Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: 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:
-
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.
-
I'm not a Feeneyite, but don't forget, the layman can get anyone, even non-Catholic, to baptize them:
Baltimore Catechism #3 Says:
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
:laugh1:
Everyone would agree on that!
Thank you for your answers.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
aaahhhhh, but they don't deny these words of Our Lord .....unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
I know I know - Trent infallibly declares .........And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof. - - - - - no need to finish off the canon - BODers always stop right there - don't they?
-
the desire thereof.
These are the key words from the Council of Trent.
To be saved, one has to have water baptism, or the DESIRE for it!
Couldnt be more plain than that. This is what the church teaches!
-
the desire thereof.
These are the key words from the Council of Trent.
To be saved, one has to have water baptism, or the DESIRE for it!
Couldnt be more plain than that. This is what the church teaches!
Not sure if you could be more wrong ha ha!
Please use your reasoning whilst applying it in context with the last part of the canon - - - - and explain. Thanks!
-
Emerentiana, I know you're intelligent enough to save your breath (fingers from typing) and not let the Feeneites drag us into yet another Fenney-Poop-Storm.
Stubborn- please reference the 1000's of other posts on this subject. If you don't know how to search for them, let me know, and I'll show you. If you're looking for a debate... well I can't, and hope no one else will, help you.
-
Emerentiana, I know you're intelligent enough to save your breath (fingers from typing) and not let the Feeneites drag us into yet another Fenney-Poop-Storm.
Stubborn- please reference the 1000's of other posts on this subject. If you don't know how to search for them, let me know, and I'll show you. If you're looking for a debate... well I can't, and hope no one else will, help you.
Thanks for your advice, Rea. I have commented several times stating Im so tired of this subject. However, it cant seem to rest.
-
Emerentiana, I know you're intelligent enough to save your breath (fingers from typing) and not let the Feeneites drag us into yet another Fenney-Poop-Storm.
Stubborn- please reference the 1000's of other posts on this subject. If you don't know how to search for them, let me know, and I'll show you. If you're looking for a debate... well I can't, and hope no one else will, help you.
Thanks for your advice, Rea. I have commented several times stating Im so tired of this subject. However, it cant seem to rest.
It's not a trick question but I don't feel much like debating this so I'll just leave it with the complete canon - far as BODers are concerned..........
And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof.
-
Us BODers are Catholics, following what the church has always taught. End of story.
-
Us BODers are Catholics, following what the church has always taught. End of story.
Well, I was just affording you the opportunity to explain how three words define BOD while actually reading the entire canon - instead of cutting off the part after those three words.
I mean c'mon, you gotta admit that by stopping short like that, well, it's just not fair and it doesn't give those darned old doubting Feeneyites much of a chance.
:kick-can:
And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof.