SSPX Statement
#31
None of the issues concerning "de fide" teachings have anything to do with the Feeney position.  There is no "de fide" teaching that guarantees that a water baptism did not occur in some extraordinary form, due to a cooperation between God and the last minute convert.  

The Church cannot rule definitively on the whether or not someone actually died without water baptism.  That would require Divine and Public Revelation, which is closed. It's all "if" scenarios and speculation.  There is no "de fide" in it because the entirety of the scenario in whatever form is God's business and not for the collective knowledge of Man.  

We do know that there is no salvation outside of the Church.  We do know that true and natural water is necessary.  (There are no qualifiers in Trent concerning necessity of precept or means, conversely by comparison there is a qualifier in Vatican I concerning "true heirarchical" obedience--just to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit does insure qualifiers when they are needed to prevent error.)  Trent does not address whether desire which can bring about justification is its own mechanism for salvation or whether it is a catalyst in which God will supply the sacrament through special agencies.  

There is a dogged insistence among some opponents of a clear understanding of EENS that if they don't see the baptism or have a certificate, then it didn't happen.  But to avoid condemning the departed they  insist that people visibly outside the Church could have made it to Heaven. The unavoidable inference drawn is that God would be a liar about His Revelation for the convenience of those that only reach out at the end. They ham-handedly dismantle the dogma of the Church instead of relying directly on God's Truth and His action to work within the framework He has chosen to bind Himself to.  He cannot lie, He cannot decieve.  Had He revealed to us that all rules are optional and Truth changes, well then He would be the God of the Muslims and all bets are off.



Reply
#32
(07-20-2012, 11:52 AM)Gerard Wrote: 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. 

There are no contradictions amongst the theologians of the past concerning this subject.

(07-20-2012, 11:52 AM)Gerard Wrote: 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....

Are you infallible?

OK, so that straw man is out of the way.

A declaration that a man is a Doctor of the Church tells us that he was RIGHT, not incapable of error.  Infallibility results in being right always.  Being right is not limited to those who have infallibility.

(07-20-2012, 11:52 AM)Gerard Wrote: 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?

The public revelation concerning baptism is perfectly clear.  Only somebody who doesn't understand it would demand a new public revelation to explain it.

As for St. Thomas, why did he not suggest an angel or a preacher to baptise the man raised by wolves?  Because he didn't.  He suggested an angel or a preacher to INSTRUCT him, because faith is absolutely necessary for salvation, without exception, whereas baptism with water isn't.

Start from the beginning.  Where did you learn your faith? 
Reply
#33
(07-20-2012, 06:06 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: 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.

Yes to all of this.  I have a lot of time for Fr. Feeney, and I think he was scandalised, in the proper sense, by stinking liberals like Cushing.
Reply
#34
(07-20-2012, 11:55 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: (By the way, Melkite: How are your thoughts on predestination coming? I hope my last post didn't scare you away from the discussion...)

Nope, not scared away.  I don't remember anything from your last post sticking out as anything I thought was contradictory.  Just that I didn't agree with parts of it.  I can read it over again and let you know my thoughts/questions if you want.
Reply
#35
(07-21-2012, 01:09 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2012, 11:55 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: (By the way, Melkite: How are your thoughts on predestination coming? I hope my last post didn't scare you away from the discussion...)

Nope, not scared away.  I don't remember anything from your last post sticking out as anything I thought was contradictory.  Just that I didn't agree with parts of it.  I can read it over again and let you know my thoughts/questions if you want.

I would just like to know if it answered your questions . . . not that you agreed with it, per se, but if it answered your questions.
Reply
#36
(07-21-2012, 01:20 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-21-2012, 01:09 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2012, 11:55 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: (By the way, Melkite: How are your thoughts on predestination coming? I hope my last post didn't scare you away from the discussion...)

Nope, not scared away.  I don't remember anything from your last post sticking out as anything I thought was contradictory.  Just that I didn't agree with parts of it.  I can read it over again and let you know my thoughts/questions if you want.

I would just like to know if it answered your questions . . . not that you agreed with it, per se, but if it answered your questions.

I'll have to re-read it.  I remember not being surprised by it, and I remember thinking 'i'm never going to be able to be convinced of this.'  Not in an arrogant way, more in a hopeless way.  I don't remember if it answered all my questions about reprobation, though.
Reply
#37
Edited:

Never mind.  I'd be a fool to engage in the BoD debate yet again.
Reply
#38
(07-20-2012, 10:18 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: 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.

None of the infallible pronouncements would contradict the de fide pronouncements, of course.

Reply
#39
(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.

Please site your source  - otherwise it is no more than only your opinion.

Thanks all over the place.
Reply
#40
(07-21-2012, 01:52 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(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.

Please site your source  - otherwise it is no more than only your opinion.

Thanks all over the place.

Modern Catholic Dictionary Wrote:DE FIDE. A term meaning "of faith," used to identify those doctrines of the Church which are infallibly true. Their infallible certitude derives ultimately from divine revelation, but proximately from the fact that they have either been solemnly defined by the Church's magisterium or have been taught by her ordinary universal teaching authority as binding on the consciences of all the faithful.

The de fide teachings cannot contradict one another, of course, and none of them do.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)