Pope says "'Feeneyites' are NOT heretics"
#51
Rex_Tremendae Wrote:
neel Wrote:Doesn't our Holy Father allow for guitar masses and heretical bishops to run rampant?


Last time I checked, there is no prohibition of guitar during Mass. And for crying out loud what do you expect? Like I've been saying these past days, war is an art.

My point was that despite the good things our Holy Father has done, I still think he's a liberal who just wants everyone to belong. He's doing good things for Tradition, but its for his own reasons. He doesn't call the nutters on the left heretics, so why should he call some who go to excess on the right heretics? Its hard to take a statement like this seriously when allowing for diversity - even when some are in serious error- is part of his program.

And didshroom, for the record, I do not think those holding to Father Feeney's views are heretics. I know we've exchanged words on the subject before (but admittedly not highly in-depth) but I'm sympathetic to some of Father Feeney's concerns. Its obvious that the liberal interpretation of BoD/BoB have completely destroyed belief in EENS among most of the faithful.

EDITED TO ADD: I almost feel like the subject of BoD/BoB shouldn't be discussed as much as it is, because it doesn't change anything that we're actually supposed to be doing as Catholics. We should assume that every non-Catholic is going to end up in Hell and work from there. Thats why these debates can get frustrating.
Reply
#52
Sorry for breaking up the mutual adoration party, but statements like these:

Quote: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.

undermines what our catechisms have been teaching for centuries.  It is not for you to say what teachings are "speculation...presumptuous...unnecessarily legalistic." etc. 
This is equivalent to an "attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorites" that Fr. Feeney was condemned for by the Holy Office.   
Reply
#53
Originally posted by Didishroom
Quote:Gabriel has mixed feelings

Just to clarify, I hold without any reservation that salvation is found only in the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church guided by Peter and the apostles in union with him; that baptism is the sole door of the holy Church; that the salvation which is in the Church is Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The Church is salvation, the kingdom of heaven on earth! This is eternal life and the true knowledge of God. Outside this there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

I also am aware that there is much confusion about this truth among members of the Church; confusion due in no small measure to speculations on "baptism of desire." And those speculations, which never arose until after the time of imperial persecutions, come from Western theologians and have been taken up also in the Eastern Churches. I reject this speculation as did Saint Gregory the Theologian (aka Gregory Nazianzen).

Yet it is a tolerated opinion. Therefore I cannot condemn as a heretic anyone who holds that opinion. But I demand the same; no one should ever call those who hold the dogma of faith without any speculation "Feeneyite heretics."

Let us wait on the manifestation of the mind of the Holy Spirit on these questions; the Spirit of Truth who ceaselessly dwells in and guides the Church. In due time a Council will resolve the issues in those glorious words: "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...."
Reply
#54
Quote:undermines what our catechisms have been teaching for centuries.  It is not for you to say what teachings are "speculation...presumptuous...unnecessarily legalistic." etc.  This is equivalent to an "attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorites" that Fr. Feeney was condemned for by the Holy Office.

No, his original problem was that they understood him to be condemning the idea (of BOD and other extraordinary means) outright. I dont condemn it, I even do believe it personally, have hope in it in God's mercy. But I dont believe it is Revealed.

Trying to get too systematic about something that is by definition outside the system, trying to make a rule out of exceptions to the rule...is a problem of attitude, not the actual theories in themselves necessarily.

The catechisms explained means we could hope in, proposed for Catholics ways that we can hope God could work "outside the box". But that is quite different than dogmatizing them as guaranteed titles to salvation like water baptism.

For too long the West took a "black or white" view where if something wasnt Revealed it must be condemned and if it wasnt condemned it must be Revealed. But really, there may be things that Revelation is simply silent on without the silence implying one way or the other about whether they are true or not.
Reply
#55
Quote:The catechisms explained means we could hope in, proposed for Catholics ways that we can hope God could work "outside the box". But that is quite different than dogmatizing them as guaranteed titles to salvation like water baptism.

That is unfounded presumption. If catechisms were just telling us things we could hope in, they would say we can only hope in them.  That is not the purpose of a catechism nor the intent behind what they actually taught.  Also talk of dogmatizing refers to defined teachings, as if we should only believe in those.  With BOD, we are talking about a doctrine of the ordinary infallible magisterium, like the condemnation of contraception.       
Reply
#56
Baptism is a normative necessity for salvation. This the Church has always and still teaches. God's mercy is not confined to the sacraments though...Which makes baptism by fire and desire tenable positions.
Reply
#57
Quote:That is unfounded presumption. If catechisms were just telling us things we could hope in, they would say we can only hope in them.  That is not the purpose of a catechism nor the intent behind what they actually taught.

Their intent was to clarify that the teaching on the objective necessity of baptism was not meant to bind God or to exclude hope that He, in His mercy, might save men of good will through means such as BOD, etc.

Taken literally, some may think the revealed dogmas on baptism excludes them. That was the original Feeneyite error. But really, the absolute tone of the statement is directed towards US, not towards God Himself, who can do whatever He wants, and that's what theories like BOD, etc...were propounded to clarify.

Unfortunately, some Catholics got to legalistic with them, and took what started as speculative examples of the types of hope we could have outside the system, and turned them into loopholes that could be presumed (but also the only loopholes apparently, if the insistence on Infant Limbo without any hope that usually goes along with BOD-fanatics is any indication) in a really arbitrary and inelegant way that needlessly complicates things.
Reply
#58
Quote:Unfortunately, some Catholics got to legalistic with them, and took what started as speculative examples of the types of hope we could have outside the system, and turned them into loopholes that could be presumed

The Popes in their encyclicals do not say that we can "hope" for the salvation of those who died with Baptism of Desire, but say outright that such have been saved.  We do not "hope" the martyrs who died with Baptism of Fire were saved, we presume they were saved.  The theologians don't classify the notion of Baptism of Desire a probable theological opinion like you do, but rather classify it a direct or indirect matter of faith.
Reply
#59
Quote:We do not "hope" the martyrs who died with Baptism of Fire were saved, we presume they were saved.

There are very few cases like this, all of them before papal canonizations...but the greater presumption in such cases, it seems to me, is the alleged knowledge that such martyrs werent in fact baptized first.

Maybe no one found out about it, but usually they had fair warning and some time before their martyrdom. How do we know they werent baptized? We cant say for sure that they werent baptized on the way to their martyrdom miraculously or whatever. That is a contingent historical fact and as such (as people have been saying around here about the Holocaust) cannot be part of the faith.

I dont think anyone disagrees that the Saints thus venerated are in heaven. The question is whether they got there because of a baptism we dont know about, or because of BOB or BOD.

I, personally, lean towards the latter. I see no reason to question the idea that they werent baptized yet if it is traditional. But it is not set in stone. Maybe they were baptized secretly, even by some miracle. That is an acceptable opinion too. The teaching on their heavenly glorification (all questions of the mode of their canonization aside)...does not extend to the particular means by which they were saved, merely to the fact that they were in fact saved.

This exemplifies why BOD cannot be Revealed, even if in fact true. Exactly because it by its nature must deal with the specific cases of individuals in the private forum, as opposed to the general public rule which is the proper subject of public revelation.
Reply
#60
Quote:Maybe no one found out about it, but usually they had fair warning and some time before their martyrdom. How do we know they werent baptized? We cant say for sure that they werent baptized on the way to their martyrdom miraculously or whatever. That is a contingent historical fact and as such

The Popes in their declarations don't speak of secret contingent facts.  They are clear in stating that the person is NOT baptized by water, yet still attains salvation because of Baptism of Desire.  Whether the people alleged to have received it even existed is a non factor.  The doctrine stands on its own merit.    
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)