MorphRC Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 [b]The Leonard Feeney Quarrel and Pius IX on Invincible Ignorance [/b] In the standard theology textbooks used in all the seminaries at the end of the 19th century and throughout the first half of the 20th, in Tanquerey's Moral Theology, for instance, you will commonly see a sentence from one address Pius IX gave to some bishops, in which Pius IX declared that he — and the Catholic bishops in general — [i]perfectly well knew that it is not a sin for persons to remain outside the Church if they are invincibly ignorant of the true religion — don't know it and without any guilty negligence on their part really can't find out about it[/i]. And Feeney went totally against this? Is that the 'mainline' of it all? Or is there more than this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hananiah Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 I don't think any Feeneyites deny that invincible ignorance mitigates the guilt of the sin whereof one is invincibly ignorant. But not being guilty of one particular sin (in this case, heresy or schism) is not enough to get one into heaven; one must be spiritually born again and restored to the state of grace which man lost through the transgression of Adam. Where Feeneyites differ from most Catholics is that they believe this can only take place through sacramental water baptism, denying the efficacy of baptisms by blood and desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 I don't want to get myself in trouble and come off as if I'm minimizing the necessity of Sacramental Baptism. But it seems like to some extent St. Paul's criticisms of the Judaizers for holding that physical circumcision is absolutely necessary can apply to those heterodox persons who reject baptism by blood or desire. I realize the context is quite different, but I still think its interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted August 30, 2004 Author Share Posted August 30, 2004 Whats baptism by B & D? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hananiah Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 In a nutshell, if someone who deires to be baptized dies or is martyred before he is able to do so, God can provide him with the spiritual regeneration which is normally effected at water baptism. One doesn't recieve the baptismal character, but one is restored to sanctifying grace and can go to heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catholicguy Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 It is important to notice that the Church does not teach "Baptisms" of blood and desire, so, Laudate, you are incorrect in saying that one is heterodox for not believing them. There is a stronger case that those who [i]do[/i] believe in them are heterodox since they are speculative and not taught by the Church. Further, there is much evidence against the efficacy of "Baptisms" of blood and desire. This has already been censored several times on this website, so we will probably not be allowed to debate that, but, in any event, it is enough to say that the Church does not teach [i]De Fide [/i]the "Baptisms" of blood and desire, so they are not required for believe in any way. Because these "Baptisms" are not [i]De Fide[/i], one can completely deny what is commonly taught concerning them (even in the CCC) because the CCC is not infallible and there is no obligation on any Catholic whatsoever to accept the speculation of theologians which is not taught by the Church. If even approved private revelation is not De Fide, the speculative theology of "Baptisms" of blood and desire certainly is not. Because Vatican I did not define what the ordinary and universal Magisterium constitutes, the point here is moot, not to mention the fact that Limbo was and is more widely taught than "Baptisms" of Blood and Desire, yet this is not [i]De Fide[/i]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 While I entirely agree that the Catechism may not be infallible as such, it is a sure norm for teaching the faith, and baptism by blood and desire have been taught throughout the history of the Church, stretching down to even the earliest Fathers. Moreover, your view that the duty of submission of the liaty to the teaching of the Magisterium ends at de fide statemets seems to me to be strikingly heterodox, having almost no grounding in Scripture, Tradition, or the teachings of the living Magisterium itself. Also, if you would like more information regarding the catechisms that have taught this doctrine, the Church Fathers that have backed it, and the Scriptural sources for it, please feel free to check out the article that I linked for you in Hananiah's Question for Feeneyites thread - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Aug 30 2004, 05:09 PM'] While I entirely agree that the Catechism may not be infallible as such, it is a sure norm for teaching the faith, and baptism by blood and desire have been taught throughout the history of the Church, stretching down to even the earliest Fathers. Moreover, your view that the duty of submission of the liaty to the teaching of the Magisterium ends at de fide statemets seems to me to be strikingly heterodox, having almost no grounding in Scripture, Tradition, or the teachings of the living Magisterium itself. Also, if you would like more information regarding the catechisms that have taught this doctrine, the Church Fathers that have backed it, and the Scriptural sources for it, please feel free to check out the article that I linked for you in Hananiah's Question for Feeneyites thread - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote] All a Catholic MUST do is follow what has been defined de fide. That is what Vatican I says... Vat I mentions the Authoritative Magisterium, but it does not define this. Moreover, something is REQUIRED to believe from the Authoritative Magisterium, then it would be de fide. That is what de fide means. One must believe what is de fide. One is NOT required to believe what is in the CCC if it is not the Authoritative Magisterium spoken of in Vat I, which it is not (and anyone can come up with whatever he wants pretty much considering what exactly the Magisterium that must be believe is, since it was not defined). Moreover, I would certainly say that something that is the Authoritative Magisterium would be defined ex Cathedra sometime by the Chuch, so it would be clear what exactly this teaching means. In any event, it is not defined in Vat I, so you can't impose something on a person that is not de fide. No Catholic has to believe in Limbo, even though it is all but de fide. Certainly no one is required to believe heresy, taught by the Pope personally or not, just as a previous Pope taught from the pulpit that there is no Particular Judgment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 [quote name='Hananiah' date='Aug 30 2004, 10:06 AM'] In a nutshell, if someone who deires to be baptized dies or is martyred before he is able to do so, God can provide him with the spiritual regeneration which is normally effected at water baptism. One doesn't recieve the baptismal character, but one is restored to sanctifying grace and can go to heaven. [/quote] Which is not defined by the Church. In fact, it would be pretty much denying the efficacy of Baptism, which the Church alone teaches can remove Original Sin. No one can be saved who has Original Sin on his soul, according to the infallible Council of Lyons II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 hmm ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now