FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Another EENS, please be patient... - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Another EENS, please be patient... (/showthread.php?tid=44655)



Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - SouthpawLink - 05-04-2011

According to my requirements, Fr. Feeney doesn't count.  As stated by Fr. Cekada:

"The Top of the Heap: (Only the very best.) Head of a department at a Pontifical University.  Authorship of a multi-volume manual in dogmatic or moral theology that is considered an outstanding contribution in its field, and used in seminaries and universities throughout the world.  Appointment by pope as a Consultor to one of the departments of the Roman Curia.  Invitation to draft an Encyclical or papal legislation. The Cardinal’s hat. Canonization as a saint. The title 'Doctor of the Church'".  http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf

And again: "As I explained in Section II of my original article, the term 'theologian' connotes extensive research work, a distinguished teaching career at a Pontifical University, publication of multi-volume theological treatises, etc. ... Nor would Fr. Feeney. His earlier writings were popular religious works.  And his later works would not meet the fourth criteria Salaverri lays down: 'orthodoxy in doctrine acknowledged by the Church, at least insofar as [his] writings are used by the faithful and students knowingly and without reproof by the Magisterium of the Church.' (de Ecclesia, 857.)"  http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2

Did Fr. Feeney write a multi-volume manual of theology, teach at a Pontifical University, act as a consultor to one of the departments of the Roman Curia, or draft an Encyclical?  I should think not.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Stubborn - 05-04-2011

(05-04-2011, 01:08 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: According to my requirements, Fr. Feeney doesn't count.  As stated by Fr. Cekada:

"The Top of the Heap: (Only the very best.) Head of a department at a Pontifical University.  Authorship of a multi-volume manual in dogmatic or moral theology that is considered an outstanding contribution in its field, and used in seminaries and universities throughout the world.  Appointment by pope as a Consultor to one of the departments of the Roman Curia.  Invitation to draft an Encyclical or papal legislation. The Cardinal’s hat. Canonization as a saint. The title 'Doctor of the Church'".  http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf

And again: "As I explained in Section II of my original article, the term 'theologian' connotes extensive research work, a distinguished teaching career at a Pontifical University, publication of multi-volume theological treatises, etc. ... Nor would Fr. Feeney. His earlier writings were popular religious works.  And his later works would not meet the fourth criteria Salaverri lays down: 'orthodoxy in doctrine acknowledged by the Church, at least insofar as [his] writings are used by the faithful and students knowingly and without reproof by the Magisterium of the Church.' (de Ecclesia, 857.)"  http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2

Did Fr. Feeney write a multi-volume manual of theology, teach at a Pontifical University, act as a consultor to one of the departments of the Roman Curia, or draft an Encyclical?  I should think not.

Well, I personally would avoid placing to much weight on dogmatic theology credential requirements from the good Fr. Cekada. I'll leave it at that.

You asked for "one post-Tridentine, distinguished* theologian who interpreted the Council of Trent and Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus in the same manner as you both have"...... and that is precisely what you got.



If you want to be certain of being in the number of the Elect, strive to be one of the few, not one of the many. And if you would be quite sure of your salvation, strive to be among the fewest of the few. -  St. Anselm
 


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - SouthpawLink - 05-04-2011

Well, I did provide links to examples and a description of what I meant by the term, and I think it's fairly obvious that Fr. Feeney doesn't meet the criteria.  Thank you anyway, Stubborn.  :)

Van Noort appears to approach that which was said by Fr. Cekada: "When we speak of an Approved Author, we mean one who is held in general esteem on account of his learning and the Catholic spirit of his teaching.  Some approved authors are of acknowledged weight, while others are of only minor importance.  What we are about to state concerning the authority of Theologians must not be applied indiscriminately to every Catholic writer, but only to such as are weighty and approved (auctores probati et graves)" (Wilhelm and Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, vol. I, chap. IV, sec. 27).  http://sedevacantist.com/wilhelm_scannell_04.html




Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 05-04-2011

Why are you taking lessons from Fr. Cekada Southpawlink?

Did you read my post on Trent and interpreting Trent in light of itself? Can ypu find any problems with that? I respect your opinion, even if we diverge on some points, and I would like to know what, if anything, there was objectionable about it. You too stubborn.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 05-05-2011

Well, let's look at another condemnation to get some perspective From Ex Omnibus...

33." A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained." -Condemned-

Ok, Let's see here, It can get be easy to get lost in this language, so let me see:

33. "A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily,
and observes the commandments of God,
and fulfills the law through charity,
which is only received in the laver of baptism,

Okay, so hang on, he is saying that the Proposition that a Catechumen can live holily and justly, observing God's commandments and fulfill the law (here is the key) through charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism..........before the remission of sins.....is condemned.

Okay, Further distilling says: A Catechumen can live justly by the grace which baptism could bestow...before the remission of sins.

So, he is saying a Catechumen can be justified with baptismal grace before having his sins remitted. THe remission sins being equivalent to baptism (And not penance, because we are talking about a catechumen).

Okay, So the Actual condemnation here is saying that A Catechumen cannot live as though justified by baptismal grace without actually receiving baptism. I get that. I accept that.

THat brings perspective to the other condemnations, since they seem to be grouped together. In that light, it seems obvious to me:

31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.

The notion that a catechumen can have perfect and sincere charity without the remission of sins is condemned. But for a catechumen, the only remission of sins is in baptism. Therefore, to say that a Catechumen can have sincere and perfect charity without baptism is condemned.

before the remission of sins has been obtained.





Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - jockygerald - 05-05-2011

god without patient is impossible.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Stubborn - 05-05-2011

(05-04-2011, 07:10 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Why are you taking lessons from Fr. Cekada Southpawlink?

Did you read my post on Trent and interpreting Trent in light of itself? Can ypu find any problems with that? I respect your opinion, even if we diverge on some points, and I would like to know what, if anything, there was objectionable about it. You too stubborn.

First, I want to say that I think this is a good theological debate.

Next, I had no issues with your post on Trent. IMO, this particular issue of BOD needs to be infallibly condemned or defined explicitly.
Personally, it seems obvious enough to me that Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, the Condemnation of du Bay’s Errors, does not defend Baptism of Desire.  I guess it seems just as obvious to others that it does defend BOD.

Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus condemned - Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned‘ (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.

This proposition deals with two types of men: catechumens and penitents. Catechumens are not members of the Catholic Church and penitents are. I will first give the only obvious meaning of this condemnation according to me. The Church infallibly teaches that Perfect and sincere charity in a penitent remits his mortal sins before he goes to confession to a priest and gets absolved from the priest:

Council of Trent, Session 14, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, Chapter 4, On Contrition: The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.

Thus du Bay teaches heresy when he says that a penitent can have perfect and sincere charity… without the remission of sins. This is the only obvious heresy that this proposition condemns. Hence it is heretical to say, as Du Bay does, that one can have perfect charity and not be in a state of grace. This truth, as verified in this above condemned proposition, does not definitively address whether a catechumen can actually have perfect charity and perfect faith.
Any other meaning attributed to this condemned proposition is a guess and thus a guess at what Pope Pius V meant to condemn.
My guess at what it could mean in relation to a catechumen is that catechumens, unlike penitents, are outside the Catholic Church and thus their sins cannot be remitted. Pope Boniface VIII, in Bull Unam Sanctum, in 1302, teaches infallibly that Outside the Church there is no salvation nor remission of sins. Hence, catechumens cannot have perfect and sincere charity while they are outside the Catholic Church because outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins.




Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - jordanawef - 05-05-2011

I think one of the Popes Innocent flat out said it, twice, back in the 1200's, and its in DZ.

Pius IX said it in the late 1800's.

Trent said it.  The theologians interpreted it, including St. Alphonsus Liguori *DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH,* who classified it "de fide."

I choose to stand by Doctor and Saint, Alphonsus, whom I know I can trust, instead of little fr. feeney, who the church chastised. 


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Stubborn - 05-05-2011

(05-05-2011, 10:23 AM)jordanawef Wrote: I think one of the Popes Innocent flat out said it, twice, back in the 1200's, and its in DZ.

Pius IX said it in the late 1800's.

Trent said it.  The theologians interpreted it, including St. Alphonsus Liguori *DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH,* who classified it "de fide."

I choose to stand by Doctor and Saint, Alphonsus, whom I know I can trust, instead of little fr. feeney, who the church chastised. 

You make unfounded claims as well as unfounded accusations. Trent said what exactly?

It should be known that baptism is not only the first but also the most necessary of all the Sacraments. Without baptism, no one can enter heaven. - St. Alphonsus de Liguori from Preaching of God's Word


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - jordanawef - 05-05-2011

(05-05-2011, 11:18 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(05-05-2011, 10:23 AM)jordanawef Wrote: I think one of the Popes Innocent flat out said it, twice, back in the 1200's, and its in DZ.

Pius IX said it in the late 1800's.

Trent said it.  The theologians interpreted it, including St. Alphonsus Liguori *DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH,* who classified it "de fide."

I choose to stand by Doctor and Saint, Alphonsus, whom I know I can trust, instead of little fr. feeney, who the church chastised. 

You make unfounded claims as well as unfounded accusations. Trent said what exactly?

It should be known that baptism is not only the first but also the most necessary of all the Sacraments. Without baptism, no one can enter heaven. - St. Alphonsus de Liguori from Preaching of God's Word

Please man, I am not going to go over this hashed issue with you.  Alphonsus said it in Theologia Moralis, and called it De Fide based on the chapter of trent on justification.  This has been expounded time and time again.  You can't trust internet theology to get you where you need to be.  The good stuff is in print, sitting in libraries under layers of dust.  Get out there and read it.  Start with your catechism, where this is all explained, including the Roman Catechism, also called the Catechism of the Council of Trent which was written by St. Robert Bellarmine and Borromeo by interpreting the council of trent, which they were alive to witness, and which was promulgated by the council of trent to be taught in all parishes by parish priests.  It has been repeated by all comprehensive catechisms since then.  The theologians have taught it since then.  The moralists have taught it since then.  The canonists taught it since then.  St. Thomas taught it.  St. Augustine taught it.  Popes taught it.  Fathers taught it.  What more do you want?

I am sorry, but I don't have time to cite all these sources.  You will have to research it on your own.  Call my claims unfounded, but do a little digging beyond some private internet "theolgians," if you would, and see if you can keep calling this unfounded.

Just read the Roman Catechism man.  It is all in there.  If you won't trust the Roman Catechism...Lord, have mercy...

Now, just because something appears to be contradictory, doesn't mean it really is.  If there seems to be a contradiction in teaching, you must humbly back off, and pray and study, and repeat, until satisfied, and still, if you can not solve it, then, leave it alone for awhile, or ask someone who knows too.  I wish I could walk you through this, but I really don't have the time.  Too busy.  I am sorry.

The Church, will not contradict herself, ever.  Given that, call a spade a spade when you see it.

Desire for baptism, or "baptism of desire," does not contradict the necessity of the sacrament of baptism.  It also doesn't contradict that no one can enter heaven without baptism - all phantasmic contradictions.