Latest topics
» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican (CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has no objection if the SSPX and all religious communities affirm Vatican Council II (without the premise)
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:29 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Piazza Spagna - mission
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fund,Catholic organisation needed to help Catholic priests in Italy like Fr. Alessandro Minutella
Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Catholic theocracy- Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) essential
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» The Social Reign of Christ the King can be seen based on Cushingite or Feeneyite theology, Vatican Council II with the false premise or without it
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» When Card. Ladaria and Bp Fellay meet a non Catholic they know he or she is oriented to Hell because the Church lic Church inspired by the Holy Spirit teaches this
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:49 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Fellay : two interpretations of Vatican Council II and theirs is the irrational one
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Ask Cardinal Ladaria a few questions when you meet him
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:42 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Now it is the time for cardinals Kasper and Marx to reject Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:37 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria, CDF : schism from the Left over Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:35 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Schism over Vatican Council II ?
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX recognises that Abp.Lefebvre's writings are obsolete : seminaries have to make the correction
Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  Euclid on Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:09 pm

tornpage wrote:
For me this debate about "intrinsic v. extrinsic" is about credibility, and who to believe. A bunch of theologians use those distinctions, which I think bogus. To the extent that the theologians who use such terminology are thought of as speaking for the Church and expressing the Catholic truth, their nonsense rubs off on the truth of the true Church by association. The truth does not contradict itself, and a "relatively absolute necessity of means (an "extrinsic" necessity)" is an absurdity, and not truth.

This bothers me, as a Catholic and a believer that she possesses and stands for THE TRUTH.

Thank you, Tornpage and MRyan for your erudite and thoughtful responses to my post. Why did I tap on the shoulder of a giant who is locked in battle with another giant over such? Because the question, as I see it, is about whom to damn.
Which of YOU should I believe?

MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:
But I will ask a question of you [Euclid] now: was the salvation of you, me or anyone else determined by God before we were born, and without anything we did being the cause of God's pre-determination? Come on, Tornpage, give the new guy a break. He probably has no idea what awaits him and the theological quagmire and fog you are about to unleash, not to mention the theological distinctions that might get buried beneath the rubble.

But, hey, if he wants to bite, at least he's been forewarned.
Not fog, clarity, and perhaps too much clarity - the blinding kind. Smile

Ok, I'll bite. Bear in mind that I am a neophyte. So, the question is free will vs predestination, unless I fail to comprehend you. I am neither a Calvanist nor a Lutheran. Does that answer your question?

I can hardly wait to be blinded. Especially because I suspect that you and Ryan will enjoy circling each other over this one, and I will certainly learn a great deal whilst perching on the window ledge during your contretemps.





Euclid

Posts : 5
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2017-08-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  MRyan on Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:13 pm

tornpage wrote:Listen, Torquemada, this was a discussion of "extrinsic necessity" and a "relative necessity of means."
Torquemada? Hmmm ... I think I could get used to that. Perhaps a new avatar is in order?

From the CE:
The contemporary Spanish chronicler, Sebastian de Olmedo (Chronicon magistrorum generalium Ordinis Prædicatorum, fol. 80-81) calls Torquemada "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the saviour of his country, the honour of his order".
Well, golly, I wouldn't go that far, I'm just the hammer of Tornpage.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  tornpage on Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:49 pm

MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:
Not only will you not find the Church using that linguistic garbage, but for that matter, you will not hear St. Thomas using that rhetorical rubbish, an "extrinsic" or "relative" necessity of means, either.

That's like saying "you will not find the Church using that theological term 'transubstantiation' until the 12th century when it's use became widespread, after being introduced only in the 11th century, with belief in the doctrine not being made obligatory until 1215 by the Fourth Council of the Lateran."

Ah, no, it's not like that at all. Was it only the avatar that changed? - Love it, btw. LOL

But back to the subject . . .

No matter when, the Church herself in her solemn teaching uses the term "transubstantiation." See, e.g., Council of Trent, Session XIII, Chapter 4.

Show me, anywhere, any time, the Church saying baptism is a "necessity of means." Show her using the term in any instance beyond those I"ve mentioned. Show me the Church saying baptism is an "extrinsic" or "relative" necessity of means.

I'll be waiting, but not too long . . . I'd be dead before you showed me anything.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  tornpage on Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:57 pm

Euclid,

You're a good sport and a very nice addition here - glad you stopped by.

Ok, I'll bite. Bear in mind that I am a neophyte. So, the question is free will vs predestination, unless I fail to comprehend you. I am neither a Calvanist nor a Lutheran. Does that answer your question?

I'm glad you're not a Calvinist or a Lutheran, but that doesn't really help me on this issue.

But your response tells me there's no need to get into this now. I was testing your presuppositions a bit and you passed the test.

Especially because I suspect that you and Ryan will enjoy circling each other over this one, and I will certainly learn a great deal whilst perching on the window ledge during your contretemps.

Yes, MRyan and I do enjoy this sport, and if you read around this site you'll see broken windows, bottles etc. all over the place from our exercising. LOL

But it's all in sport - the rhetoric. But the discussion and substance is serious, and we take it seriously.

Again, welcome.

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  Euclid on Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:36 pm

Tornpage,

I do not need to examine the entire blog to recognize the evidence of your former rumbles with your friend, there's enough evidence in this thread of such. So, in answer to your question (just so you know, there is nothing I would not like to examine at this, or any, time. I am not personality acquainted with enough "dinosaurs" (I include myself among this classification) to be able to discuss the true faith as I would prefer.). I believe in free will. Which is why we are, as a society, being lured by the devil into increasingly lascivious ways of life. That Vatican II was an incredible disservice to mankind, which brought about the dissolution of the Traditional Cathoilic Church, and her power to save us from our own destruction.

Euclid

Posts : 5
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2017-08-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  MRyan on Tue Aug 08, 2017 2:27 pm

tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:
Not only will you not find the Church using that linguistic garbage, but for that matter, you will not hear St. Thomas using that rhetorical rubbish, an "extrinsic" or "relative" necessity of means, either.

That's like saying "you will not find the Church using that theological term 'transubstantiation' until the 12th century when it's use became widespread, after being introduced only in the 11th century, with belief in the doctrine not being made obligatory until 1215 by the Fourth Council of the Lateran."

Ah, no, it's not like that at all. Was it only the avatar that changed? - Love it, btw. LOL

But back to the subject . . .

No matter when, the Church herself in her solemn teaching uses the term "transubstantiation." See, e.g., Council of Trent, Session XIII, Chapter 4.
Yes, with the point being "transubstantiation" didn't enter the Scholastic vocabulary of theologians until the 12th century, and the Church didn’t define the material transformation in the language of Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics until the 13th century.  The Church would “dogmatize” the term because there were those within the Church who denied that any material change in the elements was needed to explain the Eucharistic Presence.

Why would the Church think it necessary to formally or definitively define “necessity of means” and “necessity of precept” when the received scholastic theology that explains them is universally recognized and accepted by all Catholics (acceptable disagreements over minor points, e.g., the limits of “implicit desire”, notwithstanding)?

Does the fact that someone who calls himself Tornpage on some obscure blog (with exactly three participants) rejects the universal teaching on Baptism as a necessity of means and says it is a necessity of precept only (because he rejects the accepted absolute/intrinsic and relative/extrinsic distinctions) warrant a formal definition?

The universal, common, ordinary and authentic teachings of the Scholastic Theologians that we see embodied in the Church’s sacramental theology as it relates to her understanding of the necessities of means and precept is an accepted and uncontested given (at least with respect to the baptisms of blood and desire).        

The point being it is the same metaphysics of the Scholastics that would be utilized to explain in greater detail what is known as necessity of means and necessity of precept. With respect to the former it would be further divided into two classes, either absolute/intrinsic/metaphysical, or relative/extrinsic/metaphysical

(NB: there must be an intrinsic metaphysical ordering or relationship between the object and end, or it is not a necessity of means).  

Theologians held Baptism to be both absolutely and relatively necessary (as a necessity of means) because they took the baptisms of blood and desire as established givens. To understand why the sacrament of baptism is both absolutely and relatively necessary, and not just a necessity of precept, St. Thomas Aquinas (and Trent) very clearly spell this out:

Beginning with the Council of Trent, Sess. IV, Ch 2, On the difference between the Sacrament of Penance and that of Baptism:

…we are no ways able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance, without many tears and great labours on our parts, the divine justice demanding this; so that penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism. And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.

The Council of Trent, Ch. 14, On the fallen, and their restoration

…For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance, when He said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins, at least in desire, and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or “at least in desire…”

In the dogma of Trent and in the language of the scholastic theologians, in the Sacrament of Penance there is an intrinsic metaphysical relationship between the penitence of the Christian (who has fallen) and sacramental confession, to include at least “the desire thereof”.

Unlike the baptism of desire (which has its own intrinsic/metaphysical relationship between the end {regeneration into Christ} and the object {water baptism}, at least in “the desire thereof”), with Penance the end (the forgiveness of sins/restoration) cannot be realized except by the object, either sacramental confession itself, or the desire/intention to confess as soon as possible (with the proper dispositions) when one is prevented from doing so by some necessity.

If the sacrament of penance were only a necessity of precept, one could be excused from the obligation to confess one’s sins when some necessity prevents one from doing so, regardless of one’s intention/desire to fulfill the precept. Why? Because, a necessity of precept, like fulfilling one’s Sunday Mass obligation, is a moral obligation, not a metaphysical one.  

Speaking of the Mass, we might say that to Keep Holy the Lord’s Day Holy is simply and absolutely necessary for salvation -- which neither ignorance nor necessity can excuse; whereas the object (means) by which the end is fulfilled is necessary by an extrinsic necessity of means (the object remains metaphysically and intrinsically related to the end), since there is more than one means by which the end can be fulfilled when necessity prevents one from attending Sunday Mass (a moral necessity), the latter of which forms just one part (the major one, for sure) of keeping the Lord’s Day Holy.    

As necessities of means, both Baptism and Penance (the fallen) are absolutely necessary for salvation; absolutely with respect to their sacramental effects, and relatively with respect to the reception of the respective sacraments themselves when necessity presents an obstacle (and the right dispositions are present), whereby the grace of the sacraments (the essential means to the end) can be supplied by the desire thereof (Baptism) and one’s firm intention (Penance).    

Capice?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  Luscinia on Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:02 pm

Gentle Giants:

Euclid is now Luscinia, foe your reference for future posts. (Carefully stepping over the broken crockery...)

Luscinia

Posts : 1
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2017-08-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  tornpage on Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:29 am

MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:
Not only will you not find the Church using that linguistic garbage, but for that matter, you will not hear St. Thomas using that rhetorical rubbish, an "extrinsic" or "relative" necessity of means, either.

That's like saying "you will not find the Church using that theological term 'transubstantiation' until the 12th century when it's use became widespread, after being introduced only in the 11th century, with belief in the doctrine not being made obligatory until 1215 by the Fourth Council of the Lateran."

Ah, no, it's not like that at all. Was it only the avatar that changed? - Love it, btw. LOL

But back to the subject . . .

No matter when, the Church herself in her solemn teaching uses the term "transubstantiation." See, e.g., Council of Trent, Session XIII, Chapter 4.
Yes, with the point being "transubstantiation" didn't enter the Scholastic vocabulary of theologians until the 12th century, and the Church didn’t define the material transformation in the language of Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics until the 13th century.  The Church would “dogmatize” the term because there were those within the Church who denied that any material change in the elements was needed to explain the Eucharistic Presence.

Why would the Church think it necessary to formally or definitively define “necessity of means” and “necessity of precept” when the received scholastic theology that explains them is universally recognized and accepted by all Catholics (acceptable disagreements over minor points, e.g., the limits of “implicit desire”, notwithstanding)?

Does the fact that someone who calls himself Tornpage on some obscure blog (with exactly three participants) rejects the universal teaching on Baptism as a necessity of means and says it is a necessity of precept only (because he rejects the accepted absolute/intrinsic and relative/extrinsic distinctions) warrant a formal definition?

The universal, common, ordinary and authentic teachings of the Scholastic Theologians that we see embodied in the Church’s sacramental theology as it relates to her understanding of the necessities of means and precept is an accepted and uncontested given (at least with respect to the baptisms of blood and desire).        

The point being it is the same metaphysics of the Scholastics that would be utilized to explain in greater detail what is known as necessity of means and necessity of precept. With respect to the former it would be further divided into two classes, either absolute/intrinsic/metaphysical, or relative/extrinsic/metaphysical

(NB: there must be an intrinsic metaphysical ordering or relationship between the object and end, or it is not a necessity of means).  

Theologians held Baptism to be both absolutely and relatively necessary (as a necessity of means) because they took the baptisms of blood and desire as established givens. To understand why the sacrament of baptism is both absolutely and relatively necessary, and not just a necessity of precept, St. Thomas Aquinas (and Trent) very clearly spell this out:

Beginning with the Council of Trent, Sess. IV, Ch 2, On the difference between the Sacrament of Penance and that of Baptism:

…we are no ways able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance, without many tears and great labours on our parts, the divine justice demanding this; so that penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism. And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.

The Council of Trent, Ch. 14, On the fallen, and their restoration

…For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance, when He said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins, at least in desire, and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or “at least in desire…”

In the dogma of Trent and in the language of the scholastic theologians, in the Sacrament of Penance there is an intrinsic metaphysical relationship between the penitence of the Christian (who has fallen) and sacramental confession, to include at least “the desire thereof”.

Unlike the baptism of desire (which has its own intrinsic/metaphysical relationship between the end {regeneration into Christ} and the object {water baptism}, at least in “the desire thereof”), with Penance the end (the forgiveness of sins/restoration) cannot be realized except by the object, either sacramental confession itself, or the desire/intention to confess as soon as possible (with the proper dispositions) when one is prevented from doing so by some necessity.

If the sacrament of penance were only a necessity of precept, one could be excused from the obligation to confess one’s sins when some necessity prevents one from doing so, regardless of one’s intention/desire to fulfill the precept. Why? Because, a necessity of precept, like fulfilling one’s Sunday Mass obligation, is a moral obligation, not a metaphysical one.  

Speaking of the Mass, we might say that to Keep Holy the Lord’s Day Holy is simply and absolutely necessary for salvation -- which neither ignorance nor necessity can excuse; whereas the object (means) by which the end is fulfilled is necessary by an extrinsic necessity of means (the object remains metaphysically and intrinsically related to the end), since there is more than one means by which the end can be fulfilled when necessity prevents one from attending Sunday Mass (a moral necessity), the latter of which forms just one part (the major one, for sure) of keeping the Lord’s Day Holy.    

As necessities of means, both Baptism and Penance (the fallen) are absolutely necessary for salvation; absolutely with respect to their sacramental effects, and relatively with respect to the reception of the respective sacraments themselves when necessity presents an obstacle (and the right dispositions are present), whereby the grace of the sacraments (the essential means to the end) can be supplied by the desire thereof (Baptism) and one’s firm intention (Penance).    

Capice?

Capice?

I don't know what coffee has to do with this, but that's the best elaboration on this topic that I've ever read.

I might come back in a bit with some cream and sugar.

tornpage
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  MRyan on Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:25 am

tornpage wrote:
Capice?

I don't know what coffee has to do with this, but that's the best elaboration on this topic that I've ever read.

I might come back in a bit with some cream and sugar.

tornpage
Coffee? Anyway, get out your Urban Dictionary. "Capice" is something Torquemada would say were he Mafioso.  

And "to Keep Holy the Lord’s Day Holy" is a bit redundant, if not a complete grammatical gaff, but you got the message.

Are we actually making progress? Can't wait for the cream and sugar!
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  tornpage on Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm

Mike,

Yes, progress. Need to wrap my mind around this a bit more.

I'm a whetstone. I'll get you to make sense and refine the argument to make it credible and incisive.

Sometimes you need prodding, but after my prodding . . . you're very, very good . . . except when you're wrong. lol

I'll give you this much at present: you might not be "wrong" here.

The cream is in the frig and the sugar is in the pantry, on standby.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum