Question For Feeneyites

[catholicguy]

No, that is not committing idolatry; there is no culpability. That is like saying self defense is committing murder. If you are permitted to kill another person in defense of your body (self defense), then you definitely are permitted to offer false worship to save your soul. In both cases, there is no culpability. "That is a great way to live your Faith..." is not a valid argument, sorry.

Edited August 30, 2004 by catholicguy

[catholicguy]

I do not know if you read my added part of the post (I edited it to add this):

Also, to make it more clear, Hananiah's original post said "deliver you to the executioner", so there would be time to be baptized before reaching the executioner. Further, in cases like Nigeria (which is different from ancient Rome because there is basically vigilante justice; i.e., there is no system of government to execute, so there is no change to be baptized in between), Baptisms should be given much earlier, perhaps as soon as the catechumen made an Act of Faith (as soon as he accepts the Catholic Faith, he is baptized).

Just so you know. It is not offering any new argument.

[p0lar_bear]

The person would be telling those around them that it's OK to forsake your faith if you will be killed for it. By your same argument all those who die rather than commit idolatry were just being silly, because it wouldn't have been sinful for them to simply sacrifice to idols because they were being threatened.

[catholicguy]

Who are "those around them"? And even if they were, you have failed to prove that coercion does not negate culpability. The fact that he is not culpable because of coercion is still true, regardless of its effects.

[p0lar_bear]

I added more...see my previous post

[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