Charles Coulombe, Apostle of the Feeneyite heresy

Go down

Charles Coulombe, Apostle of the Feeneyite heresy

Post  Admin on Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:45 am

A Discussion on Catholicism vs. Feeneyism on Facebook

Jonathan Bennett, Sun, Sept 6, 2009 at 7:40 a.m.: Charles Coulombe, Apostle of the Feeneyite heresy

Q.: Why is it so important to defend the doctrine "extra ecclesiam nulla salus"?

A.: For a number of reasons. The most obvious is simply that it is the foundational doctrine of the Church. If there IS salvation outside the Church, than she becomes a rather pointless organization, ultimately. Even if her doctrines ARE true, what does it matter if you don't need to believe them to be saved? You'll find out for yourself once you go to heaven. Beyond that, though, the witnesses to the literal truth of this doctrine - from Christ Himself in the Gospels, to the Father and doctors, Popes and Councils, at their most solemn - are such that if this doctrine is not true, the whole of the Church's teachings, indeed, of the Divinity of Christ, to which the Church is the only certain witness - lose their credibility. We see of course the concrete results of loss of belief in this doctrine to-day. Bereft of a real reason for both the Church they serve and their own vocations, priests and religious attempt to reorient both to other causes - political, social, cultural, or whatever. Some of these efforts do have a a value in themselves, but many are actually practical denials of the Faith. Since we no longer believe in the need to "save souls," missionary and evangelizing efforts have decayed to the point of near-irrelevance. And all doctrines have been called into question, since none are better or more authoritatively attested than "Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus." If that one is false, why not the others? It is the denial of this doctrine which is at the root of our problem as a Church (although there are very many other contributing factors). Beside this, there is the fact that we are required, individually, to believe Christ's revelation ourselves if we are to save our own souls. Since this doctrine is part of that revelation, we must spread it as well as hold it.

Glenn Petrone, Sun, Sept 6, 2009 at 7:49a.m.: So Mr.Bennett are you a Fenneyite?

Jonathan Bennett, Sun, Sept 6, 2009 at 7:54a.m.: No. I am of the same mind as those who call themselves such, on a number of positions, but as I find nothing in these to be theologically inconsistent with orthodox thought there is no reason to describe myself as such.

Vincent Frankini, Sun, Sept 6, 2009 at 7:56 a.m.: Very well said.

Lucio Mascarenhas, Monday, Sept 7, 2009 at 4:50a.m.: Feeneyites deny the teaching of the Church that souls who have never been baptized in water may be supplied by God this sacrament mystically in the form of what is called the Baptism of Blood or the Baptism of Desire, and thus be saved. For we are saved, not by water, an inanimate creation, but by the Love of God. Feeneyism makes us slaves of water, not servants of the Living God. Feeneyism is inconsistent with Christianity. It is a new form of the ancient Novatianism & Donatism.

Glenn Petrone, Monday, Sept 7, 2009 at 5:09 a.m.: Lucio I have not seen it put like that, interesting.

Vincent Frankini, Monday, Sept 7, 2009 at 6:36 a.m.: Notice how Baptism of Desire kills any sort of missionary zeal in an individual. It undermines the need to convert people and really it threatens the livelihood of the Church itself. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.) "Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life.... The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold." (Council of Florence) So given that strict dogmatic definition of baptism by water, and the statement that baptism by water is necessary to enter the Church, and that there is no salvation outside of the Church, you do the math.

Vincent Frankini, Monday, Sept 7, 2009 at 7:37 a.m.: Sorry, for the sake of making the argument air-tight, I really should provide the entire Council of Florence quote. "Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit."

Glenn Petrone, Monday, Sept 7, 2009 at 7:45 a.m.: @Vincent I think these two points have to coexist as a mystery until we have the Church again define these issues. I am not going to tell anyone that they can avoid what the Church teaches in relation to the necessity of Baptism but at the same time I do read and mediate on the reality of the Baptism of Blood and Desire and a sovereign God.

Jonathan Bennett, Monday, Sept 7, 2009 at 8:44 a.m.: But is Baptism of Desire really a dogmatic teaching of the Church? It is absent from the writings of the Fathers of the Church and the Councils, and was not to be found in Catechisms until the late nineteenth century. It is often claimed that the matter was ruled on by the Council of Trent, however any look at the document in question itself shows that the Council spoke not of salvation through the desire to be baptized, but of justification through a vow to be baptized - the two concepts are quite different. The fruits of this concept can easily be seen - the neglect of our missionary obligations and a want for trust in the infinite wisdom, mercy and justice of God.

Lucio Mascarenhas, Monday, Sept 7, 2009 at 1:08 p.m.: The "Baptisms" of Desire & Blood doctrines aren't alternative to Water Baptism, but a mystical participation in the effects of water baptism. We must remember that Baptism is administered by Jesus Himself, as the primary Minister, and the actual person baptizing is only the means by which Jesus physically operates, even when such a person is a non-Catholic, even a pagan or infidel; Jesus is not handicapped by the lack of literal water when the true disposition in favor of God exists. BOD & BOB have always been taught as part of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium of the Church, being the common & universal belief of all Catholics at all times from the beginning; Feeneyism is an innovative contradiction. Popes have always upheld and taught likewise. This did not "kill" the missinary zeal, the "need to proselytize," and the "livelihood of the Church" (what is that phrase supposed to mean?) and it is illogical to pretend it does. All the great Catholic missionaries such as St. Francis Xavier believed in it, but yet were great missionaries. BOD & BOB have been exaggerated; very few are saved thereby. Feeneyism is not compatible with Christianity. It is an unnecessary distraction from the War against the Modernist Apostasy, an ambush and an effort to sidetrack Catholics from the true war.

Vincent Frankini, Monday, Sept 7, 2009 at 3:39 p.m.: That is a pretty intricate explanation Lucio. What source of Catholic dogma did you get that from? Also please cite the source that says BOD was always taught as part of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium.

Lucio Mascarenhas, Monday, Sept 7, 2009 at 4:31 p.m.: Years ago, when I was a newbie, Richard Ibranyi's acolyte Phil McCabe had tried to bamboozle me into Feeneyism. That is when I researched Feeneyism and found my answers, which are on my sites. Its been a long time since, and I know where I stand, and I don't have either the time or the energy or the inclination to revisit all of that. (Ibranyi later apologized)

I will try and revisit the question after some days when I have the time. Right now I have to prepare for a court case.

Vincent Frankini, Monday, Sept 7, 2009 at 4:59 p.m.: Let's forget Feeneyism for a second. I just want you to show me the sources of Catholic dogma that elaborate on your position. Just give me me a couple quotes and I'll be content, end of story. You have an
opportunity to give me pause here. I'm all ears.

Lucio Mascarenhas, Monday, Sept 7, 2009 at 9:46 p.m.: Vince - You are asking me to once again make an effort after these many years to collate the "sources of Catholic dogma that elaborate on my position." Aren't you able to find them yourself, if you want to? But yes, I will, only it will take me more than fifteen days, because my court case is my priority

Thomas Evans-Thiberge, Tuesday, Sept 8, 2009 at : No proponent of BOB and BOD has yet been able to provide me with a refutation of the following argument:

- either baptism of desire is, despite the words of St Paul (Ephesians iv, 5), a baptism apart from baptism of water, effected before death (eg, during the catechetical period), in which case one ought not to confer baptism of water upon someone baptised through desire, since this would be sacrilege; and how is this not self-contradictory? One is baptised through desire for reception of baptism of water, but cannot receive it?

- either baptism of desire is, once again, a baptism apart from baptism of water, effected at the moment of death, in which case (like baptism of blood) it contradicts the Council of Florence, which teaches that the Holy Roman Church "firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives". But if one is baptised at the moment of death, then one has clearly not been joined to the Catholic Church before the end of one's life!

- either "baptism of desire" (as I have read) is not a baptism apart from baptism of water, but rather simply means desire for baptism of water, in which case it contradicts the Council of Trent (seventh session, De baptismo, canon V): "If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation: let him be anathema.""

Lucio Mascarenhas, Tuesday, Sept 8, 2009 at :Yesterday, I put apart time to do some basic research on the Feeneyite heresy, and read and downloaded some pages, principally Griffith Ruby's refutations of the Feeneyite heresy and campaign of lies.

In previous postings, I had pointed out that the Baptisms of Blood & Desire ARE NOT "a baptism apart from water baptism," but a mystical participation in the effects of water baptism, given that one is not saved by the water itself, but that God uses an inanimate material creation, water, to actively and personally effect the second and eternal birth of the soul in Christ Jesus. This has always been the teaching of the Church, as is witnessed by, among others, St. Thomas of Aquinas. The pretension that BOD & BOB are "apart" from water baptism is a Feeneyite invention, a Feeneyite "straw man" designed to act as the "bogeyman." The arguments "based" on that pretension, then, do not hold.

Baptism of Desire is effected by the true and conclusive desire, not for "being washed in material water" but to correspond to the Grace of God that moves to the Second Birth in Christ Jesus, which only God is able to judge and respond to, and to which Christ Himself responds to, by actually baptizing that soul in Himself, in His Passion and Blood, just as He is the primary and actual or effectual Minister of every valid baptism, the human operator being just an instrument of His Action.

The suggestion that men who correspond to Divine Grace toward Regeneration do so "desiring water baptism" is idiotic and idolatrous: It makes a deity of water, detracting from God, the Creator, who makes use of an inanimate material creation, morally indifferent in itself, as the outward instrument of His Action of Regenerating the Soul into the Eternal Life.

As Catholics, we know effectively are aware of the existence of the Baptism of Desire, but we just as effectively DO NOT know who had received it, and we are obliged to confer water baptism, and in doing so, if we are baptizing again one who has already obtained the baptismal character, we DO NOT commit blasphemy and sacrilege, because ignorance is legitimate.

The rest of the pretended "arguments" are incomplete and ungrammatical, and so it is not necessary to consider them.


Lucio Mascarenhas

Posts : 51
Join date : 2009-09-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

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