SSPX Statement
#21
(07-20-2012, 10:49 AM)John Lane Wrote:
(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.

Excuse me Bishop Muller!  What I'm saying is what I wrote.  Not the strawman you'd rather reply to. 

I didn't realize that you only hold contradictions against post-conciliar theologians, but it's just fine to get all vague and "the Church says..." when confronted with contradictions that you do like from theologians of the past. 

Tell me, are the doctors of the Church infallible on all matters?  Please cite that one for me.  I'm sure you have your copy of Denzinger and Ott handy.  But...is Ott infallible? Hmm....

What public revelation has been given to the Church that contradicts Christ's institution of water Baptism and also overturns Auctorum Fidei?  Why did St. Thomas even bother to bring up the concept that God would send an Angel to instruct a man if necessary?
Reply
#22
The doctors of the Church are not infallible, per se, no.  But the Church is infallible, and she doesn't name someone a doctor unless convinced of the purity of his doctrine.  In this case, St. Alphonsus would be claiming that a doctrine which is not de fide was in fact de fide.  That's a pretty big mistake to make.  I would have expected it to get corrected sometime in the process, if he was wrong.

The bottom line is, there's a lot more authority stacked up against Fr. Feeney's interpretation of baptism than for it.

That said, he certainly seems to have been a heroic man who was trying to do the right thing.  He was one of the first to stand up to what was coming, and therefore one of the first thrown under the bus.

It seems absolutely certain to me that he was not so deserving of condemnation as his ordinary, Abp. Cushing, I believe it was-- to whom we owe the canard of "personally opposed to abortion, but must represent my constituents" among Catholic politicians.  He certainly seems to have been an indifferentist besides.
Reply
#23
Feeneyites accept both the pre and post Vatican Church, they believe in continuity like their Pope Benedict . They are not sede-vacantist's!
Reply
#24
(07-20-2012, 06:06 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: The doctors of the Church are not infallible, per se, no.  But the Church is infallible, and she doesn't name someone a doctor unless convinced of the purity of his doctrine.  In this case, St. Alphonsus would be claiming that a doctrine which is not de fide was in fact de fide.  That's a pretty big mistake to make.  I would have expected it to get corrected sometime in the process, if he was wrong.

A salvific baptism of desire has not been declared de fide.  Fr. Feeney and his students have always said they would submit to any de fide teachings without hesitation.

Reply
#25
True Per passion and anyway the Father Feeney affair had nothing to do with BOD or BOB, it was the modernist trying to get the world to PERCIEVE that the dogma No Salvation Outside the Church was not longer valid, they succeeded brilliantly. Father Feeney was silenced for not going to Rome and for loudly proclaiming that there was No Salvation Outside the Church. The BOD and BOB issue was not the issue back then it was the dogma itself which modernist's hated and conservative's thought was impolite to tell their seeming good Protestant Churchgoing friends.
Reply
#26
(07-20-2012, 06:06 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: The doctors of the Church are not infallible, per se, no.  But the Church is infallible, and she doesn't name someone a doctor unless convinced of the purity of his doctrine.  In this case, St. Alphonsus would be claiming that a doctrine which is not de fide was in fact de fide.  That's a pretty big mistake to make.  I would have expected it to get corrected sometime in the process, if he was wrong.

There is nothing magisterial about Doctor's of the Church.  It's essentially an honorific and a 'sure norm' like a catechism of one holy person's writings.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says,

"The decree is issued by the Congregation of Sacred Rites and approved by the pope, after a careful examination, if necessary, of the saint's writings. It is not in any way an ex cathedra decision, nor does it even amount to a declaration that no error is to be found in the teaching of the Doctor. It is, indeed, well known that the very greatest of them are not wholly immune from error."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075a.htm
Reply
#27
(07-20-2012, 07:05 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: A salvific baptism of desire has not been declared de fide.  Fr. Feeney and his students have always said they would submit to any de fide teachings without hesitation.

We are not only obliged to hold de fide pronouncements of the extraordinary magisterium. We must submit to the infallible ordinary and universal magisterium as well.

The First Council of Nicaea did not take place until A.D. 325. That means for nearly two centuries, no pope or council defined anything explicitly as "de fide." According to this approach, our Holy Faith had no dogmas with which we had to adhere to. See what I mean?
Reply
#28
(07-20-2012, 07:03 AM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: When is INPEFESS going to arrive and destroy all the heresies and errors on this thread?  ??? :LOL:

Lol, INPEFESS probably has a life of his own that he'd like to enjoy from time to time.
Reply
#29
(07-20-2012, 10:18 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(07-20-2012, 07:05 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: A salvific baptism of desire has not been declared de fide.  Fr. Feeney and his students have always said they would submit to any de fide teachings without hesitation.

We are not only obliged to hold de fide pronouncements of the extraordinary magisterium. We must submit to the infallible ordinary and universal magisterium as well.

The First Council of Nicaea did not take place until A.D. 325. That means for nearly two centuries, no pope or council defined anything explicitly as "de fide." According to this approach, our Holy Faith had no dogmas with which we had to adhere to. See what I mean?

What he said.
Reply
#30
(07-20-2012, 10:25 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2012, 07:03 AM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: When is INPEFESS going to arrive and destroy all the heresies and errors on this thread?  ??? :LOL:

Lol, INPEFESS probably has a life of his own that he'd like to enjoy from time to time.

:LOL:

Yes, contrary to what my post count may indicate, I do have a life outside this forum.

(By the way, Melkite: How are your thoughts on predestination coming? I hope my last post didn't scare you away from the discussion...)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)