SSPX Statement
#11
(07-19-2012, 09:00 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Fr. Feeney's interpretation was wrong, and condemned.

Well said.
Reply
#12
(07-20-2012, 12:02 AM)Adeodatus01 Wrote:
(07-19-2012, 09:00 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Fr. Feeney's interpretation was wrong, and condemned.

Well said.

Well said, but unfortunately untrue.  The letter from 1949 mischaracterizes EENS into someone "condemning" someone for not being visibly incorporated into the Church and only implicitly desiring to be united to Her. 

That is not Feeney's or the Catholic Church's position.  Pius XII was decieved by a strawman argument, no mention is made of the mechanism by which Baptism occurs when prompted by desire or blood or whatever, Feeney simply believed that true and natural water is supplied.  God can split the Red Sea, raise the dead, multiply loaves and fishes, walk on water, but somehow He can't get a single drop of water to run down someone's forehead at the end of life and can't spare an Angel to recite the words of Trinitarian Baptism.  I personally find that to be an underwhelming deity.

I will never understand the virulent reaction against Feeney's position since it doesn't save any less souls than anyone's belief in Baptism of Desire or Blood without water. The Feeney position just assumes that God is consistent and simply supplies the matter and form where the recipient provides the intention.

I have yet to see or hear any argument that has some kind of proof where God has failed to provide water for anyone saved. That's because it is unprovable to say that God positively did not provide water and someone was saved. 
Reply
#13
(07-20-2012, 12:44 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(07-20-2012, 12:02 AM)Adeodatus01 Wrote:
(07-19-2012, 09:00 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Fr. Feeney's interpretation was wrong, and condemned.

Well said.

Well said, but unfortunately untrue.  The letter from 1949 mischaracterizes EENS into someone "condemning" someone for not being visibly incorporated into the Church and only implicitly desiring to be united to Her. 

That is not Feeney's or the Catholic Church's position.  Pius XII was decieved by a strawman argument, no mention is made of the mechanism by which Baptism occurs when prompted by desire or blood or whatever, Feeney simply believed that true and natural water is supplied.  God can split the Red Sea, raise the dead, multiply loaves and fishes, walk on water, but somehow He can't get a single drop of water to run down someone's forehead at the end of life and can't spare an Angel to recite the words of Trinitarian Baptism.  I personally find that to be an underwhelming deity.

I will never understand the virulent reaction against Feeney's position since it doesn't save any less souls than anyone's belief in Baptism of Desire or Blood without water. The Feeney position just assumes that God is consistent and simply supplies the matter and form where the recipient provides the intention.

I have yet to see or hear any argument that has some kind of proof where God has failed to provide water for anyone saved. That's because it is unprovable to say that God positively did not provide water and someone was saved. 

The corollary is that many a Catholic with one mortal sin would have been condemned to hell because God failed to send a priest?  Yet, an act of Perfect Contrition would have had the same effect of absolution.  We have no proof, just "assumptions" (demonstrate or cite sources) that God is consistent and supplied the matter and form -- but WHERE the recipient provides the intention (as Trent declares, "or desire thereof"), the effect Baptism supplies is conferred, i.e., the remission of all sin.  Fr. Feeney explicitly taught no one is saved unless baptized by water.  Period.  From the Apostolic age when Baptism was made compulsory, how many were condemned to eternal fire because the Twelve hadn't reach yet to baptize them?  And in many case, baptism was deferred until imminent death. 

Abp. Lefebvre taught this and was blasted by the feenyites.
Reply
#14
(07-20-2012, 12:44 AM)Gerard Wrote: I have yet to see or hear any argument that has some kind of proof where God has failed to provide water for anyone saved. That's because it is unprovable to say that God positively did not provide water and someone was saved. 

You've mis-framed the point.

The point is what the Church believes and teaches.

The Church believes that St. Emerentiana is in heaven.  The Church believes this despite also believing that she died a catechumen, unbaptised.

She doesn't desire to prove that St. Emerentiana was not baptised, because she doesn't think like a Feeneyite.  For her, it doesn't matter in such a case - the person was saved.

Yes, nobody can prove a negative.  But the Church doesn't even desire to prove or disprove this negative.  She's happy with her children believing that the unbaptised Emerentiana is in heaven.  The fact that you're not happy with that idea should illustrate beyond any doubt that you and the Church have different ideas.  Yes, that's a problem, for you, not for the Church.
Reply
#15
When is INPEFESS going to arrive and destroy all the heresies and errors on this thread?  ??? :LOL:
Reply
#16
Quote:In the Roman Martyrology for the 3rd day of January, we read: “At Rome, the holy virgin and martyr, St. Emerentiana. Being yet a catechumen, she was stoned to death while praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, her foster sister.” St. Agnes had been martyred two days previously, and Father Feeney thought it inconceivable that St. Emerentiana was not baptized in the interval. She might still have been called technically a “catechumen,” that is, her instruction in the faith was not yet completed, but catechumens were immediately baptized when in danger of death during a persecution. We have seen St. Augustine urging Honoratus of Thiara not to flee at the approach of the Vandals: “What if any man should die in the ban of the Church, or die without having been born again?” This practice is especially well illustrated in the stories of the North American Martyrs since a catechumenate, similar to that of the early Church had been re-established. We read in the Relation of Fr. Paul Rageneau, S.J., the superior of the Huron Mission:

“…Inspired by a hostile army, that was reported to be but a half league from the village…the women thought only of flight and the men of resisting the attack; fear and dread reigned everywhere. Amid all those alarms the Christians, the catechumens, and even many infidels, hastened to the church, some to receive absolution, others to hasten their baptism; all feared hell more than death. The Father [probably Daniel] did not know whom to hear, for while he wished to satisfy some, the others pressed him and cried to him for pity. It was a combat of the Faith, which lived in their hearts and gave them a legitimate right to what they desired. Thus the Father found himself, fortunately, compelled to grant their requests. Many were armed from head to foot and received baptism in that state. After all, it turned out to be a false alarm; but the Faith and holy promises of those persons who were baptized in haste, were, nevertheless, earnest. The Holy Spirit is an excellent teacher; and when he calls anyone to the Faith, he abundantly supplies whatever may be deficient in our instructions.”

http://catholicism.org/doctrinalsummary.html

ETA: Another important point is that neither Fr. Feeney nor any of his students have ever indicated an unwillingness to acknowledge the authority of any future doctrine that defines as salvific the other 2 baptisms.
Reply
#17
(07-20-2012, 09:20 AM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: She might still have been called technically a “catechumen,” that is, her instruction in the faith was not yet completed, but catechumens were immediately baptized when in danger of death during a persecution.

Yes, but the Church does not take care to discover, and to teach men, that in every case this actually happened.  She has sanctioned her teachers of theology to instruct her future ministers that baptism of desire is salvific, she has presented cases like that of St. Emerentiana without thinking it necessary to emphasise that she must have been baptised, she has declared St. Alphonsus a Doctor of the Universal Church when he tells us that baptism of desire is de fide.  Etc.
Reply
#18
(07-20-2012, 06:31 AM)John Lane Wrote:
(07-20-2012, 12:44 AM)Gerard Wrote: I have yet to see or hear any argument that has some kind of proof where God has failed to provide water for anyone saved. That's because it is unprovable to say that God positively did not provide water and someone was saved. 

The Church believes that St. Emerentiana is in heaven.  The Church believes this despite also believing that she died a catechumen, unbaptised.

She doesn't desire to prove that St. Emerentiana was not baptised, because she doesn't think like a Feeneyite.  For her, it doesn't matter in such a case - the person was saved.

Yes, nobody can prove a negative.  But the Church doesn't even desire to prove or disprove this negative.  She's happy with her children believing that the unbaptised Emerentiana is in heaven.  The fact that you're not happy with that idea should illustrate beyond any doubt that you and the Church have different ideas.  Yes, that's a problem, for you, not for the Church.

The Church does not believe she is in Heaven unbaptized.  The Church is saying somehow, unknown to our records and without witness know to us, she obtained Baptism through some mechanism, the assumption or best guess they came up with is that it was through desire as a catalyst.  The Feeney position is simply that, that catalyst was part of a "mechanism" of desire which included water baptism provided either by human means and not recorded or by supernatural or preternatural means. 

The Church has never made any explicit declaration that the mechanism of desire excludes a supernatural or preternatural  water.
Reply
#19
Quote:Baptism of Desire: Its Origin and Abandonment in the Thought of Saint Augustine

This article will focus on the question of explicit baptism of desire — as it was understood by most western doctors of the Church from the time of Saint Augustine (+430) until Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (+1787), the last declared theological doctor who wrote in favor of its saving efficacy. The subject matter will deal specifically with the origin of the theological speculation, as given by Saint Augustine in one of his early doctrinal letters, and then move on to prove from authoritative testimony that the African doctor reversed his opinion in his later anti-Pelagian writing.

See here for full article (it's long). 

http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire...stine.html
Reply
#20
(07-20-2012, 09:39 AM)Gerard Wrote: The Church does not believe she is in Heaven unbaptized.  The Church is saying somehow, unknown to our records and without witness know to us, she obtained Baptism through some mechanism, the assumption or best guess they came up with is that it was through desire as a catalyst.  The Feeney position is simply that, that catalyst was part of a "mechanism" of desire which included water baptism provided either by human means and not recorded or by supernatural or preternatural means. 

What you're saying, is that you know what the Church believes and teaches, but those she has authorised to convey that teaching to us don't know it, not even those she has especially designated "Doctors" (i.e. teachers) of the Universal Church because of the perfection of their doctrine.  Not St. Thomas, nor St. Alphonsus.  But you know, because you've got a copy of Denzinger...

You must be one holy, smart fella.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)