Pope says "'Feeneyites' are NOT heretics"
#41
Gabriel Wrote:revelation knows nothing of a waterless baptism.
If Public Revelation knows nothing, then how can theology? Theology is to only base itself off Revelation, no?
I stand by Saint Alphonsus, Doctor and Saint, Founder of the Redemptorists. He reasons it right from Sacred Scripture and that is Public Revelation.
Reply
#42
Quote:HOW is it unanimous then? Do you even know what the Ordinary Magisterium is? It is not merely the Fathers! Universal (unanimous) theological consensus on a doctrine in ONE PERIOD in time is enough for a Pope to define a Sacred Dogma. That does not mean he will of course. That is what happened with Our Most Blessed Mother Mary's Immaculate Conception. Is it that hard to make these distinctions that you ought to here.

I never said that the Ordinary Magisterium was made up just the Fathers. The Ordinary Magisterium consists of the college of bishops.
 
Quote:That is false. Some Fathers did hold to it like Saint Cyprian who spoke about Baptism by blood. Therefore they are not in unanimous rejection of it.

But they are not in unanimous approval of it. Some actually say that unbaptized catechumens are damned!
 
 
 
Quote:Also both the Doctor per excellence of the Church and the Doctor per excellence for the specific theology that deals with this question, namely, moral theology, are in agreement on it and the latter St. Alphonsus even calls it de fide. And both are Canonized Saints too. Catholics are bound to believe de fide teachings, and the teachings of the Church's Doctors carry weight. Their doctrines are not to be taken lightly.

St. Alphonsus, despite his credentials, does not determine what is de fide. As I said before, he can be mistaken himself. 
 
 

 
Quote:Maybe he was. That is for the Church to decide though. I believe he was certainly in error. I absolutely believe he was in material ERROR. The sin of Heresy is specifically choosing to willfully stay in your error knowing it is an error. I don't believe Fr. Feeney had the knowledge or at least could not make the proper distinctions. He was no moral theologian. He alone is inadequate to answer the question anyhow.

I don't think you even know what you're talking about. You say Fr. was a material heretic(which does not incur guilt of sin) which is one who holds an error without knowing it is condemned by the Church. But then you say Fr. knew he was in error and persisted in it.
And then you say he didn't know the proper distinctions. Pardon me, but who do you think you are? You can't even write a statement without contradicting yourself and then you accuse a man of somehow being an idiot in theology when he was hailed by his Superior as "The greatest theologian we have by far!"


 
Quote:A lot of priests' theologies have never been condemned by the Church, does not make them truth?! It is judged as error by the traditional moral theology of the CHURCH DOCTOR St Alphonsus Liguori, and I add that is the Doctor PER EXCELLENCE OF MORAL THEOLOGY. A doctor, saint and very holy bishop carries more weight than a priest to me, especially when this is his question to answer.

It is judged as an error only by simpletons who think they are the Church. In the end it is only the Church that decides. And since the Church has never condemned Fr. Feeney and has only allowed his Order to exist I think that should be enough for anyone. You see I take the authority of the pope, over a holy bishop.



Pope Pius XII
Allocution to the Gregorian University, Oct. 17, 1953
[-]
  •
Reply
#43
Quote:Which bishops currently deny BOD?  Have there been an theologians in the past 50 years who've written against BOD being infallible?  I think the only one "divided" on whether BOD was true was Fr. Feeney (who was not even a theologian!).  Rome has not changed her position on BOD.  The only difference between the Holy Office of yesteryear and the CDF of today is that the latter rarely condemns anyone.

 
Go to their website(Catholicism.org). Besides using the infallible statements of the Church they do show theologians, priests and bishops of the past who have share their teachings.

And if I knew of at least one bishop off the top of my head, it would be the bishop who gave an Imprimature to a book defending Fr, Feeney and his teachigs, to be 'free from all moral and doctrinal error.'



 
Reply
#44
To Gabriel and 7HolyCats:

Thank you for your defense. In know 7HolyCats doesn't think the same as Fr. Feeney and Gabriel has mixed feelings, but at least you two know that on the matter of BOD he was expressing his theological opinion and was never guilty of heresy.

So many fail to realize, even after being told a million times, that Fr. Feeny's censure had to do with battling the liberalism of clergy who were more interested in mainting their friendships with Protstants than converting them. They also fail to realize his theology was developed years after his silencing and was never the issue in the so-called Boston Heresy Case.  

I think it's also interesting because you two are, I believe, Eastern Catholics. People often accuse Fr. Feeney of being a man who took the letter over the spirit. Yet after reading his works, I can't help but think his theology is closer to Eastern theology in that it takes God's words at face value(no exceptions) but also emphasises the mercy and mystery of God's ways and reconciling the two together.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I still just want to say thanks.
Reply
#45

Quote:And does revelation stop with the Age of the Fathers? I think not

It ended with the Apostles. Dogma just defines something already held and believed. Nothing new is added to Revelation.


Reply
#46
Quote:I think it's also interesting because you two are, I believe, Eastern Catholics. People often accuse Fr. Feeney of being a man who took the letter over the spirit. Yet after reading his works, I can't help but think his theology is closer to Eastern theology in that it takes God's words at face value(no exceptions) but also emphasises the mercy and mystery of God's ways and reconciling the two together.

Gabriel is an Eastern Catholic, I actually am not but I heavily sympathize.

In this case, yes, I think my view is more Eastern. Taking God's word at face value, but then also not treating it legalistically.

The legalism of the West tries to turn what must need be exceptions to the rule (however common in fact)...into loopholes in the rule itself. But if the exceptions are contained in the rule...then they wouldnt be exceptions anymore.

Then BOD would give salvation by title of justice, not mercy. But I believe it is a mercy, not a revealed title like with water baptism.

Quote:However, the evidence that Fr. Feeney did not deny BOD totally is in chapter 7 of Bread of Life when he says that a catechumen might possibly be justified by his faith and desire prior to baptism, but still needed the sacrament "celebrated in water" (John 3:5; Council of Vienne) to be a true member of the Church and attain eternal salvation, and that God in his providence would somehow get it to him. How he does this is not up to us to determine.

Well, one thing I've heard many of Fr Feeney's followers claim (whether they are of the type who, wrongly, claim that revelation positively excludes BOD, or merely of the type who for whatever reason dont personally believe the theory but recognize it as acceptable)...is that God doesnt have any need for BOD. They will say, "you rightly say that God is not bound by the sacraments, He is Almighty and so can do what He wants"...but then points out that, this being the case, His omnipotence also implies the power to simply get actual water baptism, perhaps miraculously, to people while they are still alive instead of needing to use BOD. I find this somewhat unconvincing, because how are we to explain all the Native Americans and such. But they say that God may have arranged the distribution of souls so that the elect were born in places where water baptism was available to them, and many of those who would be reprobate anyway, were put in places and times that wouldnt.

To me, this is needlessly complex and self-fullfilling. But I dont deny it is a tolerable position as long as they, in turn, dont deny that BOD or other unrevealed means...are also an acceptable position.
Reply
#47
Quote:Well, one thing I've heard many of Fr Feeney's followers claim (whether they are of the type who, wrongly, claim that revelation positively excludes BOD, or merely of the type who for whatever reason dont personally believe the theory but recognize it as acceptable)...is that God doesnt have any need for BOD. They will say, "you rightly say that God is not bound by the sacraments, He is Almighty and so can do what He wants"...but then points out that, this being the case, His omnipotence also implies the power to simply get actual water baptism, perhaps miraculously, to people while they are still alive instead of needing to use BOD. I find this somewhat unconvincing, because how are we to explain all the Native Americans and such. But they say that God may have arranged the distribution of souls so that the elect were born in places where water baptism was available to them, and many of those who would be reprobate anyway, were put in places and times that wouldnt.
I do like the position of Fr.'s Order. That only the baptized can be saved and since God has bound Himself by His word, He will not let anyone who wishes baptism to die without it. This demonstartes that God cannot lie and that He is never lacking in mercy. I get very annoyed when people bring up the hypothetical guy who dies in a car accident on his way to get baptized. It has no basis in reality and, to me, mocks the omnipotence of God and forces Him to come up with a loophole. "Oh darn, that poor guy died before he could be baptized. But wait I'll save him through baptism of desire. Ta-daa!"

But I also share your concerns about the people who lived for centuries with no Gospel. This too can be troubling and sometimes I have trouble reconciling it with the necessity of baptism at all. But then I also think the whole concept of Original Sin and hell are very troubling but we accept them any way. We must have Faith.

Here's an article written by a Slave of the Immaculate Heart on the salvation of pre-Columbian Amerindians. http://catholicism.org/eens-salvation-amerindian.htmlIt is not complete but it does make you think. Also if you have a chance read Sr. Catherine's chapter "The Ignorant Savage" in her book "Gate of Heaven." Again, I don't think it answers all questions but it brings up alot of interesting points.  


[url=http://catholicism.org/eens-salvation-amerindian.html][/url] 


Quote:To me, this is needlessly complex and self-fullfilling. But I dont deny it is a tolerable position as long as they, in turn, dont deny that BOD or other unrevealed means...are also an acceptable position
Well they do deny that BOD can replace the necessity of water baptism. They have assurance from the Church that this is not heresy. And while they are very critical of BOD as salvific they don't think it is heresy or equate their own views with the Magisterium. We must all understand that the Church has neither condemned nor defined the belief that a desire for Baptism can be salvific in place of actual water Baptism. The Church has infallibly defined that water Baptism is necessary for salvation. That is all we are bound to believe. But the belief that there could be exceptions:well I see evidence amoung the saints for both sides, so it's understandible, no matter which 'side' you're on( I know of three FSSP priests who took Fr. Feeney's view and one even preaching from the pulpit, while others hotly and emotionally denied it). I can respect you for this because you know the difference between theology and dogma.

Ciao.


p.s . It is truly refreshing that I can talk with someone on this subject without insults, emotions, nastiness, snarkiness, hypocrisy,distortion and ignorance of facts and accusations of heresy.
Reply
#48
Quote:Well they do deny that BOD can replace the necessity of water baptism.

But they dont claim that this is the only acceptable position, as they were originally condemned for doing (whether rightly or through a misunderstanding).

The CDF under Ratzinger definitely said as long as they admit that Revelation doesnt necessarily exclude the other possibility, they are within the bounds of acceptable belief even if they personally dont hold that possibility, as long as they admit it a is tolerable position too.

Quote:We must all understand that the Church has neither condemned nor defined the belief that a desire for Baptism can be salvific in place of actual water Baptism.

Exactly. All that Trent did was exclude it from condemnation, which is not the same as defining it. I think, either way, it isnt contained in public Revelation.

We have our marching orders, namely that water baptism is the only means we have been given, and as such is objectively necessary for salvation. God has bound Himself in justice to give title to heaven to the water baptized, they are the only ones with a "claim" in justice to it.

Of course, God isnt bound by the sacraments, and guaranteeing title in justice to salvation to the water baptized doesnt necessarily mean excluding salvation to anyone else (though they would not have a claim in justice to it, it would be merely a sheer free mercy).

But what He does beyond the public promise in the private forum in the subjective cases of individuals...is for Him to worry about, not us. In fact, too much speculation into it strikes me as presumptuous, besides unnecessarily legalistic. I have hope in His mercy, and cant really say more than that about specifics, nor is there a need to.
Reply
#49
Great talk.

God Bless. [Image: tiphat2.gif]
Reply
#50
Thanks. You too.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)