position as being the dubious Suprema Haec, which not only lacks the marks of infallibility, but even lacks the note of authenticity per Canon Law, which stated that in order for a docuмent to be deemed "authentic" (as in even merely authentic) Magisterium, it had to appear in Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Thank you.
I agree. Although it is solid and long taught doctrine, as Our Lord himself says in the Gospel, that both Heaven and Hell have different degrees of happiness and suffering, most Catholics these days seem to think that it is either zero or one, all or nothing at all.
Plus, people hold as legitimate everything that a Modernist Cardinal did before Vatican II, like the condemnation of Fr. Feeney by Cardinal Cushing, a major Modernist, but avoid everything that he did after the evil Council. So much for consistency. It's as if all the good and saintly boys were suddenly possessed by the Devil during Vatican II and suddenly became major Modernists.
-
I do believe that some can enter states with varying degrees of natural happiness ... perhaps a type of "Happy Hunting Ground".
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more."
-
Thank you.
I agree. Although it is solid and long taught doctrine, as Our Lord himself says in the Gospel, that both Heaven and Hell have different degrees of happiness and suffering, most Catholics these days seem to think that it is either zero or one, all or nothing at all.
Plus, people hold as legitimate everything that a Modernist Cardinal did before Vatican II, like the condemnation of Fr. Feeney by Cardinal Cushing, a major Modernist, but avoid everything that he did after the evil Council. So much for consistency. It's as if all the good and saintly boys were suddenly possessed by the Devil during Vatican II and suddenly became major Modernists.
I think that if people simply thought about it a bit, they'd realize that there are degrees of suffering in Hell ... but I surmise that it's largely due to artistic renderings that the knee-jerk Pavlovian thought people have is that there's this one big cauldron of fire and everyone gets indiscriminately hurled in there (like in many artistic representations dramatically depict).
And I do think that's why SO MANY people have a distaste for EENS dogma, because in the back of their minds they imagine people who have natural virtue (I know many non-Catholics who have more natural virtue than I do) and would question God's Mercy if such ones were tossed into the cauldron of Hell, especially in cases of invincible ignorance, where they had no culpabiltiy for their lack of faith (except perhaps by other obstacles they put in the way).
I think there's another aspect of this. If we ran into some individual who had built some torture chamber in his basement and tortured people there for years, with fire, hot pokers, all manner of torture devices -- we'd consider him an absolute and abhorrent monster, and rightly so. Well, again given these artistic renditions, in the case of something we associate with great depravity, can we now rightly attribute to God? Nor does the fact that God has a right to do so really address the issue.
I think that in many ways we do not truly understand how God's Justice and Mercy work -- so unfortunately we impose our feeble human way of imaginging them and thinking about them, so we create somehow implicitly in our minds this perverse (blasphemous) caricature of God as being the Great Torturer. Well, to create a degree of separation, people tend to think of the demons as the torturers, but again that's a weak separation, since they can only do what God permits.
Certainly such images are almost necessary in the practical order to deter the hard-hearted from sin ... via fear, perhaps the only thing they understand. It's why you slap a little child on the hand if they try to play with electrical outlets. You can try to explain to them why they should not, but the only thing their tiny little brains understand is the slap, and so they might not do it again if they could expect the same consequences.
Too much to adress here on this thread, but if we can separate out the concept of natural reward and punishment (for actual sin) vs. the supernatural reward (which is owed to no one and the loss of which causes no suffering) ... a distinction most clearly articulated first by St. Thomas in elaborating the theology of Limbo (at least in the West, as some Greek Fathers had these views much earlier) ... then things begin to make more sense, and this can help offset the various reasons that many at least subconsciously push back against EENS dogma.
-
I don’t know, but God does. Whatever He thinks, that’s the one I choose. I keep my 👀 and 👂🏽👂🏽 open and my 👄 shut.
-
The actions/declarations/conversion must be done BEFORE death. Think of it that way.
ONE MUST CONVERT, with INTENT to be baptized (in acute fashion as a catechumen) with water into the one Catholic faith professing fully in the Apostles Creed. (Profession of Faith)
THE BOD thing, to me, seems like something we leave up to God, if everything was done above besides the water being poured. God's providence will always be purely just/merciful.
Except God is always capable of bringing someone water. I wouldn't tell someone who wants children that their desire for children is the same as actually having children. It's nonsense.
-
Except God is always capable of bringing someone water. I wouldn't tell someone who wants children that their desire for children is the same as actually having children. It's nonsense.
Right ... there no need for this. As St. Thomas said, if there were someone living in invincible ignorance who had placed no impediment by sin from receiving the faith, God would send an angel if necessary to enlighten him regarding the faith. Said angel could just as easily baptize him as well while he was there. Similarly, God could miraculously bilocate some Catholic to perform the Baptism ... as it would take a split second and God could pause time even. And that's of course in the extraordinary economy of salvation that God occasionally engages in order to emphasize some truth, in this case the necessity of Baptism. St. Peter Claver raised a women who had appeared to be a devout Catholic throughout her life back to life, started to hear her Confession, but then realized that she had in fact been denied entry into Heaven due to not having been baptized. He baptized her, and she passed away. But before that happened, she told him that she had gone to a certain point but then was denied entry to the final place (the Kingdom) due to lacking the wedding gown. She had attended daily Mass, gone to Confession, and received Holy Communion for years, but evidently no one knew she had not been baptized (or at least not validly -- with that part of the story not being clear). There were stories of the martyrs being led to execution for whom springs of water miraculously came from the ground so that pagans who had converted due to their example could be baptized on the way.
As mentioned, these are extraordinary manifestations, but in the ordinary economy of salvation, God's Providence very subtly arrnages matters so that all of His elect will enter the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism.
St. Augustine, who did in his youth speculate about a BoD, retracted the opinion and made some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence, denying that God's will to bring the Sacrament to His elected could be thwarted ... by some imagined "impossibility".
Critics of "Feeneyites" hold that we constrain God by the Sacraments ... but they constrain God by "impossibility" (which is a heretical denial of Sacred Scripture, and so St. Augustine also says that "if you wish to be Catholic" you cannot hold that God can be constrained by impossibility. Of course WE do not constrain God, but merely are attempting to discern what God Himself has constrained us with, what conditions He has imposed upon our salvation.