Author Topic: What if the Missionary WONT Baptize? (Read 2197 times)

Canute · « **on:** February 25, 2012, 07:36:11 AM »

I read that some followers of Fr. Leonard Feeney believe that if God wants someone to be saved, He will send a missionary to baptize that person.

What if the missionary sent is one like Fr. Sabatini in the Amazon, and WON'T do his job of converting and baptizing?

Just asking.... :scratchchin:

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #1 on:** February 25, 2012, 08:53:47 PM »

The chosen soul should approach the missionaries and insist on being baptized. Or seek out any known Catholic.

As for the missionary, if he doesn't perform the baptism then his skull will join all those other skulls on the floor in Hell. A priest who won't baptize is thwarting the intentions of the Church.

s2srea · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2012, 11:40:50 AM »

I'm not a Feeneyite, but don't forget, the layman can get anyone, even non-Catholic, to baptize them:

Baltimore Catechism #3 Says:

Quote

Q. 633. Who can administer Baptism?

A. A priest is the ordinary minister of baptism; but in case of necessity anyone who has the use of reason may baptize.

Q. 635. Can a person who has not himself been baptized, and who does not even believe in the Sacrament of baptism, give it validly to another in case of necessity?

A. A person who has not himself been baptized, and who does not even believe in the Sacrament of baptism, can give it validly to another in case of necessity, provided:
1. He has the use of reason;
2. Knows how to give baptism, and
3. Intends to do what the Church intends in the giving of the Sacrament.
Baptism is so necessary that God affords every opportunity for its reception.

Canute · « **Reply #3 on:** February 27, 2012, 09:04:30 AM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

The chosen soul should approach the missionaries and insist on being baptized. Or seek out any known Catholic.

As for the missionary, if he doesn't perform the baptism then his skull will join all those other skulls on the floor in Hell. A priest who won't baptize is thwarting the intentions of the Church.

Thanks.

But I think my point is that God has sent the missionary to do the job of preaching conversion and baptizing. (Go ye therefore...)

How can the native even know he's supposed to approach someone else for baptism (or insist on baptism from the missionary himself) if the missionary (whom God has sent) doesn't even preach conversion and the need for baptism in the first place?

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** February 27, 2012, 12:07:26 PM »

Quote from: Canute

Quote from: Capt McQuigg
The chosen soul should approach the missionaries and insist on being baptized. Or seek out any known Catholic.

As for the missionary, if he doesn't perform the baptism then his skull will join all those other skulls on the floor in Hell. A priest who won't baptize is thwarting the intentions of the Church.

Thanks.

But I think my point is that God has sent the missionary to do the job of preaching conversion and baptizing. (Go ye therefore...)

How can the native even know he's supposed to approach someone else for baptism (or insist on baptism from the missionary himself) if the missionary (whom God has sent) doesn't even preach conversion and the need for baptism in the first place?

If God sent someone, then He did so for good reason - expect the sincere infidel to have the Gospel preached to him and be baptized.

If the missionary is NO, then why do you suppose that God sent him when the roots of the NO are anti-Catholic?

Canute · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2012, 12:42:26 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Canute
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
The chosen soul should approach the missionaries and insist on being baptized. Or seek out any known Catholic.

As for the missionary, if he doesn't perform the baptism then his skull will join all those other skulls on the floor in Hell. A priest who won't baptize is thwarting the intentions of the Church.

Thanks.

But I think my point is that God has sent the missionary to do the job of preaching conversion and baptizing. (Go ye therefore...)

How can the native even know he's supposed to approach someone else for baptism (or insist on baptism from the missionary himself) if the missionary (whom God has sent) doesn't even preach conversion and the need for baptism in the first place?

If God sent someone, then He did so for good reason - expect the sincere infidel to have the Gospel preached to him and be baptized.

If the missionary is NO, then why do you suppose that God sent him when the roots of the NO are anti-Catholic?

I'm asking the question to test the principle that some of Fr. Feeney's followers have laid down.

Since (except the Dimonds) they accept the authority of the post-Vatican II popes, they have to recognise that the missionaries whom those popes send have a legitimate canonical mission, ultimately from divine authority.

If that is the case, and the missionary God sent refuses to preach conversion and baptism, what does that do with the principle that Fr. Feeney's followers hold to be true — that God will send someone to baptize?

Stubborn · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2012, 12:54:25 PM »

Quote from: Canute

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Canute
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
The chosen soul should approach the missionaries and insist on being baptized. Or seek out any known Catholic.

As for the missionary, if he doesn't perform the baptism then his skull will join all those other skulls on the floor in Hell. A priest who won't baptize is thwarting the intentions of the Church.

Thanks.

But I think my point is that God has sent the missionary to do the job of preaching conversion and baptizing. (Go ye therefore...)

How can the native even know he's supposed to approach someone else for baptism (or insist on baptism from the missionary himself) if the missionary (whom God has sent) doesn't even preach conversion and the need for baptism in the first place?

If God sent someone, then He did so for good reason - expect the sincere infidel to have the Gospel preached to him and be baptized.

If the missionary is NO, then why do you suppose that God sent him when the roots of the NO are anti-Catholic?

I'm asking the question to test the principle that some of Fr. Feeney's followers have laid down.

Since (except the Dimonds) they accept the authority of the post-Vatican II popes, they have to recognise that the missionaries whom those popes send have a legitimate canonical mission, ultimately from divine authority.

If that is the case, and the missionary God sent refuses to preach conversion and baptism, what does that do with the principle that Fr. Feeney's followers hold to be true — that God will send someone to baptize?

Well, we all know that God deceives no one. If it was indeed God who saw that there was someone wanting the Sacrament, He would send someone for the purpose of providing what was needed - that is the Providence of God i.e. Divine Providence.

Even if the missionary was NO, the missionary would still baptize the person provided there was a person who was sincere and needed it.

If there was no baptism, then there was no one who wanted it and in that case, the missionary was not sent from God.

Canute · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2012, 01:23:19 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Canute
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Canute
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
The chosen soul should approach the missionaries and insist on being baptized. Or seek out any known Catholic.

As for the missionary, if he doesn't perform the baptism then his skull will join all those other skulls on the floor in Hell. A priest who won't baptize is thwarting the intentions of the Church.

Thanks.

But I think my point is that God has sent the missionary to do the job of preaching conversion and baptizing. (Go ye therefore...)

How can the native even know he's supposed to approach someone else for baptism (or insist on baptism from the missionary himself) if the missionary (whom God has sent) doesn't even preach conversion and the need for baptism in the first place?

If God sent someone, then He did so for good reason - expect the sincere infidel to have the Gospel preached to him and be baptized.

If the missionary is NO, then why do you suppose that God sent him when the roots of the NO are anti-Catholic?

I'm asking the question to test the principle that some of Fr. Feeney's followers have laid down.

Since (except the Dimonds) they accept the authority of the post-Vatican II popes, they have to recognise that the missionaries whom those popes send have a legitimate canonical mission, ultimately from divine authority.

If that is the case, and the missionary God sent refuses to preach conversion and baptism, what does that do with the principle that Fr. Feeney's followers hold to be true — that God will send someone to baptize?

Well, we all know that God deceives no one. If it was indeed God who saw that there was someone wanting the Sacrament, He would send someone for the purpose of providing what was needed - that is the Providence of God i.e. Divine Providence.

Even if the missionary was NO, the missionary would still baptize the person provided there was a person who was sincere and needed it.

If there was no baptism, then there was no one who wanted it and in that case, the missionary was not sent from God.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The preaching of conversion and baptizing seem to be inseparable elements of one thing in Our Lord's command (Go TEACH .... BAPTIZE).

If the missionary who has been sent doesn't even TEACH that conversion and baptism are necessary, how can the "native" be sincere and know to ask for baptism?

Stubborn · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2012, 02:11:09 PM »

Quote from: Canute

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The preaching of conversion and baptizing seem to be inseparable elements of one thing in Our Lord's command (Go TEACH .... BAPTIZE).

Yes, I agree they are inseparable.

Quote from: Canute

If the missionary who has been sent doesn't even TEACH that conversion and baptism are necessary, how can the "native" be sincere and know to ask for baptism?

I don't see how the native would know to ask for the Sacrament either and the missionary who was sent is an idiot.

Canute · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2012, 02:16:02 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Canute

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The preaching of conversion and baptizing seem to be inseparable elements of one thing in Our Lord's command (Go TEACH .... BAPTIZE).

Yes, I agree they are inseparable.

Quote from: Canute

If the missionary who has been sent doesn't even TEACH that conversion and baptism are necessary, how can the "native" be sincere and know to ask for baptism?

I don't see how the native would know to ask for the Sacrament either and the missionary who was sent is an idiot.

Everyone would agree on that!

Thank you for your answers.

Stubborn · « **Reply #10 on:** February 27, 2012, 02:19:52 PM »

Your welcome lol

I had to re-read your question a few times to be sure I wasn't missing something but as far as Fr. Feeney's position goes, it's really very simple and is pretty much summed up with what he says here:

There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes
concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics.

Canute · « **Reply #11 on:** February 28, 2012, 06:48:18 AM »

One question that's not exactly on topic: Fr. Rulleau (sp?) SSPX wrote a book on baptism of desire and the Feeney question. Do you know of any reply that the St. Benedict Center might have published?

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** February 28, 2012, 07:46:00 AM »

I know there was some exchange of arguments between SBC and SSPX over the dogma etc - not sure if it's the one you're looking for or a different exchange but I can't find anything on it on the SBC website. I know it used to be there but looks like their website has been changed since the last time I was there so it's either hiding on me or it's gone.

Canute · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2012, 08:54:11 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

I know there was some exchange of arguments between SBC and SSPX over the dogma etc - not sure if it's the one you're looking for or a different exchange but I can't find anything on it on the SBC website. I know it used to be there but looks like their website has been changed since the last time I was there so it's either hiding on me or it's gone.

Thanks.

LordPhan · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2012, 09:16:37 AM »

Feeney was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Ottiavani, his excommunication was 'lifted' by Pope Paul VI in the spirit of ecuмanism.

Anyone who denies Baptism of Desire, denies the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2000 years of Church teaching, the Catechism of Pope St. Pius V, the Catechism of the Summa, and the teachings of the all the Popes and Saints.