Author Topic: "Br." Dimond errors on BOB and BOD (Read 61085 times)

Jehanne · « **Reply #45 on:** March 02, 2011, 06:36:07 AM »

Quote from: Zenith

Quote from: Jehanne
it would be impossible to prove that someone, anyone, was never baptized. Just because someone was a catechumen does not prove that person was never baptized.

Now using the same reasoning or lack thereof, let me draw an analogy.

We have a village and in that village live Trevor and Arnold. Although these men live in the same village, they have very little to do with eachother.
Now one tragic night Trevor is brutally murdered and so the local inspector sets out to find his killer.
Arnold is charged with his murder and the only "evidence" that the prosecutor can find is the fact that not one person in the village has signed an affidavit declaring him innocent
And so Arnold is charged with Trevor's murder based purely on the lack of evidence declaring him innocent.

Now I ask you if this is sufficient evidence to charge Arnold with murder based on the fact that no one would declare him innocent?

I also ask you if it is sufficient evidence to declare that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood never occur in reality based on the fact that no one can prove that these catechumens weren't baptised?

Can you see the same logic and the fact that it has more holes in it than swiss cheese?

What does the word catechumen mean? If you look in any Catholic dictionary or encyclopedia you will see it means a person who is under training in preparation for Baptism.

Who are we to question the historical accounts of of the lives of the Saints which by the way have been approved by the Church and what evidence do we have to suggest that these catechumens were baptised making them Christians and not catechumens?

Now lets weight up the evidence for and against this argument.

For BOD and BOB we have: The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Catechism of St. Pius X, The Baltimore Catechism, The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Pius IX, Doctors of the Church including St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Bede, St. Catherine of Siena, Saint Augustine, Saints including St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory of nαzιanzen, St. Bernard of Clairvaux and many more Saints.

Against BOD and BOB we have: the fact that it is "impossible to prove that someone, anyone, was never baptized."

Now that is not theological hair splitting. That is theological grasping at straws!

Your analogy appeals to the fallible judgments of man; however, you would be correct if the burden of proof, in that village's system of justice was, "Guilty until proven innocent." In that case, the village prosecutor may be entirely "justified" in charging Arnold with Trevor's murder. (By the way, your "hypothetical" story has happened in the United States, but that's another post for another forum.)

Father Feeney, I believe, was simply appealing to the absolute Providence of the One and Triune God. The Roman Catechism states this perfectly,

"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."

Father Feeney said,

"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you." (Bread of Life, pg. 56)

The One and Triune God is omniscience, omnipotent, and omnipresent, which means that He knows all "unforeseen accidents." It is de fide:

"And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27)

In short, God commands everyone to be baptized, and He does not command the "impossible."

Hietanen · « **Reply #46 on:** March 02, 2011, 10:12:59 AM »

Quote from: Zenith

Through their erroneous deceitful teachings, Dimond and his cronies, have rejected the infallible pronunciations of the Church and condemned these Saints to Hell as they were not baptised with water.

So in conclusion we can see that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are true Catholic doctrine taught by The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Catechism of St. Pius X, The Baltimore Catechism, The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Pius IX, Doctors of the Church including St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Bede, St. Catherine of Siena, Saint Augustine, Saints including St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory of nαzιanzen, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, also the fact that we have Catechumen Saints, and many other Dogmatic writings all point to the truth of Baptism of desire and of blood.

It's very revealing that you couldn't site a single dogma to actually prove your position. Excluding the Council of Trent (which does not teach bob/bod - as have already been proved on this thread), you cannot cite a single dogmatic Pope statement or dogmatic Council approved by a Pope. That is very very revealing, for any honest person, and should prove already that your position is totally false.

Some of the quotes you brought forward were erroneous. First, a priest cannot be a priest unless he is baptized. So there is no such thing as an unbaptized priest.

Quote from: Zenith

Who are we to question the historical accounts of of the lives of the Saints which by the way have been approved by the Church and what evidence do we have to suggest that these catechumens were baptised making them Christians and not catechumens?

Yes we are to question the lives of the Saints, for the Church herself has question them. They are not reliable. So the fact that you build your entire cause on such weak proof, is sad to see. You deny God (the infallible proof), and worship man (the fallible). You are a very sad person.

THE LIVES OF THE SAINTS

One of the biggest objections from baptism of desire/blood advocates is the claim that the Catholic Church recognizes saints who never received the Sacrament of Baptism. The answer to this is that the Catholic Church has never recognized that there are saints in heaven who were not baptized. Some historians have written accounts of the lives of certain saints in which these saints died without baptism of water – by “baptism of blood”; but the assertions of these historians prove nothing.

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 [St. Agnes] was burned to death. The point is that not all of the information given in the martyrdom narrative is necessarily accurate, consistent, or complete.”

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.”

Pope St. Gelasius is saying here that the acts and deeds recorded of the martyrs are uncertain. Their authors are unknown, the accounts may contain error and they were not even read out in the holy Roman Church to avoid possible scandal or mockery which might arise from any false statements contained therein. In fact, in his work The Age of Martyrs, the renowned Church historian Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti says: “For guides we have appropriate docuмents. These, however, as we have already seen, are often uncertain and would lead us completely astray. Especially unreliable are the Acts or Passions of martyrs[/b].” The infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, is absolutely reliable, and it has never taught that souls can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism by “baptism of blood.” Thus, in short, there is no proof that any saint martyred for the Catholic Faith never received the Sacrament of Baptism.

Council of Braga, 572, Canon xvii: “Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.”

CONCLUSION

It does not matter how many theologians, catechisms, saints or popes (in their fallible capacity) you quote to try to prove your position if there are infallible dogmas that speaks against them. For as Catholics, we are to built out Faith on the infallible magisterium of the Church (dogma) and not on the fallible opinions of men.

Popes, saints, theologians and catechisms, can be wrong, and are often wrong. Dogmas, however, are never wrong. All saints that believed in bod/bob, where not heretics, as you are a heretic, for they would not have rejected the proof/dogma, if it would have been presented to them. That is why they were material heretics, whilst you, on the other hand, is a heretic headed for Hell.

You cannot quote any dogmatic evidence to prove your cause. You are exposed, you fraud. Stop quoting saints or theologians, when you know there exist dogma speaking against them. You are dishonest and a liar. You reject God and worship man. You are a sad person.

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”[/b]

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent , Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra ;
“If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

Jehanne

Quote from: Jehanne

I have read far too much on Baptism of Desire & Blood over the years, but I have come to some firm conclusions. In these discussions, I have found that people are often talking "past each other" instead of at each other. Here are my conclusions.

The One and Triune God is:

1) Not bound by His Sacraments. God can save whomever He wants, provided that He has that person's cooperation. This is why infants can only be saved via Water Baptism. For adults, they can be saved via their desire for Baptism, even if such is only implicit, but they need at least some explicit faith in Jesus Christ.

2) Not bound by His Physical Laws. God created the Cosmos, all the physical laws, matter, and energy. He is omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful, which means that He can bring Water Baptism to whomever He wants to. This was the position of Father Feeney, so far as I can tell.

We need not see any conflict between Propositions #1 & #2.

In truth and charity. The above (infallible) condemnations condemn you as well. You are obstinate in your wrong position. You have been proven wrong, with dogma, yet do you obstinately reject God, his words, his revealed truth, and says something else then what he has raveled. Why?

Dogmas is a truth from God. God does not lie, yet do you claim he does. You are in fact a blasphemer. You blaspheme God by claiming he lies about his revealed truths.

You might not have thought about that, or the severity of your crime, but now, after you have been told about it, you have no excuse at all. Not that you had any excuse before, all I am saying, is that you now will receive the full force of the eternal condemnation, while before, might have had some mercy in your eternal condemnation, since you did not fully understand what you were doing. But now, you are without excuse.

Zenith - Jehanne

Baptism of Desire and Trent's Decree Concerning Original Sin

Perhaps the simplest argument against baptism of desire:

Council of Trent, Session 5, Decree Concerning Original Sin, #3, ex cathedra: "If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all bypropagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice,sanctification, and redemption;or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of Baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ."

But, but, but it doesn't say "if he denies that the merit is only applied by the sacrament..." He didn't say only, so there!

Okay, so do you affirmor do you deny that a person who "receives baptism of desire" receives the merit of Christ's passion applied to him by the sacrament of Baptism? Almost all people who believe in bob/bod, acknowledged that bod/bob is not, in fact, a sacrament, and thus, by this fact alone, admit to their heresy.

A dogma is not permitted to be denied - EVER.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, ex cathedra: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

Therefore there can be only two possible answers: Try to argue that the merit is applied by a means other than sacramental baptism, thus denying it, incurring anathema, as Trent threatened and go to hell for calling or Lord and His Church a liar, or affirm it, refusing to believe or speak heresy such as bod/bob.

"Those who have learned theology well," says St. Basil, “will not allow even one iota of Catholic dogmas to be betrayed. They will, if necessary, willingly undergo any kind of death in their defence." (Apud. Theod., lib. 4, Hist. Eccl., c. xvii.) - The Catholic Dogma, Fr. Michael Muller

Jehanne · « **Reply #47 on:** March 02, 2011, 10:58:20 AM »

Quote from: Hietanen

Jehanne

Quote from: Jehanne

I have read far too much on Baptism of Desire & Blood over the years, but I have come to some firm conclusions. In these discussions, I have found that people are often talking "past each other" instead of at each other. Here are my conclusions.

The One and Triune God is:

1) Not bound by His Sacraments. God can save whomever He wants, provided that He has that person's cooperation. This is why infants can only be saved via Water Baptism. For adults, they can be saved via their desire for Baptism, even if such is only implicit, but they need at least some explicit faith in Jesus Christ.

2) Not bound by His Physical Laws. God created the Cosmos, all the physical laws, matter, and energy. He is omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful, which means that He can bring Water Baptism to whomever He wants to. This was the position of Father Feeney, so far as I can tell.

We need not see any conflict between Propositions #1 & #2.

In truth and charity. The above (infallible) condemnations condemn you as well. You are obstinate in your wrong position. You have been proven wrong, with dogma, yet do you obstinately reject God, his words, his revealed truth, and says something else then what he has raveled. Why?

Dogmas is a truth from God. God does not lie, yet do you claim he does. You are in fact a blasphemer. You blaspheme God by claiming he lies about his revealed truths.

You might not have thought about that, or the severity of your crime, but now, after you have been told about it, you have no excuse at all. Not that you had any excuse before, all I am saying, is that you now will receive the full force of the eternal condemnation, while before, might have had some mercy in your eternal condemnation, since you did not fully understand what you were doing. But now, you are without excuse.

I never once claimed that there will be individuals in Paradise who died without Baptism, certainly not any who died through some fault of their own. What I cannot understand is, "If the Church is not condemning me, why are you?"

It's just laughable that, after the Council of Trent, the Church could produce a catechism, the Roman Catechism, which so manifestly contradicted the very Council that called for its creation. Sorry, I do not buy it. That does not mean that I believe that there are individuals in Paradise who died without Baptism, because I do not believe that.

Hietanen · « **Reply #48 on:** March 02, 2011, 11:35:05 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

I never once claimed that there will be individuals in Paradise who died without Baptism, certainly not any who died through some fault of their own. What I cannot understand is, "If the Church is not condemning me, why are you?"

Quote from: Jehanne

What I am saying is that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are possible, but they just never happen.

You said, many times over, that baptism of desire is possible, yet, that it almost never happens.

No, baptism of desire (unto salvation for someone who never actually received water baptism) is never possible. This is a dogmatic fact! Yet do you want to question this dogma.
This doubting of infallible dogma, sadly puts you outside of the Church and salvation, (until you have conformed your will with God, and his revealed truths!).

Quote from: Jehanne

It's just laughable that, after the Council of Trent, the Church could produce a catechism, the Roman Catechism, which so manifestly contradicted the very Council that called for its creation. Sorry, I do not buy it. That does not mean that I believe that there are individuals in Paradise who died without Baptism, because I do not believe that.

No, its not laughable. God allowed this to happen, as he have allowed many other things to happen, like I wrote before, with the Greek schismatics, who denied that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son. They denied that it proceedeth from the Son, because the first Council only said it proceedeth from the Father.

This happens so that people who are of bad Faith/Will, shall have an opportunity to fall away from the Faith, "for there must be heresies" (St Paul 1 Cor. 11:19).

You have no faith, thats the problem. For someone who actually value the infallible truths from God, he will never be persuaded by, or doubt, what dogmatically have been been defined, because of something that he/she just can't understand.

You are also contradicting yourself. For you said it's laughable to believe that the Catechism could contradict the Council of Trent, from whence it originated. Yet, as you seem to say that it couldn't teach error or contradict the Council (the Catechism), as you claim this, do you have as opinion that not one person in Heaven has ever been saved through it's teaching (the Catechism) and that there are no people in Heaven who has been Saved though its teaching (baptism of desire).

No, you seem only to hold that people must receive water baptism to be Saved, and at the same time, denies it, by granting a possibility, that God could go against his own word, and give salvation through a desire, although, very rarely (according to you).

You contradict yourself in this major way, because you obviously are wrong. Please, stop denying the dogmas, and come out of your error and heresies.

The problem is mortal and venial sin. This is what clouds many people conscience. Please, read this article, and find out if you possible live in some mortal or venial sins.

http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/

Please, also read the Revelations of St. Bridget, they will teach you to fear God and love God.

http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/st-bridget/st-bridget-of-sweden.php

Also watch this film. Many people might be encouraged to learn that the End of the World is near. This might help them to give up bad habits/habitual sins.

http://www.doomsdaytube.com/#2012-Extinction-Doomsday-Prophecies-Proved-By-Scientists

Jehanne · « **Reply #49 on:** March 02, 2011, 12:18:01 PM »

Quote from: Hietanen

Quote from: Jehanne

I never once claimed that there will be individuals in Paradise who died without Baptism, certainly not any who died through some fault of their own. What I cannot understand is, "If the Church is not condemning me, why are you?"

Quote from: Jehanne

What I am saying is that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are possible, but they just never happen.

You said, many times over, that baptism of desire is possible, yet, that it almost never happens.

I am using Firefox and did a search on the phrase "almost never" and could not find it, except in your post. I am not going to say that it was impossible for the One and Triune God to save someone without Baptism of Water. He is, of course, not bound by His Sacraments. He is, however, bound by His Perfection, which means, that He is bound by His Word. Since we are all commanded to be baptized and since God does not command the impossible, the only conclusion (for me, at least) is that everyone who finds his or her to Heaven will have been sacramentally Baptized.

This observation is not a denial of Baptism of Desire and/or Blood. It just says that while God could have saved individuals through those means he simply choose not to, which is what I believe both of those concepts are trying to express. So, while both of those categories exist, they are both simply empty. The One and Triune God will provide the means, even miraculous, to allow someone who sincerely desires Baptism to find it.

Hietanen · « **Reply #50 on:** March 02, 2011, 01:22:25 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Hietanen
Quote from: Jehanne

I never once claimed that there will be individuals in Paradise who died without Baptism, certainly not any who died through some fault of their own. What I cannot understand is, "If the Church is not condemning me, why are you?"

Quote from: Jehanne

What I am saying is that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are possible, but they just never happen.

You said, many times over, that baptism of desire is possible, yet, that it almost never happens.

I am using Firefox and did a search on the phrase "almost never" and could not find it, except in your post. I am not going to say that it was impossible for the One and Triune God to save someone without Baptism of Water. He is, of course, not bound by His Sacraments. He is, however, bound by His Perfection, which means, that He is bound by His Word. Since we are all commanded to be baptized and since God does not command the impossible, the only conclusion (for me, at least) is that everyone who finds his or her to Heaven will have been sacramentally Baptized.

This observation is not a denial of Baptism of Desire and/or Blood. It just says that while God could have saved individuals through those means he simply choose not to, which is what I believe both of those concepts are trying to express. So, while both of those categories exist, they are both simply empty. The One and Triune God will provide the means, even miraculous, to allow someone who sincerely desires Baptism to find it.

Yes it seems I got confused. It seems you never said "it almost never happens". You just simply say it can happen if God so wills, but that it never actually happens? Is this your view? It seems so.

However, this does not change the fact that you are a heretic. And you are still contradicting yourself. If God's words has declared that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation, then is this a truth defined by both His words and His perfection (and God cannot lie).

You must hold to the one and only true position, that God cannot save someone without real and actual water baptism (as He has declared). There are no exceptions, as you want to make it look.

You might not understand how this is, but God is eternal justice, and His justice never change. He can never go against His justice. Heaven would sooner fall down than God to go against the eternal justice. Neither can God ever go against His justice, for then would satan have an opportunity against Him, and that is impossible to ever happen. Therefore, it is impossible for God to ever do or approve of an injustice or to ever go against His divine laws (that cannot be changed, such as the absolute necessity of receiving water baptism, which is a dogma. Dogma=unchangable).

If God has said something (that all must be baptized with water), then you are obliged to believe this truth without compromise. To do otherwise, is a mortal sin against the Faith, and to blaspheme God, by claiming that He lied by what He said. If you persist in your error, you will not be saved.

But there might be many reasons why you are living in this error. I know since previously, that you do practice NFP. This alone makes you a mortal sinner and condemned. So, no wonder then, why you are blind, and why you cannot see.

I must ask you, since maybe you have stopped practice NFP since then. Do you still practice or approve the infallibly condemned - deliberate practice of avoiding children - called NFP?

Jehanne · « **Reply #51 on:** March 02, 2011, 03:09:53 PM »

Quote from: Hietanen

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Hietanen
Quote from: Jehanne

I never once claimed that there will be individuals in Paradise who died without Baptism, certainly not any who died through some fault of their own. What I cannot understand is, "If the Church is not condemning me, why are you?"

Quote from: Jehanne

What I am saying is that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are possible, but they just never happen.

You said, many times over, that baptism of desire is possible, yet, that it almost never happens.

I am using Firefox and did a search on the phrase "almost never" and could not find it, except in your post. I am not going to say that it was impossible for the One and Triune God to save someone without Baptism of Water. He is, of course, not bound by His Sacraments. He is, however, bound by His Perfection, which means, that He is bound by His Word. Since we are all commanded to be baptized and since God does not command the impossible, the only conclusion (for me, at least) is that everyone who finds his or her to Heaven will have been sacramentally Baptized.

This observation is not a denial of Baptism of Desire and/or Blood. It just says that while God could have saved individuals through those means he simply choose not to, which is what I believe both of those concepts are trying to express. So, while both of those categories exist, they are both simply empty. The One and Triune God will provide the means, even miraculous, to allow someone who sincerely desires Baptism to find it.

Yes it seems I got confused. It seems you never said "it almost never happens". You just simply say it can happen if God so wills, but that it never actually happens? Is this your view? It seems so.

However, this does not change the fact that you are a heretic. And you are still contradicting yourself. If God's words has declared that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation, then is this a truth defined by both His words and His perfection (and God cannot lie).

You must hold to the one and only true position, that God cannot save someone without real and actual water baptism (as He has declared). There are no exceptions, as you want to make it look.

You might not understand how this is, but God is eternal justice, and His justice never change. He can never go against His justice. Heaven would sooner fall down than God to go against the eternal justice. Neither can God ever go against His justice, for then would satan have an opportunity against Him, and that is impossible to ever happen. Therefore, it is impossible for God to ever do or approve of an injustice or to ever go against His divine laws (that cannot be changed, such as the absolute necessity of receiving water baptism, which is a dogma. Dogma=unchangable).

If God has said something (that all must be baptized with water), then you are obliged to believe this truth without compromise. To do otherwise, is a mortal sin against the Faith, and to blaspheme God, by claiming that He lied by what He said. If you persist in your error, you will not be saved.

But there might be many reasons why you are living in this error. I know since previously, that you do practice NFP. This alone makes you a mortal sinner and condemned. So, no wonder then, why you are blind, and why you cannot see.

I must ask you, since maybe you have stopped practice NFP since then. Do you still practice or approve the infallibly condemned - deliberate practice of avoiding children - called NFP?

We practice Standard Days, which is fundamentally different than NFP.

Hietanen · « **Reply #52 on:** March 02, 2011, 04:39:37 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

We practice Standard Days, which is fundamentally different than NFP.

It doesn't matter what you call it, the intention is still the same; to deliberately avoid conception! You are breaking the natural law. You are sinning mortally against reason and conscience. You are an enemy to Jesus Christ and His Church.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930:“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
“Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’ Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).”

Pius XI did not teach that a couple could designedly restrict the marriage act only to the infertile periods to avoid a pregnancy, as in the mortally sinful practice of Natural Family Planning. When a deliberate plan is made in having relations only during the infertile periods, while avoiding having relations during the known fertile periods, the mortal sin of contraception occurs. But I guess you already knew about this, but you just don't care, for you are not of God.

Like I have said all along. It's mortal sin that is the problem for most people today. Almost everyone today live in some sort deliberate mortal or venial sin that cloud there conscience.

Please, for the sake of your eternal soul, read this file,

http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/

Emerentiana · « **Reply #53 on:** March 02, 2011, 06:01:52 PM »

The church does not teach this, Jehene. The Feenyites do along with the Diamond Brothers. :heretic:

Emerentiana · « **Reply #54 on:** March 02, 2011, 06:03:33 PM »

OOOOOOOOOps, sorry, my post was directed to Heitanen!

Jehanne · « **Reply #55 on:** March 02, 2011, 06:06:51 PM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

OOOOOOOOOps, sorry, my post was directed to Heitanen!

I know. Standard Days is just controlled abstinence. ("David," I hope that this is not you posting under an alias, Heitanen.)

Emerentiana · « **Reply #56 on:** March 02, 2011, 06:36:43 PM »

Do you mean David Landry? Hes been banned from here twice!

Jehanne · « **Reply #57 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:19:19 PM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

Do you mean David Landry? Hes been banned from here twice!

Yes.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #58 on:** March 03, 2011, 01:26:47 AM »

Hietanen said:

Quote

It doesn't matter what you call it, the intention is still the same; to deliberately avoid conception! You are breaking the natural law. You are sinning mortally against reason and conscience. You are an enemy to Jesus Christ and His Church.

That's what they call the soft touch... :rolleyes:

I know what he will say. You can't be soft when you're dealing with hardened, vicious heretics... That is what makes dealing with Feeneyites so impossible, they don't see themselves as prideful, they just see themselves as right. The pride is in their belief that the Church allowed a heresy to be taught since the time of St. Augustine.

Though he does use the same arguments, I don't think this is David Landry. Firstly, Landry has a sense of righteousness, one might say exaggerated, that would forbid him from posting under a pseudo. Also, the content is the same, but the style is very slightly different ( exclamation points where Landry wouldn't use them ).

But it might as well be Landry. When they reach a certain point of conviction, all Feeneyites tend to sound the same.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #59 on:** March 03, 2011, 01:30:12 AM »

Emerentiana makes me crack up when she uses that heretic-burning icon, she does it in such a casual, offhand way. ( Maybe it's the icon itself that's amusing because the guy with the match has such a blissful smile ).