Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Traditional Catholicism
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old May 10, '09, 4:34 pm
Rogerteder Rogerteder is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2008
Posts: 699
Default Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

I found this while I was browsing. It is from 1998. Karl Keating's Dragnet series



THROWING AWAY THE KEY






Greg Adams is incarcerated at the Charlotte Correctional Institution in Punta Gorda, Florida. We don't know what he was convicted of, and we don't particularly care. But we do care about his soul-his and those of other prisoners-which is why Catholic Answers has never turned down a request by prisoners for free literature, including subscriptions to This Rock. Given our Lord's admonition in Matthew 25 (see the account of the sheep and the goats), our policy has seemed right and necessary. But not all Catholic apologists agree. Mr. Adams sent us the following letters, reprinted in full because there is a lesson in them that should be learned by all.aspiring apologists. First, his letter to Catholic Answers . . .

"I am writing to request a free subscription to your publication. The reason for this is because recently I sent a request to another organization, supposedly of Christian origin. My response from the organization was that, in order to prove myself worthy of a subscription to their publication, I must first obtain a subscription to yours, read and review it, and then send my opinion of it to Mr. [Vincent P.] Lewis of All Roads Ministry in order to show my worthiness of my receiving a subscription to Armamant [Lewis's newsletter].

"I am truly sorry that your organization is being used as a judgment seat of other Christians. I at first could not believe what Mr. Lewis had written to me in response to my simple request for more knowledge about our Lord and Savior. His response was that it was his ministry's practice not to cast pearls before swine, i.e., convicts. The hatred in his letter was very appalling to me and the other brothers whom I allowed to read it. It hurt me to my heart to know that this man and his organization are considered to be Christian. It let me know that if Jesus returned today, he would be tried and convicted-yes, convicted-once again by people like Mr. Lewis. I will include Mr. Lewis's letter to me so that you may understand better my feelings.

"Please, even if you do not consider me worthy of your publications, if you could return Mr. Lewis's letter to me. I will keep it always to remind myself why Christian men come to prison and turn away from God. I see these men come to hate God and to reject Jesus Christ, and I never knew why, but now I do. Now I feel anger at those so-called Christians who tear at the body of Christ and raise their blood-stained hands to the faithful and say, 'Look at the good I have done in the name of Jesus.'

"I am sickened at the thought of how many more like Mr. Lewis are inflicting themselves on the babes of the faith. In this place, prison, a great many come to God only to be driven away by the Mr. Lewises in the Church. In my heart I feel an all-consuming anger at this man. I await your response to my letter. Please forgive my words; they are words of pain."

Mr. Adams enclosed the following letter from Vin Lewis, head of All Roads Ministry, a one-man organization located in Hopewell Junction, New York:

"You recently wrote us and asked for donations of materials. Our policy is NOT to give such to cons. There are several reasons for this. One is that most 'catholics' behind bars and outside do not really want our stuff. It is real Catholic apologetics and evangelism and that is not popular. You are probably not any different, and if we gave you anything it would most likely be pearls case to swine. I try not to do that.

"However-who knows?-you may be different. So I write this letter. As a good deal of our funds come from contributions, I must husband them carefully and not waste our resources, and, of course, like every other con, you have no money (does not anyone go to prison for theft any more? Do none of you guys have families? PLEASE do not answer me; I don't care!).

"So, if you care, then you submit yourself to a test to see if you are worthy of our stuff. If you are like most other cons, then you won't bother and I can ignore your request with a clear conscience. Here is your test: (1) Write to the following address: This Rock, P.O. Box 17490, San Diego, CA 92177. Ask them for a FREE subscription to their publication. (2) When you get one or two issues, read it carefully. (3) Review it and send your review to me. This will give me a better understanding of judgment as to your worth.

"I don't expect every to hear from you again, as I expect that you will find even this 'too much' to do. But, nevertheless, good luck, and God bless.

"By Our Lady & St. Luke,
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Jun 3, '09, 12:13 pm
rfpapcun rfpapcun is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2008
Posts: 42
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

It is always amazing to me how modern Catholics can make snap judgments with hardly any facts.

The first time I listed to a Vin Lewis tape, I threw the tape away -- because I thought him to be so intolerant, narrow, and stupid. As I progressed along the path to Tradition, I gradually lost my "big-tent," "diverse," "inclusive," "whatever goes" values from my earlier days. I read the saints and saw how incredibly narrow and focused they were. I even read the Gospels at one sitting and saw how Jesus was not the meek and mild character of popular Catholic myth, but just the opposite. He was a fanatical, doctrinaire, religious zealot who had the temerity to preach that He was God and that He alone possessed the Truth.

After I came to Tradition, I heard Vin Lewis speak in person at a conference, and I bought all of his tapes and materials. You know, he is a full-time apologist who lives very humbly. And, yes, he is narrow. For example, he thinks all Protestants are of ill-will, something he has been much criticized for in modern Catholic apologetic circles.

But have you ever discussed the Eucharist with Protestants and had them read John Chapter 6? Their reaction is uniformly the same: they aren't interested in Truth, the Bible, or anything else except their own well-worn opinions, which they will parrot back to you, no matter how earnestly you implore them.

After going through this repeatedly, I said to myself. How can this be?! Vin Lewis is right!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Jun 4, '09, 6:33 pm
Rogerteder Rogerteder is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2008
Posts: 699
Default Re: Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfpapcun View Post
It is always amazing to me how modern Catholics can make snap judgments with hardly any facts.

The first time I listed to a Vin Lewis tape, I threw the tape away -- because I thought him to be so intolerant, narrow, and stupid. As I progressed along the path to Tradition, I gradually lost my "big-tent," "diverse," "inclusive," "whatever goes" values from my earlier days. I read the saints and saw how incredibly narrow and focused they were. I even read the Gospels at one sitting and saw how Jesus was not the meek and mild character of popular Catholic myth, but just the opposite. He was a fanatical, doctrinaire, religious zealot who had the temerity to preach that He was God and that He alone possessed the Truth.

After I came to Tradition, I heard Vin Lewis speak in person at a conference, and I bought all of his tapes and materials. You know, he is a full-time apologist who lives very humbly. And, yes, he is narrow. For example, he thinks all Protestants are of ill-will, something he has been much criticized for in modern Catholic apologetic circles.

But have you ever discussed the Eucharist with Protestants and had them read John Chapter 6? Their reaction is uniformly the same: they aren't interested in Truth, the Bible, or anything else except their own well-worn opinions, which they will parrot back to you, no matter how earnestly you implore them.

After going through this repeatedly, I said to myself. How can this be?! Vin Lewis is right!
I think Vin seems very intelligent. i wish he would modify his stance on No Salvation Outside the Church. He believes water baptism is absolute necessary in every case for someone to go to heaven. He denies baptism of desire.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Jun 27, '09, 11:37 pm
hamalot hamalot is offline
Trial Membership
 
Join Date: June 27, 2009
Posts: 3
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

Concerning Baptism of Desire, please read the following INFALLIBLE DOGMATIC propositions from the Council of Trent.

Canons concerning the Sacrament of Baptism

Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ:Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.

Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation,[13] let him be anathema.

Now, please formulate a definition of Baptism of Desire that does NOT violate one of these Infallible Canons. The Sacrament of Baptism is NECESSARY for salvation (canon 5), and water is NECESSARY for Baptism. The definition given for baptism of desire usually state that either the Sacrament of Baptism is NOT necessary for salvation or that Baptism can be had WITHOUT water. Both are heresies and will leave those who beleive in them accursed (anathema). So, sorry all, Vin Lewis is right!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Jun 28, '09, 6:25 am
bpbasilphx bpbasilphx is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 19, 2007
Posts: 8,745
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

A very possible scenario: An adult catechumen is looking forward to his baptism, and on the way to the church to receive it is killed in an automobile accident.

Think about it.

The doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood do NOT say that they Mystery of water baptism is not necessary.

All they say is that in extraordinary circumstances, God can give Baptismal grace in an extraordinary manner.

All the more does it urge us to hasten to baptism, should this not have been done.

Trent was NOT the last word in theology, believe it or not. What Trent was condemning were those Protestants who taught that baptism had nothing to do with salvation.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_desire
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Jun 28, '09, 7:59 am
Tradycja Tradycja is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Posts: 648
Default Re: Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

Vin Lewis is great! He is a great debater.
This is his website: http://www.allroadsministry.com/

By the way regarding baptism of blood and baptism of desire, there are four groups approved in the Catholic Church (Catholic Diocese of Worcester) that hold the same position that Fr. Feeney did.

Three of them have websites and they are listed on the Diocese of Worcester page (see my signature below for the links).

Fr Frank Pavone even gave a retreat at their house:
March 22nd-24th: pro-life retreat -- Still River, Mass.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/clippi...erersched.html

Also here they are on Zenit News Source:

http://www.zenit.org/article-25799?l=english

Also, see what the Ecclesia Dei commission says:

e. The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm

I can answer all of your questions about baptism of blood and baptism of desire:
but you may want to visit this website which answers all those questions better than I can:
http://catholicvox.blogspot.com

Also, to see what Fr. Feeney believed about catechumens, go to the "horse's mouth" and read the chapter called "Waters of Salvation" from his book "Bread of Life" at the following link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040607045422/www.catholicism.org/BoL/chapter7.htm


Also, may I add that a book called "They Fought the Good Fight: Orestes Brownson and Father Feeney" by Brother Thomas Mary Sennott which is a defense of Feeney received the Imprimatur of the Bishop of Worcester in 1987. Here it is on amazon.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Jun 28, '09, 8:13 am
mark a mark a is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2004
Posts: 7,256
Religion: Gratefully Catholic, Roman Rite
Default Re: Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

It's too bad that Vin, in this case, missed an opportunity to "visit the imprisoned".
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Jun 28, '09, 5:54 pm
bpbasilphx bpbasilphx is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 19, 2007
Posts: 8,745
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

By the way regarding baptism of blood and baptism of desire, there are four groups approved in the Catholic Church (Catholic Diocese of Worcester) that hold the same position that Fr. Feeney did.

_________

And at least 2 of these groups are the remains of the Feeneyites, so that proves nothing.

Fr. Feeney also belived in the immaculate conception and assumption of St. Joseph.

St. Polyeuchtos (9 Jan on the Byzantine Calendar and 13 February on the Roman Calendar) was never baptized in water, but is commemorated as a holy martyr of the Church.

What would they say now?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Jun 28, '09, 7:46 pm
Tradycja Tradycja is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Posts: 648
Default Re: Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpbasilphx View Post
B
And at least 2 of these groups are the remains of the Feeneyites, so that proves nothing.
Well it does prove something, because they have canonical status in the Church and they hold the same position. If they couldn't hold that position they wouldn't be approved.

So that means:
A) They are right
B) It is a valid theological opinion
C) The Church is allowing a heretical group to exist.


My whole problem with BOB and BOD is that it's proponents can only provide evidence for that doctrine from fallible sources. You can't find any statement of the Extraordinary Magisterium or Universal Ordinary Magisterium regarding these so called "baptisms".

I looked up the saint you mentioned. Do we have any proof that they didn't receive water baptism before being killed? Not all of the information surrounding the deaths of martyrs is accurate. For instance, According to St. Ambrose, Prudentius and Father Butler, Saint Agnes was beheaded. Others had said she was burned to death. Not all of the information given in the martyrdom narrative is necessarily accurate, consistent, or complete.

Look what a Pope has to say about the matter:

Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs… [which] with remarkable caution are not read in the holy Roman Church… because the names of those who wrote them are entirely unknown… lest an occasion of mockery might arise. (Denzinger 165)

And about Fr. Feeney believing in the IC and Assumption of St. Joseph. I never heard that, if you could provide a source I would be interested to know more about that. At the same time it has no bearing on this matter.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Jun 28, '09, 7:57 pm
Tradycja Tradycja is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Posts: 648
Default Re: Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

As far as Vin goes, he is a good debater, and you can learn some good things about debating and logic from his materials, but his approach is "off" let's say. I think you could study his stuff though and use the arguments in debates with Protestants and, let's say present the same arguments in a more charitable way. I wouldn't endorse using his approach, but the substance of his work is useful if you want to get into apologetics. A mature person can sift out the good arguments from the uncharitable approach. I do wish Vin would realize that today the medium IS the message.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Jun 29, '09, 12:35 pm
Rogerteder Rogerteder is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2008
Posts: 699
Default Re: Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

It is my understanding that the Church has said that groups/persons can hold to a strict interpretation of water baptism. Meaning that they can hold that only those persons who are actually water baptized can be saved. However, they cannot say that this is the only possible position, and that all others(positions) are heretical (such as implicit desire). Correct me if I am wrong.

Also, I believe Feeney, as well as Mr Lewis said/says just that--that only formal members (those who are baptized) of the Church will go to heaven, and that this is the only position one can hold.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Jun 29, '09, 1:27 pm
Tradycja Tradycja is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Posts: 648
Default Re: Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogerteder View Post
It is my understanding that the Church has said that groups/persons can hold to a strict interpretation of water baptism. Meaning that they can hold that only those persons who are actually water baptized can be saved. However, they cannot say that this is the only possible position, and that all others(positions) are heretical (such as implicit desire). Correct me if I am wrong.
I don't know about this. I don't think there has ever been an official statement. Maybe the Diocese of Worcestor has said something. All I know is that when Fr. Feeney was reconciled to the Church, he did not recant and was not required to recant.

Last edited by Tradycja; Jun 29, '09 at 1:38 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Jun 29, '09, 7:08 pm
bpbasilphx bpbasilphx is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 19, 2007
Posts: 8,745
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

I looked up the saint you mentioned. Do we have any proof that they didn't receive water baptism before being killed?

_________

It's mentioned in the official liturgical books that contain their lives, such as the Prologue and Martyrology that they were baptized in their own blood.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Jun 30, '09, 12:27 am
hamalot hamalot is offline
Trial Membership
 
Join Date: June 27, 2009
Posts: 3
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

In response to Bsbasilphx:

"A very possible scenario: An adult catechumen is looking forward to his baptism, and on the way to the church to receive it is killed in an automobile accident.

Think about it.

The doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood do NOT say that they Mystery of water baptism is not necessary.

All they say is that in extraordinary circumstances, God can give Baptismal grace in an extraordinary manner."

So BOD and BOB do NOT say that water baptism is not necessary, yet in extraordinary cases, water baptism is not necessary. Do you hear yourself? These 2 position are contradictory. Only a mad-man can believe both. Either water baptism is necessary or it is not. It can NOT be both. God gives baptismal grace in an extraordinary manner, that is, without water? This still violates the doctrine of baptism and is heresy.

"Trent was NOT the last word in theology, believe it or not. What Trent was condemning were those Protestants who taught that baptism had nothing to do with salvation."

Trent was not the last word in theology as it was not the last infallible council, granted. But the council and the canons I quoted ARE infallible Church doctrine. If you do not believe them, you are a Protestant. If you merely give lip service to the dogmas and then teach the exact opposite and say it is an "extraordinary way that God works" you are a Protestant and not a real Catholic.
As for the catechumen getting killed on the way to the baptismal font, I would point out to you that there is such a thing as Divine Providence. These things are known to God and are in His power. God did not make a mistake and kill a good-willed catechumen without getting the water baptism He made NECESSARY for us to be saved. This would make God contradictory which is impossible.
Also, whatever insight you have into the intentions of the member of the Council of Trent, the words they gave were clear, as is every dogma. The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Water is necessary for Baptism. BOD and BOB violate 1 or both of these depending on the definitions given, which are various (unlike dogmas).
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Jun 30, '09, 6:25 am
bpbasilphx bpbasilphx is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 19, 2007
Posts: 8,745
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Vin Lewis: if nothing else is amusing

But the council and the canons I quoted ARE infallible Church doctrine. If you do not believe them, you are a Protestant.

-------

Your interpretations of the canons are VERY fallible, and the tradition of the Church is against you.

St. Augustine himself gave the example of the catechumen who dies on the way to his own baptism. I know who St. Augustine is. Who are you?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Traditional Catholicism

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
6597CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
6138Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
5162Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4627Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: neweggs
4287Poems and Reflections
Last by: Purgatory Pete
4053OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Fischli
3290For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: GLam8833
3261Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Herculees
2822Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: tawny
2448SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:23 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.