Question For Feeneyites

[catholicguy]

No, the loss of the physical body is not above worship of God; I did not say that someone who is in the state of grace should do that. If someone is in the state of grace, then he would have to without committing a sin. This is not true for a catechumen.

[catholicguy]

Also, the point is that coercion reduces or eliminates culpability. This is true in all things. You also cannot reduce the Virtue of the martyrs to a necessity. The fact remains that coercion for one in the state of grace might even be reduced because of the same reasoning, but my point still stands. It is never virtuous to forfit Heaven (which happens, according to the teachings of the Church) if one dies "in mortal sin or original sin only." God bless.

[catholicguy]

I said earlier that Cmom's post was invalid because the Church does not teach that such a person will be saved; I am now extending that to say that such a comment is a mortal sin, Presumption of God's Mercy. God bless.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Catholicguy. If you could reply to the following, I think both I, and more importantly, thedude, would greatly appreciate it, as much work was put into it.

[url="http://www.cathworld.org/worlds/bible/thedude/againstfeeneyism.html"]http://www.cathworld.org/worlds/bible/thed...tfeeneyism.html[/url]


It seems to me that you're stance on accepting only [i]de fide[/i] statements of the Church is logically inconsistant, for it ignores the interpretive authority and power of the Church. The living Magisterium is the only body with the authority to interpret either Scripture or Tradition, and that includes [i]de fide[/i] teachings of the Church itself, across time.

Now it seems to me that there are two stances that one could take. First, one could claim, as you do, that only de fide statements need be submitted to, and everything else is open to interpretation. The second stance is that the laity has the duty to submit to the living magisterium in all teachings, fallible or infallible.

When one considers the number of de fide statements of the Church relative to the teachings of the Church in general, holding the first stance can only lead to widespread arguments of personal interpretation reminiscent of protestantism, while universally maintaining the second stance will lead to humble submission and faith in the Church.

If you would claim that holding the second option will only lead to the damnation of all the souls of the members of the Church (according to your own interpretation) then please refrain, as I have heard the argument already.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Hananiah]

[quote name='catholicguy' date='Aug 30 2004, 01:21 PM'] It depends what "Feeneyite" means, but I only believe that which the Church teaches [i]De Fide[/i]; while I do not believe in Limbo, I accept it as possible and not contrary to the Faith. Since I only believe what the Church teaches [i]De Fide[/i], I do not believe in the "Baptisms" of blood and desire. I feel that I am able to answer the question. [/quote]
That's a dangerous position. The Church has not taught [i]de fide[/i] that birth control is evil, or that ensoulment occurs at conception, among many other things. This "I won't believe it unless it's dogma" attitude is exactly the kind of attitude Pius XII was combatting when he said in [i]Humani Generis[/i] no. 20 "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." This of course doesn't extend to every jot and tittle of every encyclical. (One example will suffice to prove this: in [i]Unam Sanctam[/i] Boniface refers to the author of the Pentateuch as Moses whereas in [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i] John Paul II refers to the ficticious "Yahwist" and "Elohist" authors.) However, when a doctrine is taught repeatedly and explicitly over hundreds of years in some of the most authoritative documents of the Church (as baptisms by blood and desire have been cf. Mystici Corporis Christi, Vat II, CCC), it is safe to say that it belongs to the ordinary Magisterium.

Oh, and I remember you saying that the Catechism of the Council of Trent has more authority than the current Catechism because it is derived from an ecumenical council. Well, this is from the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

[quote][b]Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once[/b]

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.[/quote]

And if there is any confusion about the intent of my question, it is the following: what would you do in a situation where the only 2 options were to commit a mortal sin or die unbaptized?

[Hananiah]

Oh, this is where I got the CCT quote: [url="http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/trentc.htm"]http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechu...hism/trentc.htm[/url]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

catholicguy,
Read my article (since I don't think you did?), I provide the quotes in their original context. The Summa and all prior Catechisms teach baptism of desire and blood (Including Aquina's Catechism, Trent, & Pius X).

[CatholicCrusader]

Didn't log out

Edited August 30, 2004 by CatholicCrusader

[catholicguy]

I apologize that I cannot reply at this time to the posts; I need to get some things for school (I need to buy my notebooks, etc., but I might also get a textbook as well). In any event, Jeff, I will simply present another website which has the decrees concerning Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus throughout history. I cannot reply to that whole website that you offered. This website has an extensive amount of quotes from Popes, Saints, Fathers, Doctors, and Councils. There is also an entire book which does a similar thing. It is very, very long, and I will get the information on it if you are interested. The website with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus quotes is here: [url="http://www.romancatholicism.org/2quotes.html"]http://www.romancatholicism.org/2quotes.html[/url]

Hananiah, it is impossible for those two things to be the only options without coercion involved. If you were to say "Is it better to commit an act which is grave matter or to die unbaptized", I would say it is better to commit grave matter which would, in turn, hold no culpability because if the only other option is death, then naturally that being the only option, it coerces one to choose the grave matter, eliminating culpability.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Hananiah,
I am interested in the difference between your view of EENS and the majority of Phatmass members. If you could state the differences, I would be intrigued to read them. I say this because reading about EENS (purely by accident) put me on my track from ignorance of my faith to orthodoxy.

Edited August 30, 2004 by thedude

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

catholicguy,
None of the quotes in your link address the invincibly ignorant, they only address heretics and schismatics (my article also contains quotes from the same Fathers quoted in the RomanCatholicism.org article). And even if one isn't a physical member of the Church upon death, the New Catechism says their salvation is still accomplished through the Church, not outside of it. The RomanCatholicism.org quotes don't contradict the New Catechism (CCC 846).

Edited August 30, 2004 by thedude

[dUSt]

I'd make the sacrifice and then get baptised.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='thedude' date='Aug 30 2004, 04:13 PM'] Hananiah,
I am interested in the difference between your view of EENS and the majority of Phatmass members. If you could state the differences, I would be intrigued to read them. I say this because reading about EENS (purely by accident) put me on my track from ignorance of my faith to orthodoxy. [/quote]
Alright, I'll summarize it. Hopefully at some point in the future I will be able to produce a detailed exposition which quotes the relevant Magisterial documents.

1) The salvation of one who has never heard of Christ or His Church requires the formal repudiation of the errors of their previous belief system (Paganism, Islam, etc.).

2) Those who explicitly reject the Catholic Church (i.e. the vast majority of Protestants and Eastern Orthodox) are excluded from her pale. They are not implicit members or members in any way shape or form.

3) Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is properly interpreted as "outside the Church there is no salvation" not "without the Church there is no salvation."

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Aug 30 2004, 06:12 PM'] Alright, I'll summarize it. Hopefully at some point in the future I will be able to produce a detailed exposition which quotes the relevant Magisterial documents.

1) The salvation of one who has never heard of Christ or His Church requires the formal repudiation of the errors of their previous belief system (Paganism, Islam, etc.).

2) Those who explicitly reject the Catholic Church (i.e. the vast majority of Protestants and Eastern Orthodox) are excluded from her pale. They are not implicit members or members in any way shape or form.

3) Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is properly interpreted as "outside the Church there is no salvation" not "without the Church there is no salvation." [/quote]
So, then, you say it is impossible to be saved by inculpable ignorance, then, correct? Inculpable ignorance neither saves nor condemns. Is that your stance? Moreover, do you believe in implicit "baptism" of desire? I am not as much against those who believe in explicit baptism of desire/blood as much the "implicit" desire. The former is at least substantiated by the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas with rational explanations (however, I do reject the theories of more than one Baptism, which are not a teaching of the Church and are in fact rejected outright by Her: "If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema (St. John iii. 5)" Can. II on Baptism, Council of Trent).

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

They aren't multiple Baptisms, and the New Catechism agrees (CCC 1258). And I believe he is saying that an inculpably ignorant person can be saved.

Hananiah,
Thank you for stating your view. I don't really see how it is different from the majority of Phatmass members though.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='thedude' date='Aug 30 2004, 07:10 PM'] They aren't multiple Baptisms [/quote]
BAPTISM of desire and BAPTISM of blood? If it's not an actual Baptism, it sure sounds like a metaphor talked about at the Council of Trent.

Edited August 30, 2004 by CatholicCrusader

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Read my article I posted above. It has quotations from the Fathers on the issue. I've seen Feeneyite quotations against Baptism of blood, and they all refer to martyred heretics, not invincibly ignorant persons or catechumens.

[CatholicCrusader]

If the quotes don't mention invicible ignorance, then they shouldn't be taken to assume invincible ignorance. The Church NEVER made any "exceptions" in Her three ex Cathedra proclamations of the doctrine. NEVER. She never said this and this unless you are invicibly ignorant. You can't just assume invincible ignorance in that case. Unless it is outright stated, it is not supported. Because NO ONE means NO ONE, unless a qualifier is added. No qualifers were added. One indeed is teh universal Church outside of which NO ONE AT ALL can be saved." Lateran Council IV. You see, no qualifiers. The same is true of Florence and the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I was talking about the Patristic quotes, not the Papal ones (and your right, they don't mention the invincebly ignorant, so it cannot be assumed that they are condemned). I think it is easy to see that they are all addressed at heretics and schismatics. The New Catechism doesn't say there is salvation outside the Church, it says that an outsider can be saved (meeting certain conditions) THROUGH the Church (which wouldn't be outside).

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Again, read my article posted above (I read the RomanCatholicism.org one). It lays out my sources.

Edited August 31, 2004 by thedude