Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Zenith on February 23, 2011, 10:03:58 PM
-
I was once sent the below link by someone who does not believe in BOD or BOB.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php
Although it was long and painful to read his nonsensical rantings and ramblings I did and thought I'd put up some sort of rebutle below. :nunchaku:
I cannot agree with his arguments and I will give you my reasons for my beliefs.
Br. Diamond repeatedly argues that the Church’s teaching, that no one can attain salvation without being baptised, actually rejects both baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
This is not the case, as there is nothing in any of the quotes that Br. Dimond uses to argue his point or in the Church’s teachings, that actually says that Baptism cannot be received through martyrdom or the pure intention of the desire for baptism.
We have to remember that when we refer to Baptism of desire, we are referring to a situation which would happen very rarely and it is not as Br. Dimond seems to imply, a modern teaching based on the “ecuмenical” heresies that all religions are more or less equal and salvation can be obtained through any of them.
The teaching of Baptism of desire pertains to an individual that has accepted the teachings of the Church and has perfect contrition of heart and a charity which contains, at least implicitly, a desire of baptism.
I believe the only argument of Br. Dimond’s which appears (in the way that he presents it) to have some credibility, is his quotation of Pope Eugene IV’s bull Cantate Domino.
“No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
It is interesting to note the Br. Dimond has inserted this quote into his writings without revealing its actual context. I must admit it does appear to support his argument if you read it separately to its context.
This is the actual full quote from Cantate Domino.
“It (the Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings,
almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
At the start of the quote you may see that the writer is actually
referring to pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics.
In other words it is referring to those who have rejected the Catholic Faith, whereas those who fall in the category of Baptism of desire and blood have actually fully accepted the Catholic Faith and its teachings and have a pure desire of Baptism.
There is a great difference between the two. One openly and persistently rejects Our Lord and His teachings and the other openly and persistently embraces Our Lord and His teachings.
Now that the context of the quote that Br. Dimond uses is revealed, it is easier to see what the quote actually means.
“no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
A protestant or other heretic or schismatic may believe that he is
shedding his blood for the name of Christ, though in fact he is not, because in embracing Protestantism or some other heresy, he has rejected Our Lord.
Therefore I believe that those who fall into the category of Baptism of desire or blood do not fall into the category referred to in Pope Eugene IV’s Cantate Domino.
Some other statements of Br. Dimonds give me good reason for concern.
One of my biggest issues with his writings is that Br. Dimond constantly tries to discredit the teachings of the Doctors and Saints of the Church.
The list of Saints that taught Baptism of Blood is not a short one.
Without doing further research and in just reading Br. Dimonds quotes; the Saints that taught or believed in Baptism of Blood were:
St. Cyprian: Br. Dimond tries to tarnish St. Cyprian’s credibility by drawing attention to something else that St. Cyprian taught that was incorrect. I do not think that defaming an individual is the honest way to argue against them. Yes saints are human and can make mistakes.
Though I do not believe that because they make a mistake, we have to discredit everything they say.
St. Augustine: Br. Dimond tries to discredit St. Augustine by saying that because St. Augustine refers to St. Cyprian’s teachings on Baptism of Blood, therefore St. Augustine is also wrong. I would have thought that if two great Saints taught this, then maybe there may be some truth in it. So far I have not seen any evidence from Br. Dimond to support his teachings. I am more inclined to believe that Br. Dimond discredits
them not on any solid evidence, but rather because they don’t agree with his beliefs.
St. Cyril: Br. Dimond does not have any argument to counteract St. Cyril’s support of Baptism of Blood. His only argument is to say that St. Cyril taught Baptism of Blood but rejected Baptism of desire. Again Br. Dimond has no evidence for this statement and in fact it only stands to reason that if one received Baptism of Blood then he also would have Baptism of desire. For in shedding one’s blood for Christ, one would have a desire for Baptism. Therefore it is not reasonable that one would
accept Baptism of Blood and reject Baptism of desire. In Baptism of Blood the two are inseparable.
St. Fulgence: Br. Dimond uses the same argument to counteract St. Fulgence’s support of Baptism of Desire as he uses against St. Cyril.
Again this is no argument as it is evident that Br. Dimond cannot see that if one shed his blood for Christ, then it is reasonable and logical that the person would desire Baptism.
St. John Chrysostom: Br. Dimond uses a quote of St. John Chrysostom to reach his conclusion, when in fact the quote clearly does not say what Br. Dimond says it does.
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
Br. Dimond writes immediately following this quote:
“This statement clearly rejects the concept of baptism of desire.”
If you follow what St. Chrysostom is writing, you will see that he is talking about those who do not receive Baptism as a direct result of their unbelief and neglect.
Someone who has Baptism of desire or blood does not fall into this category as it can be clearly seen that someone who desires Baptism would in no way neglect or disbelieve the Faith, but would do everything in his power to receive Baptism. The case of Desire or Blood is completely different to the case that St. John Chrysostom refers to and anyone who neglected his Baptism or disbelieved would not receive Baptism of Desire or Blood.
Therefore I believe that the conclusion that Br. Dimond draws from this quote is incorrect.
Many great Saints such as St. John Damascene, St. Bernard, Pope Innocent III, St. Ambrose, St. Thomas Aquinas and the above mentioned Saints all believed in Baptism of Desire and Blood, though throughout his writings, Br. Dimond repeatedly tries to discredit them.
I consider it to be more prudent to follow the teachings of the holy doctors and Saints due to their virtue and understanding and closeness to God rather than Br. Dimond whose credibility has yet to be proven.
This then leads me to raise another objection to what I believe is Br. Dimond’s gravest and most glaring error.
The Catechism of The Council of Trent teaches that:
“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.”
Br. Dimond’s answer to this Dogmatic statement of the Catholic Church is:
“The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible.”
Br. Dimond is very daring in this statement as the Catechism of the Council of Trent is the most concise and authoritative summary of Dogmatic and Moral Doctrine.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent is the only officially promulgated Catechism of the Catholic Church, being the summary of the dogmatic teachings of the Council of Trent.
If the Catechism teaches baptism of desire then logically it can be assumed that the teaching comes from none other than the Council of Trent itself.
This leads to Session 6, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent.
“In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it,
as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
Br. Dimond’s argument against this passage is that the phrase “laver of regeneration or a desire for it” actually means, “laver of regeneration and a desire for it.”
No matter how much Br. Dimond tries to twist the meaning of this
passage, it will always mean exactly what it says.
AND and OR are mutually exclusive and will never mean the same thing.
The word OR, has never and will never mean AND.
I believe that in this argument, Br. Dimond has only revealed his
intellectual dishonesty.
It is very interesting to note that the dogmatic teachings of The
Council of Trent and its Catechism both teach Baptism of desire. Though if you follow the manner in which Br. Dimond refutes both the Council and the Catechism, you will notice that he refutes them with two totally different arguments.
Br. Dimond argues that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. Therefore it can be reasonably assumed that he believes that the Catechism is incorrect on this point.
Br. Dimond does not directly refute the Council of Trent in its teaching of Baptism of Desire, but instead he twists the meaning of the otherwise straight forward teaching, to mean something completely different.
Perhaps Br. Dimond realises that he cannot argue against the Council of Tent and therefore he must twist its meaning to suit his argument.
Doesn’t Br. Dimond realise that the teaching of the Catechism comes straight from the Dogmatic Council? This begs the question: If there are “discrepancies” between the Council and its Catechism, why in almost 500 years is Br. Dimond the only person who has seen the “discrepancies”?
Why does he not use the same argument to refute both the Council and the Catechism?
As both the Council and its Catechism teach the same thing, and as the Catechism proceeds from the Council; I believe that if Br. Dimond’s argument was sound, he could use the same argument to refute both the Council and it Catechism.
My conclusion as a result of this is that Br. Dimond does not hold the sound judgement or intellectual honesty that is needed to conduct such a theological study as this, and as the Church has already spoken on this issue, his arguments only serve to reveal his Non Serviam disposition.
-
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.
-
We have to remember that when we refer to Baptism of desire, we are referring to a situation which would happen very rarely and it is not as Br. Dimond seems to imply, a modern teaching based on the “ecuмenical” heresies that all religions are more or less equal and salvation can be obtained through any of them.
The teaching of Baptism of desire pertains to an individual that has accepted the teachings of the Church and has perfect contrition of heart and a charity which contains, at least implicitly, a desire of baptism.I believe the only argument of Br. Dimond’s which appears (in the way that he presents it) to have some credibility, is his quotation of Pope Eugene IV’s bull Cantate Domino.
“No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
It is interesting to note the Br. Dimond has inserted this quote into his writings without revealing its actual context. I must admit it does appear to support his argument if you read it separately to its context.
This is the actual full quote from Cantate Domino.
“It (the Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings,
almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
At the start of the quote you may see that the writer is actually
referring to pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics.
In other words it is referring to those who have rejected the Catholic Faith, whereas those who fall in the category of Baptism of desire and blood have actually fully accepted the Catholic Faith and its teachings and have a pure desire of Baptism.
There is a great difference between the two. One openly and persistently rejects Our Lord and His teachings and the other openly and persistently embraces Our Lord and His teachings.
The problem is that that is NOT what the traditionalist Priests teach. The say that even Jews who reject Christ can be saved by BOD.
-
A citation, according to a friend, of what Bp. McKenna wrote to the Dimond Brothers:
"Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire. I repeat them, emphasizing what you ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: 'The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that (subjectively) a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not (objectively) good. If a Jew who rejects Our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the movement in which (objectively) he and his nation are engaged.' I could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says . . ."
-
For real? This again?
I don't say "use the search tool" much, but any BoD/BoB nonsense requires it.
I don't want to hear that people who actively reject the faith, mock it, and our Lord Jesus Christ are saved. That is contrary to truth and to any sense of reality, both in this world and divine. God DOES NOT contradict Himself.
EVER.
:light-saber:
-
A citation, according to a friend, of what Bp. McKenna wrote to the Dimond Brothers:
"Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire. I repeat them, emphasizing what you ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: 'The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that (subjectively) a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not (objectively) good. If a Jew who rejects Our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the movement in which (objectively) he and his nation are engaged.' I could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says . . ."
Innocenza could you provide a reference for this quote of Fr. Fahey's as to which of his books, chapter and page please? I remember reading something like this before though not sure where.
-
A citation, according to a friend, of what Bp. McKenna wrote to the Dimond Brothers:
"Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire. I repeat them, emphasizing what you ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: 'The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that (subjectively) a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not (objectively) good. If a Jew who rejects Our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the movement in which (objectively) he and his nation are engaged.' I could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says . . ."
This is contrary to all of Catholic Tradition, which states that at least some explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. Here are a few of many examples:
"After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above (Question 1, Article 8). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office." (Summa Theologica, II II, Q.2, A.7)
"It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Matthew 28:19: "Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." (Summa Theologica, II II, Q.2, A.8)
"Explicit faith in those two things was necessary at all times and for all people: but it was not sufficient at all times and for all people." (Summa Theologica, II II, Q.2, A.8)
Of course, we see this in the Athanasian Creed, infallibly declared at the Council of Florence and reaffirmed again at the Council of Trent:
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
Fr. Fahey is fully modernist, as, apparently, are you. You both might as well accept all of Vatican II, which, by the way, never made (at least explicitly) any of the claims that you are making:
http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Vatican2.pdf
-
No, Jehanne, I was quoting those statements of Bp. McKenna because of how unsettling they were As a matter of fact, I went the home-alone route for some months, as a result of doubts raised by such assertions. (I have been back at Mass since I got over that confusion -- Fr. Ramolla's and Fr. Thielen's at St. Albert the Great.)
Zenith, the citation came to me in an e-mail from a friend. I will try searching on the net to see if I can locate the original in its context.
Regards,
Janet C.
-
My apologies. They certainly cling to their own heresies.
-
The Reign of Mary
Cover of Reign of Mary #117
Issue No. 117, Spring 2004
Add to cart This issue: $1.50 (plus $2.00 postage and handling)
bullet Subscribe for $16 per year
What Does It Take to be Saved?
By the Very Rev. Fr. Casimir Puskorius, CMRI
One more discussion on baptism of desire: Neither baptism of desire nor baptism of blood are the sacrament of Baptism, but in cases of necessity they achieve the effect of forgiveness of sin and incorporation into the Church....
Bishop McKenna’s Letter to the Dimond Brothers:
In the following letter, Bishop Robert McKenna, O.P., asks Bros. Michael and Peter Dimond why they reject the Church’s teaching on Baptism of Desire and of Blood. As of June 1, 2004, there has been no reply or explanation. The letter is reproduced by permission of the author.
Russia and the Icon
Editor’s note: ...Sadly, Russia has been in schism from the true Church for many centuries, and yet, according to Our Lady of Fatima, its conversion is a key element in God’s plan. Perhaps its singular devotion to Our Lady is the reason this country is destined for eventual union with the Roman Catholic religion....
The Scapular Medal
At times it is asked whether the Scapular Medal is officially approved by the Church as a legitimate replacement for the Brown Scapular or any other scapular. According to the Rev. Frederick Schulze, D.D. (A Manual of Pastoral Theology, B. Herder Book Co.: St. Louis, 1960, pp. 292-294), the answer is a most definite “yes.” Here is Fr. Schulze’s summary of the decree given during the reign of Pope St. Pius X....
Short Catechism of Church History
From the Book by Right Rev. Mgr. J. H. Oechtering, V.G.
...What great principle ruled the relation of Church and State during the Middle Ages? The principle that Church and State should be in friendly union, both independent in their own spheres, bu8t protecting and helping each other in order to promote the honor and glory of God and the eternal and temporal welfare of the people....
The Act and Meaning of Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
From the Lectures of Father Messias D. Coelho
In speaking of consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, we must distinguish between two points: the actual Act of Consecration and the meaning of our consecration....
Interior Mortification and Conformity to the Will of God
For our Confraternity Members — by Rev. Fr. Dominic Radecki, CMRI
...if we do not bridle our self-will through the practice of interior mortification and conformity to God’s will, we cannot advance in the spiritual life. Because of our self-will, we will be destroying with one hand the spiritual edifice which we are trying to construct with the other....
Moral Theology Questions: Country or Conscience
From More Answers to Today’s Moral Problems by the Very Rev. Francis J. Connell
One of the questions sometimes put to Catholics in the United States is this: “In the event that there was a conflict between the laws of our country and the teachings of the Catholic Church, which would you obey?” What reply should a Catholic give to this query?...
History of Christian Places of Worship
Just as Christ had held the Last Supper in a room of a private dwelling, the Apostles also evidently celebrated the Eucharist in the houses of the well-to-do...
Pope Pius XII’s Instructions on Raising Children
...Give careful attention that as your children grow up you wield over them an authority that is benevolent and serence, strong and frank, not surrendering to every scene of tears and caprice. From the very dawn of their rational life, make them trustfully conscious of the touch of hands that delicately caress but still control and guide with untiring prudence. To combine graciousness with authority is to win, to triumph, in that contest which becomes your duty as parents...
The Door
From Tabernacle and Purgatory Magazine, June 1958.
Only the twinkle of the sanctuary lamp and a few flickering vigil lights before the statue of the Sacred Heart relieved the scented darkness of the church as Francis Fenton made his way up a side aisle...
The Storm-Tossed Barque of the Church
From Pusillum, Vol. I, a meditation book for priests.
As regularly as the cry went up, “Now the Church is done for!”, just so regularly the Church came forth from every storm rejuvenated....
Other titles:
Newsnotes:
Communion for Pro-Abortion Politicians
New Uses for Churches
Opposition to Abortion in Portugal
More Abortions Than Births in Romania
Box Office Success
Irish Soil Fertile for World Religions
AIDS Epidemic Worsening
Unborn Victims of Violence Act
Ultrasound May Help Reduce Abortions
Swiss “Self-Serve” ѕυιcιdє
“Catholic” Universities Honor Pro-Abortion Celebrities
Empty Confessionals
Loss of Faith in Europe
and more...
Add to cart Purchase this issue
-
Zenith --
That statement of Fr. Fahey is found in The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jєωιѕн Nation, Christian Book Club of America, Palmdale, CA, first printed Jan. 1953, reprinted March 1987, reprinted July 1993, in Chapter IV, under the head, "The Struggle of the Jєωιѕн Nation against the True Messias", and the subhead, "Jєωιѕн Naturalism", on page 52, second paragraph.
-
..... St. Augustine: Br. Dimond tries to discredit St. Augustine by saying that because St. Augustine refers to St. Cyprian’s teachings on Baptism of Blood, therefore St. Augustine is also wrong. I would have thought that if two great Saints taught this, then maybe there may be some truth in it. So far I have not seen any evidence from Br. Dimond to support his teachings. I am more inclined to believe that Br. Dimond discredits
them not on any solid evidence, but rather because they don’t agree with his beliefs. ...
What did St. Augustine mean by this statement?...
St. Augustine (426): “Consequently both those who have not heard the gospel and those who, having heard it, and having been changed for the better, did not receive perseverance… none of these are separated from that lump which is known to be damned, as all are going… into condemnation.”
-
..... St. Augustine: Br. Dimond tries to discredit St. Augustine by saying that because St. Augustine refers to St. Cyprian’s teachings on Baptism of Blood, therefore St. Augustine is also wrong. I would have thought that if two great Saints taught this, then maybe there may be some truth in it. So far I have not seen any evidence from Br. Dimond to support his teachings. I am more inclined to believe that Br. Dimond discredits
them not on any solid evidence, but rather because they don’t agree with his beliefs. ...
What did St. Augustine mean by this statement?...
St. Augustine (426): “Consequently both those who have not heard the gospel and those who, having heard it, and having been changed for the better, did not receive perseverance… none of these are separated from that lump which is known to be damned, as all are going… into condemnation.”
It means that baptism of desire is a myth.
St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”
Pope Benedict XIV, cuм Religiosi (# 4), June 26, 1754:
“See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”
2 Corinthians 4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”
This is why every Doctor of the Church held that no adult could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is why the Doctors of the Church who believed in baptism of desire (although they were wrong about this) only extended it to unbaptized catechumens who believed in the Trinity and Incarnation.
Spiritual Information You Must Know About to be Saved (http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/)
-
Hietanen --
( 1 ) Why quote St. Thomas when you know very well he believed in baptism of desire?
( 2 ) You take the quote of St. Pius X out of context entirely. He isn't talking about those who have never had the Gospel preached to them, he's actually talking about people that today we consider Vatican II Catholics, Catholics who have a superficial or nonexistent knowledge of their own religion.
( 3 ) Your assertion that no Doctor of the Church said that you could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation is false. St. Alphonsus said it was a probable opinion that one could be saved by implicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation. In other words, implicit faith was not a heresy at the time, but an increasingly popular concept among theologians that was still open for discussion, that no Pope forbade. Eventually Pius IX threw his hat in the ring and spoke of invincible ignorance in his encyclicals, making this a dogma at least of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
( 4 ) Regarding the Benedict XIV quote, it's also a necessity of means to be baptized, but baptism of desire is still taught by at least FIVE Doctors of the Church, to my knowledge, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, who said it was de fide, St. Bernard, St. Augustine ( who, admittedly, was more confused on the issue, since he had less support ).
Therefore, what is faulty is your understanding of the concept of necessity of means, not the concept of baptism of desire, or of implicit faith, since these all have ample support from the Church.
Now consider this -- if you are correct, then five doctors of the Church were all wrong on the same issue... We're not just talking saints, but DOCTORS of the Church. Do you really think God would allow this? Also, if you are correct, then a whole series of Popes were negligent in their duties by allowing implicit faith to be taught and discussed for centuries, infecting countless numbers with what you are pleased to believe is heresy. This would be near-total system failure of the Church.
Here's hoping and praying that you learn just how much more to the Catholic religion there is than the narrow and cramped Feeneyite worldview can reveal!
-
Zenith said:
The say that even Jews who reject Christ can be saved by BOD.
I would disagree with that idea taught by Father Fahey. Father Fahey is not a Doctor of the Church, he's just an American priest.
If you reject Christ openly, how can you have invincible ignorance?
However, it's hard to say that this is heresy, since the parameters of invincible ignorance have never been established. Some think that just growing up in an environment prejudicial to Catholicism constitutes invincible ignorance, and that is possible, there is some justification for that theory in Christ asking for forgiveness for those who were killing Him.
My understanding is that, when you reach the age of reason, you're obligated to find the truth, if possible -- and if it is possible, you don't have "invincible" ignorance, it is entirely vincible... But others see invincible ignorance differently, and so far, their opinion is not condemned. As Pius IX made clear, no one knows just how far invincible ignorance extends.
-
Innocenza said:
No, Jehanne, I was quoting those statements of Bp. McKenna because of how unsettling they were As a matter of fact, I went the home-alone route for some months, as a result of doubts raised by such assertions.
Me too. I was home alone for about six months. This overly liberal view of invincible ignorance could have been at least partly responsible for my attack of scruples, along with a certain ignorance I suspected in traditional chapels about other matters ( not everyone seemed to know that America is ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic, and some are relatively favorable to the Jews in general, in a political sense, favorable to Israel ). I got to the point where I thought that trad chapels were heavily infiltrated, which may be the case, who knows. But you can't live your life that way, suspecting everyone as part of a plot. You have to have proof, and I had no proof, I was just getting more and more paranoid, like some drug-addicted shut-in from an Oliver Stone film.
Look at how in my last post I am cautiously saying that no one knows just how far invincible ignorance extends -- I'm not trying to force my interpretation of it on anyone. I'm sticking with what Pius IX said. But you know, Bishop McKenna doesn't force his view on anyone either. He just said he would agree with what Father Fahey said, not that he would impose it on everyone in his chapel.
I don't know what the CMRI believes, I haven't asked them, and I don't care, because they are entitled to their opinion on this matter.
-
To sum up, I have come to realize the difference between Catholics who have blind spots, and outright heretics and / or infiltrators.
The American clergy has always been relatively favorable to Jews and to ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic projects, that is just collateral damage from trying to be patriotic about this nation, the Whore of Babylon, as I believe it strongly to be. It's not that they're consciously part of a plot, they just don't get it.
That's why some of the American Catholic clergy supported the American side in the Spanish-American war, where Spanish Catholicism was painted as fusty and antiquated, while we were bringing the fresh air of democracy to Cuba i.e. opening Pandora's Box.
Thank God I can read French, because believe me, there is a bigger world out there, and in Europe there is a much sharper sense of what America really is.
-
Hietanen --
( 1 ) Why quote St. Thomas when you know very well he believed in baptism of desire?
( 2 ) You take the quote of St. Pius X out of context entirely. He isn't talking about those who have never had the Gospel preached to them, he's actually talking about people that today we consider Vatican II Catholics, Catholics who have a superficial or nonexistent knowledge of their own religion.
( 3 ) Your assertion that no Doctor of the Church said that you could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation is false. St. Alphonsus said it was a probable opinion that one could be saved by implicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation. In other words, implicit faith was not a heresy at the time, but an increasingly popular concept among theologians that was still open for discussion, that no Pope forbade. Eventually Pius IX threw his hat in the ring and spoke of invincible ignorance in his encyclicals, making this a dogma at least of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
( 4 ) Regarding the Benedict XIV quote, it's also a necessity of means to be baptized, but baptism of desire is still taught by at least FIVE Doctors of the Church, to my knowledge, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, who said it was de fide, St. Bernard, St. Augustine ( who, admittedly, was more confused on the issue, since he had less support ).
Therefore, what is faulty is your understanding of the concept of necessity of means, not the concept of baptism of desire, or of implicit faith, since these all have ample support from the Church.
Now consider this -- if you are correct, then five doctors of the Church were all wrong on the same issue... We're not just talking saints, but DOCTORS of the Church. Do you really think God would allow this? Also, if you are correct, then a whole series of Popes were negligent in their duties by allowing implicit faith to be taught and discussed for centuries, infecting countless numbers with what you are pleased to believe is heresy. This would be near-total system failure of the Church.
Here's hoping and praying that you learn just how much more to the Catholic religion there is than the narrow and cramped Feeneyite worldview can reveal!
How respond you to the Angelic Doctor's very clear requirement of explicit faith in Christ and the mystery of the Trinity in light of Leo XIII's proclamation that Thomas' work was the definitive exposition of Catholic doctrine?
-
( 3 ) Your assertion that no Doctor of the Church said that you could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation is false. St. Alphonsus said it was a probable opinion that one could be saved by implicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation. In other words, implicit faith was not a heresy at the time, but an increasingly popular concept among theologians that was still open for discussion, that no Pope forbade. Eventually Pius IX threw his hat in the ring and spoke of invincible ignorance in his encyclicals, making this a dogma at least of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
St. Alphonsus was wrong:
"If we consider unbelief as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character of punishment, not of sin, because such ignorance is the result of the sin of our first parents. When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, not because of their sin of unbelief." (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.10, a.1.)
"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly...even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or he would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)." (The Disputed Questions on Truth, Q.14, a.11.)
More here:
http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Native.pdf
We can "saint quote" all we want, but the important thing is what the Church teaches through her supreme Magisterium.
-
Hietanen --
( 3 ) Your assertion that no Doctor of the Church said that you could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation is false. St. Alphonsus said it was a probable opinion that one could be saved by implicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation.
No, please, we are to follow dogma, you are clearly wrong!
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Hietanen --
In other words, implicit faith was not a heresy at the time, but an increasingly popular concept among theologians that was still open for discussion, that no Pope forbade. Eventually Pius IX threw his hat in the ring and spoke of invincible ignorance in his encyclicals, making this a dogma at least of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
Some articles of Faith can people be material heretic about (or ignorant about), but not on the divine mysteries or the natural law, for to be ignorant about those puts one outside of the Church and salvation, as the above St. Pope Pius X quotes showed you - but you wanted to give it another meaning. Please, if your position is correct, that he was talking about something else than the divine mysteries (the trinity and incarnation), you have to prove your cause, otherwise, it's only empty words and has no worth, and should thus be looked upon as such.
What are these minimum truths that an adult must know to be saved? The Church has always taught, as the Athanasian Creed infallibly defined, that knowing the Trinity and the Incarnation is a necessity of means in order to be saved. That is why missionaries risked everything to go and preach the Gospel to heathen in far off lands. An adult who doesn’t know the Trinity and the Incarnation cannot be saved, for these mysteries constitute “the Catholic Faith” if broken down and defined in terms of its simplest mysteries.
You also assert that "St. Alphonsus said it was a probable opinion that one could be saved by implicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation."
I would like you to prove your cause there, many people either misinterpret quotes or don't read them properly. I don't say you have done either of them. Now, as far as I know, that quote is a fabrication or intentionally misinterpreted by some people, it's not a true quote.
I don't know the quote, so please show it to me, so I can confirm what I have heard about it.
Now, even if he did say what you say (which he did not, as far I am aware of) it would still not matter, since its a dogma of Faith that a person must explicitly know about the Trinity and Incarnation to be Saved (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8.)
Hietanen --
( 1 ) Why quote St. Thomas when you know very well he believed in baptism of desire?
I suppose I don't have to go into detail on the Immaculate Conception, which he was wrong about? That is why we do NOT follow the opinions of Sts or Theologians, however many they are, if what they say goes against infallible Catholic dogma.
Besides, once again, All the few Saints and Theologians who believed in baptism of desire and baptism of blood only applied it to people who already believed in Jesus Christ. That is a lot different from the modern notion that even Muslims, Jews and pagans, somehow, are saved though a baptism of desire (which they do not even desire!). If you are to object with the council of Trent, (which does not teach baptism of desire, but let's assume it does so we can refute this theory even more), they still said then, that people actually need to have an actuall desire for water baptism to be Saved.
So what is it, can people who reject Christ, and does not desire baptism, be Saved, according to you?
For those who want to go into details on the Council of Trent, go here (http://www.catholic-saints.net/dogma/#sess-6-chap-4-of-the-council-of-trent)
And when you say St Thomas believed in baptism of desire, do you mean by that, that he held the opinion that people can be saved without knowledge of Jesus Christ or the Trinity? He certainly did not believe that, and I don't think I have to prove that for you (he only applied baptism of blood for catechumens). However, if you believe that people can be saved without knowledge of the trinity and incarnation (excluding infants and mentally retarded), that would make you a heretic since you have been presented the dogma regarding the absolute necessity of actually believing in the trinity and incarnation for salvation. Besides, one cannot be a Catholic and have as belief that is incompatible with the divine faith, that would put him outside the Church also. That means people who believe that other people can be saved without belief in Jesus is a heresy against divine Faith, which all must know about to be a Christian=Jesus Christ).
Hietanen --
Now consider this -- if you are correct, then five doctors of the Church were all wrong on the same issue... We're not just talking saints, but DOCTORS of the Church. Do you really think God would allow this? Also, if you are correct, then a whole series of Popes were negligent in their duties by allowing implicit faith to be taught and discussed for centuries, infecting countless numbers with what you are pleased to believe is heresy.
To this, I will say: it's quiet clear that it is a define dogma of Faith that real and actual water is necessary for salvation. This is a dogma, so crystal clear defined, that only someone who are willingly blind must deny it.
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.”
Argument of silence is neither proving your cause. Just because no Pope has ever condemned the idea of baptism of blood or desire by name, does not mean that it is true, when it clearly has been condemned, refuted and destroyed by word, namely, that one cannot be Saved without real and actual water baptism (quoted just above). This in itself refutes bob/bod, even though not mentioned by name. If someone is honest, he will agree with this, but that is only if he is honest.
-
Hietanen, Baptism of Desire is not a myth. As others on this thread have said, if one wishes to be baptized into the Catholic faith but cannot, a BoD is completely acceptable. I agree 100% with Raoul.
-
Hietanen, Baptism of Desire is not a myth. As others on this thread have said, if one wishes to be baptized into the Catholic faith but cannot, a BoD is completely acceptable. I agree 100% with Raoul.
It's irrelevant. No one, including the Church, knows to what extent, if any, Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood occur. The One and Triune God is capable of bringing sacramental Baptism to whomever He wishes; likewise, He can save someone without it. However, for us in the latter case, it would be equivalent to "proving a negative" to say that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood have ever occurred, that is, proving that someone was not Baptized, and of course, this is impossible to ever conclude.
What Saint Thomas taught is that explicit faith in the 14 Articles of Faith (the Apostle's Creed) is necessary for salvation, the bare minimum being explicit faith in the One and Triune God and in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
-
Well, one thing I know for sure, Fr. Fahey was NOT an American priest.
-
Zenith said:
The say that even Jews who reject Christ can be saved by BOD.
I would disagree with that idea taught by Father Fahey. Father Fahey is not a Doctor of the Church, he's just an American priest.
If you reject Christ openly, how can you have invincible ignorance?
However, it's hard to say that this is heresy, since the parameters of invincible ignorance have never been established. Some think that just growing up in an environment prejudicial to Catholicism constitutes invincible ignorance, and that is possible, there is some justification for that theory in Christ asking for forgiveness for those who were killing Him.
My understanding is that, when you reach the age of reason, you're obligated to find the truth, if possible -- and if it is possible, you don't have "invincible" ignorance, it is entirely vincible... But others see invincible ignorance differently, and so far, their opinion is not condemned. As Pius IX made clear, no one knows just how far invincible ignorance extends.
Raoul when did I write this? I don't remember ever writing this and if I did it was a mistake as I don't believe any Jew who rejects Christ can be saved through BOD.
It is an oxymoron and completely against reason as why would any individual who rejected Christ want Christ's Baptism? Why would he desire to be in a Church who's Head he rejects and hates other than the usual reason of subversion?
I am a very big fan of Fr. Denis Fahey and his wonderful writings though this passage is a little disconcerting.
Fr. Fahey writes, "If a Jew who rejects Our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged."
To me this statement is contradictory as how can a Jew be "good in the way God demands" if he "rejects Our Lord"?
To be good in the way God demands is to follow and accept Our Lord and how is that reconciled with rejecting Our Lord?
It would be great if Fr. Fahey was still alive so we could clarify exactly what he means in this passage though if you read a little further on he is very clear in his final sentence of the paragraph.
He writes, "No Jew, in virtue of what he objectively stands for, is supernaturally good as God wants him to be."
I believe this sentence clarifies Fr. Fahey's position on the matter as he speaks hypothetically in the first part of the passage though he speaks objectively in the final sentence above.
-
It means that baptism of desire is a myth.
So you reject both the Council of Trent and its Catechism?
The Catechism of The Council of Trent:
“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.”
Session 6, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent.
“In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it,
as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
-
It means that baptism of desire is a myth.
So you reject both the Council of Trent and its Catechism?
The Catechism of The Council of Trent:
“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.”
Session 6, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent.
“In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it,
as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
No I don't reject Council of Trent of The Catechism of Council of Trent. I just don't take them out of context as 99% of other people do.
Its really easy, dogma cannot contradict dogma. We already know that dogma absolutely affirms water baptism essential for salvation, so for people then to contradict it with another "dogma" is just ridiculous and insane.
Now will both the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent be dealt with thoroughly. If people are honest, they will agree with this.[/U]
SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
OBJECTION- In Session 6, Chapter 4 of its decree on Justification, the Council of Trent teaches that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it! So there!
ANSWER- [Preliminary Note: If Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent were teaching what the baptism of desire advocates claim (which it isn’t), then it would mean that every man must receive baptism or at least have the actual desire/vow for baptism to be saved. It would mean that it would be heresy to say that any unbaptized person could be saved if he doesn’t have at least the desire/vow for water baptism. But 99% of the people who quote this passage in favor of baptism of desire don’t even believe that one must desire baptism to be saved! They believe that Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved who don’t desire water baptism. Thus, 99% of those who quote this passage reject even what they claim it is teaching. Frankly, this fact just shows the dishonesty and the bad will of most baptism of desire advocates in attempting to quote this passage as if they were devoted to its teaching when, in fact, they don’t believe in it at all and are in heresy for teaching that non-Catholics can be saved who don’t even desire water baptism.]
That being noted, this passage of the Council of Trent does not teach that Justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. It says that justification in the impious CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the water of baptism or the desire for it. This is totally different from the idea that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
First off, the reader should note that this crucial passage from Trent has been horribly mistranslated in the popular English version of Denzinger, the Sources of Catholic Dogma, which is cited above.
The critical phrase, “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it” has been mistranslated to read: “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it…” This mistranslation of the Latin word “sine” (without) – which is found in the original Latin – to “except through” completely alters the meaning of the passage to favor the error of baptism of desire. This is important to keep in mind because this mistranslation is still being used all the time by baptism of desire apologists (often deliberately), including in recent publications of the SSPX and CMRI. That being mentioned, I will proceed to discuss what the council actually says here.
Looking at a correct translation, which is found in many books, the reader also should notice that, in this passage, the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est), which excludes any possibility of salvation without being born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire denies. The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written are mutually exclusive (they cannot both be true at the same time) – and every baptism of desire proponent will admit this. That is why all of them must – and do – opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.
But what does the passage in Trent that we just discussed say: It says infallibly, “AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD[/I].”
But what about the claim of the baptism of desire people: that the use of the word “or” (Latin: aut) in the above passage means that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. A careful look at the correct translation of this passage shows this claim to be false. Suppose I said, “This shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one.” Does this mean that a shower can take place by the desire to take a shower? No it doesn’t. It means that both (water and desire) are necessary.
Or suppose I said, “There cannot be a wedding without[/U] a bride or a groom.” Does this mean that you can have a wedding with a groom and not a bride? Of course not. It means that both are necessary for the wedding. One could give hundreds of other examples. Likewise, the passage above in Trent says that Justification CANNOT[/U] TAKE PLACE WITHOUT[/U] water or desire; in other words, both are necessary. It does not say that Justification does take place by either water or desire!
THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
OBJECTION- The Catechism of the Council of Trent taught that one’s determination to receive baptism could avail him to grace and righteousness if it is impossible for him to receive baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once, p. 179: “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.”
ANSWER- The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Their introduction contains the following interesting quote from Dr. John Hagan, Rector of the Irish College in Rome, about the Catechism’s authority.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”
-
It means that baptism of desire is a myth.
So you reject both the Council of Trent and its Catechism?
The Catechism of The Council of Trent:
“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.”
Session 6, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent.
“In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it,
as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
The Catechism of Trent teaches the infallible truth of the Catholic faith:
"should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters..."
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, page 56).
Now, I am not endorsing everything that Father Feeney taught and believed, but as the Fathers at Trent knew, with God, "nothing is impossible," so He is certainly capable of bringing sacramental Baptism to whomever He wishes.
-
God does not command impossibilities. To say so would be heresy, since this thought is condemned by the Church. It is not impossible for someone to be baptized, period. If a person dies without baptism, he was not one of the elect, he was of bad will, and a sinner. No one but the bad will go into eternal condemnation. Therefore, all who die without baptism, are of bad will, and of bad Faith, including infants, who, if they had lived, would have become enemies of God.
There is no such thing as an “unforeseen accident” which could make it “impossible” to receive baptism. This is clearly erroneous.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: “EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.”
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[/b].”
God has commanded all men to receive baptism, and He does not command impossibilities.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: “... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do…”
Therefore, the reference to the unforeseen and impossible to avoid accident in the Catechism of Trent demonstrates, once again, that not everything it says is infallible. An infallible docuмent could not assert that accidents are unforeseen or impossible to avoid.
Even though the Catechism of Trent is not infallible in every sentence, as just proven, taken as a whole it is an excellent catechism which expresses the Catholic Faith accurately and effectively. But most importantly, the Catechism of Trent makes statement after statement clearly and unambiguously teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for all for salvation with no exceptions, thereby repeatedly excluding any idea of salvation without water baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divine and admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark that all are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the same.
“Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind. The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
-
Does anyone take the Dimond Bros. seriously?
Besides the Dimond Bros.?
They are basically caricatures of themselves.
They make for a good laugh, but not much else.
The best advice in dealing with the Dimonds is this old saying:
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig"
-
Well, Stevus, a lot of people's faith has been derailed by those 2 brothers.
People accept their heresies, and eventually become home aloners. I have a friend that unfortunately was derailed by them.
Another friend followed them also, and stayed away from mass and the sacraments for years! On her deathbed she recanted her heresies and received the last rites and apostolic blessing! :heretic:
-
Hietanen you are simply the parrot mouth piece of the Dimond brothers and I have already refuted all their/"your" arguments in my original post.
I hope that one day you can see past the errors and semantics that they/"you" employ to twist their/"your" way around the truth.
-
Hietanen you are simply the parrot mouth piece of the Dimond brothers and I have already refuted all their/"your" arguments in my original post.
I hope that one day you can see past the errors and semantics that they/"you" employ to twist their/"your" way around the truth.
You haven't refuted anything, you are just dishonest. Read the immediate above posts, and try to refute them, if you can.
You are exposed, you fraud!
EDIT: My latest immediate above post refutes your first post. God does not command impossibilities, etc...
-
:laugh1: Your style is very dimond bros like. You have even taken to their expertise in vitriol.
"To one who has Faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without Faith, no explanation is possible." St. Thomas Aquinas
-
:laugh1: Your style is very dimond bros like. You have even taken to their expertise in vitriol.
"To one who has Faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without Faith, no explanation is possible." St. Thomas Aquinas
No, you are just dishonest. It's a dogma of Faith under pain of anathema (for all who say otherwise), that God does not command impossibilities. This dogma blows away your entire (false) argument that the Catechism of Trent is infallible (for it teaches that baptism may be impossible to receive (as if God couldn't keep a person of good will alive until he achieved baptism, as have happened numerous people). This false statement from the Catechism of Trent, proves it's not infallible. But you just don't care, it seems, for you have already made up your mind that you are right, and that you cannot be wrong. This is the first mistake all heretic fall into (pride).
I can quote Dogma that refutes you clearly. You cannot quote anything at all (except from the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent, which already have been refuted). God sometimes let Popes and Councils declare something in ways so that people can misinterpret (as happened with Council of Trent). 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). Exactly this happened with the Greek schismatics who denied that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. (The first Council only declared that it proceeds from the Father, thus can we see how God let's somethings be defined in ways which isn't always so obvious).
However, what the Council of Trent really wanted to define, is clear, from the following:
“AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD[/I].”
Therefore. Even if one could misinterpret the first part of the Council, however, the second part confirms what it wanted to say, namely, “AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD[/I].”
What's even more striking, is not just the fact that the Council of Trent did not teach baptism of desire, it's the fact that no dogma from the Chair of Peter or a dogmatic Council ever, has taught it! What more proof, then, should a person need to be convinced? The only thing which has been affirmed dogmatically is the absolute necessity of water baptism. You know it, yet refuse to follow it! What willful blindness!
"There will be heresies", remember that. This have happened, just to expose the contemned people, such as yourself, who willingly and knowingly, deny what God has revealed. Yes, all who willingly deny a dogma of Faith, is a heretic and condemned, unless he amend himself and repents.
It should be understood that only people who live a bad life will fall into heresies.
"Heresies are only embraced by those who had they persevered in the faith, would be lost by the irregularity of their lives."
-St. Augustine
The first sin that every single heretic falls for before falling into heresy is always one or many of the seven mortal sins; namely, pride, lust, gluttony, envy, greed, sloth, and wrath. By reason of their mortal sins, the devil gains the possession of their conscience by justice, and is able to influence them into believing heresies. This is the sad truth behind heresy. A person who avoids mortal sins and follows the natural law, and also tries as much as he is able to avoid venial sins, will never fall into heresy, since holy angels guard him when he is in the state of grace.
We can never accept even the smallest venial sin. St. Teresa of Avila said, “For the love of God, take care never to grow careless about venial sin, however small … There is nothing small if it goes against so great a sovereign.” Deliberate venial sin weakens the spiritual powers, reduces our resistance to evil, and causes us to wander in our journey to the Cross. It is an illness of the soul, but not its supernatural death.
There are two situations in which we commit venial sin:
» We violate divine law with full or partial knowledge and consent.
» We disobey an objectively grave precept but due to ignorance we think the obligation is not serious.
1 John 5:16 “There is sin which is mortal … All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”
When a venial sin is enacted with full consent, the devil gets a hold over the person’s soul, where he is able to influence the soul more, and in a little while, he leads the soul into countless of mortal sins from this seemingly small venial sin, unless penance and amendment is made in reparation to God’s justice. A soul that continues in venial sin without quitting his sinful occasions deserve to fall into mortal sin since he rejected God’s commandments. If the soul continues committing venial sin, it will always end in mortal sin, so it’s very important to guard against mortal and venial sins at all times. Billions of poor souls are now suffering in the fires of hell, cursing their habitual venial sins that led them into committing mortal sins. If you wish to avoid joining them in the fires of hell, avoid every occasion of sin as if it were true poison.
All heretics, and all the other people who die outside the Church and Salvation, does not seek after the truth nor prays to God to enlighten them about the truth. These people rather refuse to believe, or only believe in what they think is of the true Faith, rejecting everything else. This is the heresy or mortal sin all the Protestants or Eastern “Orthodox,” etc, fall under, who in truth (many of them) do not fully understand what the Church teaches (yet obstinately refuses to believe in it whenever it is presented to them) or would refuse to believe in it if it ever were presented to them.
The problem for you, is that you are living in mortal sin. That is why you are a heretic, that is why you are blind, and why you cannot see were you are heading. For the devil is holding your heart, your eyes, your ears, your hands and your feet. He is directing your steps, at the moment, not God. And if you want to be freed, you must start to free your self first from mortal and venial sin. If you want help with this, you need to read this article (http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/), which expose some of the most common mortal sins almost all people today willfully live in (without the care to break free from).
Spiritual Information You Must Know About to be Saved (http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/)
-
There are two situations in which we commit venial sin:
» We violate divine law with full or partial knowledge and consent.
CORRECTION: The above written is a terrible mistake from our part. One cannot violate divine law (dogma) with full consent and be guilty of venial sin. To sin against divine law with full consent, always constitutes mortal sin and heresy.
It's good to see one's mistakes, and correct them.
-
This false statement from the Catechism of Trent, proves it's not infallible.
You do not need to say this. The Catechism of Trent, like Saint Thomas before it, was perhaps talking about null sets, that is, sets with no members, when it was discussing Baptism of Desire and/or Blood. While both are theological hypotheticals, neither ever occurs in reality, for reasons you have stated. Adopting this view will allow you to fully retain the sacramental theology of Saint Thomas.
-
I agree with stevus and Emerentiana. The Diamond Brothers can't be taken very seriously. I might see one or two good things from them once in a while, but mostly they go overboard. They act as if they're the only ones who are going to Heaven. They cut down the SSPX, FSSP, Mother Angelica, wow, there's nothing left! Talk about dogmatic sedes...
-
There are two situations in which we commit venial sin:
» We violate divine law with full or partial knowledge and consent.
CORRECTION: The above written is a terrible mistake from our part. One cannot violate divine law (dogma) with full consent and be guilty of venial sin. To sin against divine law with full consent, always constitutes mortal sin and heresy.
It's good to see one's mistakes, and correct them.
After further looking in to the subject. I believe now there was nothing wrong with the first statement above. I will explain how I come to such a conclusion.
Divine Law are all laws coming from God through Revelation, such as the bible. However, it does not always denote Dogma (as I thought), which a person never can violate with either full or partial consent without being guilty of mortal sin.
Gluttony is a mortal sin when one goes beyond a certain limit that cannot be excused, but if a person willingly and knowingly eat a little to much, and thus go against the Divine Law, did he necessarily commit mortal sin of gluttony? No, it does not mean so. Similarly, if a person gets angry, did it mean he necessarily committed a mortal sin? No, but if he overreacted and lost his charity in his wrath and wanted evil upon his neighbor, then he committed mortal sin. But if these serious elements was lacking in a person wrath, it is not considered a mortal sin. The same applies to many other sins that are venial only, if the malicious or evil intents are lacking in them, even if one violates them knowingly.
Thus, a person can violate divine law (excluding dogma, and the natural law) with full consent and only be guilty of venial sin (if the malicious intent are lacking).
With that said. Jehanne, I have no idea what you are talking about, seriously. It would be easier just to accept the dogmas. But really, almost all people here seem to do just he opposite, coming up with all kinds of ridiculous excuses (because they know they have nothing in reponse with the facts which have been presented). Bad will is the problem, and dishonesty. What can be said towards such, but the following: "Come to me, all ye who labour and are burdened, and I will give you rest." - (Jesus Matthew 11:28)
Cast of your heavy burdens of bad will, and accept Christ. It's really easy.
-
There are two situations in which we commit venial sin:
» We violate divine law with full or partial knowledge and consent.
CORRECTION: The above written is a terrible mistake from our part. One cannot violate divine law (dogma) with full consent and be guilty of venial sin. To sin against divine law with full consent, always constitutes mortal sin and heresy.
It's good to see one's mistakes, and correct them.
After further looking in to the subject. I believe now there was nothing wrong with the first statement above. I will explain how I come to such a conclusion.
Divine Law are all laws coming from God through Revelation, such as the bible. However, it does not always denote Dogma (as I thought), which a person never can violate with either full or partial consent without being guilty of mortal sin.
Gluttony is a mortal sin when one goes beyond a certain limit that cannot be excused, but if a person willingly and knowingly eat a little to much, and thus go against the Divine Law, did he necessarily commit mortal sin of gluttony? No, it does not mean so. Similarly, if a person gets angry, did it mean he necessarily committed a mortal sin? No, but if he overreacted and lost his charity in his wrath and wanted evil upon his neighbor, then he committed mortal sin. But if these serious elements was lacking in a person wrath, it is not considered a mortal sin. The same applies to many other sins that are venial only, if the malicious or evil intents are lacking in them, even if one violates them knowingly.
Thus, a person can violate divine law (excluding dogma, and the natural law) with full consent and only be guilty of venial sin (if the malicious intent are lacking).
With that said. Jehanne, I have no idea what you are talking about, seriously. It would be easier just to accept the dogmas. But really, almost all people here seem to do just he opposite, coming up with all kinds of ridiculous excuses (because they know they have nothing in reponse with the facts which have been presented). Bad will is the problem, and dishonesty. What can be said towards such, but the following: "Come to me, all ye who labour and are burdened, and I will give you rest." - (Jesus Matthew 11:28)
Cast of your heavy burdens of bad will, and accept Christ. It's really easy.
What I am saying is that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are possible, but they just never happen.
-
What I am saying is that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are possible, but they just never happen.
There are a baptism of blood, but only for people who have already received water baptism. That is martyrdom. However, even of a person sheds blood for Christ, it profit him nothing if he died outside the Church and Salvation (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,”)[/b].
There is also a baptism of desire, in which a person who have not yet received baptism, desires baptism (without this desire he cannot actually lawfully be baptized, even though its valid!). But this desire in no way profit him unto Salvation, until he actually have received it (in belief in the Trinity and Incarnation). That is a dogmatic fact!
Also, its a dogma of Faith that only real water baptism incorporates a person into the Church and Salvation! Therefore, there cannot exist a baptism of blood or desire unto salvation for a person who dies without water baptism, that is a dogmatic fact!
The Sacrament of Baptism is the only Way into the Church
The Catholic Church has always taught that receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is the only way into Christ’s Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “But in fact this sacrament [Penance] is seen to differ in many respects from baptism. For, apart from the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, are totally distinct, there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”
This definition is particularly significant because it proves that only through water baptism is one incorporated into the Body of the Church.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism[/u], 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.”
So, it's perfectly clear, if we are honest with ourselves. Baptism of blood/desire (unto salvation), is not the Catholic position.
-
• The Dogmatic Council of Trent
"By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Fourth Chapter, A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
• The 1917 Code of Canon Law
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239) 1917 Code of Canon Law
• Pope Pius X, Catechism of Christian Doctrine
"A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church." Pope St. Pius X, Catechism of Christian Doctrine
• Catechism of Pope St. Pius X
"17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized
• Baltimore Catechism
Q.157 How many kinds of baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of baptism: baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
Q. 159 What is baptism of desrire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Q. 160 What is baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.
Q.161 Is baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive baptism of water.
• St. Thomas Aquinas, Suma Theologica
"The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed. (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57)" St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
• St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church reinforces the same teachings of the Council of Trent that Dimond tries to undermine.
“Baptism, therefore, coming from the Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of Desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things, accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of Desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, de presbytero non baptizato and of the Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire or it”.
Baptism of Blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opera operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [non ita stricte] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. This is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of Blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive,” (Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn.95-7.)
• Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore
"Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." Encyclical On Promotion of False Doctrines (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore) by Pope Pius IX, 1863
• Moral Theology, Fr Heribert Jone
No. 470 “Baptism of water is necessary for the attainment of salvation as an indispensable means for reaching that end. Only in exceptional cases can the Baptism of desire or of blood take its place.”
• Dr. Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
“In case of emergency, Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood.” (p.356)
• Denzinger Sources of Catholic Dogma
1. Baptism of Desire (an unbaptized priest) *
388 [From the letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona, of uncertain time]
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine's "City of God" * where among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian * where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers' and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned.
CELESTINE II 1143-1144 Lucius II 1144-1145
2. The Minister of Baptism and the Baptism of Spirit*
[From the letter "Debitum pastoralis officii" to Berthold,
the Bishop of Metz, August 28, 1206]
413 - You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: "I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen."
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the Apostles: "Go baptize all nations in the name etc." [cf. Matt. 28:19], the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another. . . . If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.
• St. Cyril of Jerusalem
“If a person has not been baptised he cannot be saved, always excepting martyrs, who receive the Kingdom without water. Our Saviour who redeemed the world through the Cross, sent forth blood and water from his pierced side; so that in time of peace men might be saved by water, and in time of persecution by their own blood.”
• St. Ambrose
St. Ambrose said regarding the Emperor Valentinian, who died as a catechumen before St. Ambrose could baptise him, “Will he not then receive the grace which he desired and obtain what he asked for? Did he not court unpopularity on the very day before his death, by putting Christ before men on the question of the pagan temples? If he had the spirit of Christ, did he not receive the Grace of Christ? If the martyrs are cleansed in their blood, then so is he in his good will and piety.”
• St. Cyprian
According to St. Cyprian, the catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive “the glorious and most sublime blood-Baptism”
• St. Emerentiana the catechumen Martyr.
This innocent virgin was baptised in her own blood through martyrdom as a catechumen and she is infallibly listed among the Saints of Heaven. Canonisation is infallible and the Roman Breviary in which she is listed is regarded without error since it is part of the promulgated Liturgy of the Church.
• St. Alban the catechumen Martyr.
St. Alban was martyred after he had studied about the Christian Faith and after he had renounced paganism but before he had the chance to be Baptised with water. The account is given by St. Bede who is not only a canonised Saint but a Doctor of the Church meaning his account and writings have been subjected to double scrutiny by the Church.
Is not canonisation infallible and does it not mean the person is in Heaven and how could this be so if the person was not baptised?
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.
One can’t help but notice the rashness in Peter Dimond’s labelling of all those who disagree with him in some way as heretics. That would mean that the above list all taught heresies. Could this be so? Or could Dimond be the heretic himself?
When one pictures Peter Dimond, one cannot help but see some self appointed bloviating “prophet” of doom :geezer:with a mild to serious case of Tourettes syndrome bursting forth with the “heretic, heretic” cry at irregular intervals. :cussing:
He could be seen in Traditional circles as the boy who cried wolf only he is the man who cried heretic and by the time he finds the discernment to see the real heretic it may be too late.
Now I ask, who is Peter Dimond to question Dogmatic teachings, Doctors and Saints as if he were some authority?
I will leave it to the honest truth seeking reader as to who they put their Faith in. Do we trust the teachings of Holy Saints who we know without a doubt are with Our Lord in Heaven or do we trust a fallible pitiable and deceitful man who disregards with such ease, the Doctors and Saints.
It is clear by his writings that he has as much regard for the Doctors and Saints as Martin Luther had for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
-
One could also produce a "laundry list" docuмenting the absolute necessity of baptism of infants, with equivalent statements that if they die without it that they will be forever deprived of Heaven, the Beatific Vision. Such a list has, however, not stopped modern-day theologians from denying the Limbo of the Children. So, in that respect, Father Feeney is not the only theologian to be innovating over the past century.
As I said above, one can believe in both Baptism of Desire & Blood without believing that they ever happen, or if they do happen, they happen very rarely, which is practically equivalent to saying that they never happen. The Church, at least in its traditional theology, never put a "quota" on those numbers.
If Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are possible, yet never occur in reality (through the Providence of the One and Triune God), then I do not know how one can say that Father Feeney was fundamental wrong, unless you want to do theological "hair splitting."
-
As I said above, one can believe in both Baptism of Desire & Blood without believing that they ever happen, or if they do happen, they happen very rarely, which is practically equivalent to saying that they never happen. The Church, at least in its traditional theology, never put a "quota" on those numbers.
If Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are possible, yet never occur in reality (through the Providence of the One and Triune God), then I do not know how one can say that Father Feeney was fundamental wrong, unless you want to do theological "hair splitting."
Yes I can see that BOD and BOB would not be common occurances though at the same time we don't know what happens in Communist countries like China where many have died for the Faith and may not have been recorded.
To me it does not make sense to say they happen very rarely, which is practically equivalent to saying that they never happen
Rarely and never are not the same thing.
It is a proven fact that BOD and BOB have occurred in the past with the example of the Catechumen martyrs who the Church have infallibly canonised.
How then can we say If Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are possible, yet never occur in reality (through the Providence of the One and Triune God), then I do not know how one can say that Father Feeney was fundamental wrong, unless you want to do theological "hair splitting."
?
BOB and BOD may occur rarely though they are a reality and no I don't believe the difference between rarely and never is "hair splitting".
:smile:
-
It is de fide that "by anyone whatsoever" the Sacrament of Baptism can be administered (Canon 1, Lateran IV), which means that 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.
-
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!
-
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."
-
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.
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
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
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.
-
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?"
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!).
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
-
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?"
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.
-
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?"
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?
-
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?"
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.
-
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/
-
The church does not teach this, Jehene. The Feenyites do along with the Diamond Brothers. :heretic:
-
OOOOOOOOOps, sorry, my post was directed to Heitanen!
-
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.)
-
Do you mean David Landry? Hes been banned from here twice!
-
Do you mean David Landry? Hes been banned from here twice!
Yes.
-
Hietanen said:
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.
-
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 ).
-
Something else about Feeneyites -- they almost all think of each other as heretics. Jehanne is basically a Feeneyite ( he came up with his own little spin on the system, admittedly, to try to reconcile the impossible contradictions his position puts him in ) yet he is a wretched heretic in the eyes of Hietanen. Then there are others who are against David Landry or the Dimonds or both.
-
Hietanen said:
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.
Ha, ha..."soft touch," I like that. I consider myself a neo-Feeneyite, in that I believe Father Feeney's essential ideas and those of Saint Thomas to be fully reconcilable. It isn't that I think that I am right; rather, it is that I do not think that everyone can be wrong. This is the big problem that I have with modernistic theology (which, I think, at its core, is atheism with Catholic spirituality on top -- kind of like the blizzard Dairy Queen cake that my wife had for her birthday here recently!) is that it departs from the manifest understanding of its predecessors. Saint Vincent of Lérins did not condemn any development in Catholic theology, just the kind that was contradictory to that which came before it.
-
Tell me, people, why do you say I am self righteous, when I can prove my cause with dogma?
Please, tell me one saint that has taught NFP, or one pope (excluding Pope Pius XII, who is the only one, and that in a fallible capacity), that has taught NFP authoritatively.
You cannot find anything. You know it. You are just liars, heretics and of bad will. I have already quoted an infallible dogma condemning all forms of NFP, what ever name it goes under - whenever the intention is to avoid conception, as with standard days.
To have relations only during the infertile periods, while avoiding relations during all fertile periods, is contraception, as any honest person will agree with, but that is hard to find nowadays. To take effort in finding out just what days the wife is infertile, with thermometers, charts, etc. just to have relations to avoid conception, is obviously unnatural behavior, and was unheard of before in Church history. That's why most people had 8-20 kids in the older days. You dishonest people! Remember, few are Saved, most people are damned. Many people right here, prove this to be very true!
Again, if you cannot prove your case with dogma, then don't hold to your erroneous position, as if it were the truth, when it clearly is not.
You were also wondering if I was Landry. No, I am not. But he is a heretic, though, as you probably already know.
About "Most Holy Family Monastery", they are also heretics, and have been dealt with here:
http://www.catholic-saints.net/heretics/most-holy-family-monastery-exposed.php
-
To have relations only during the infertile periods, while avoiding relations during all fertile periods, is contraception, as any honest person will agree with, but that is hard to find nowadays.
To have relations with one's wife when she is pregnant is, technically, a form of "contraception," also.
-
To have relations only during the infertile periods, while avoiding relations during all fertile periods, is contraception, as any honest person will agree with, but that is hard to find nowadays.
To have relations with one's wife when she is pregnant is, technically, a form of "contraception," also.
Stop being of bad will, stop excuse your mortal sins. You cannot quote anything, not a saint, not a pope, not a council, to approve of your mortally sinful practices. Yet do you follow it as if it was the truth. You are rejecting God, and following traditions of men.
Relations during pregnancy is lawful (although not meritorious), since the couples in question has worked to fulfill the primary purpose of marriage, child bearing. The only reason it is lawful, is because of human weakness and concupiscence. The best thing, however, is to remain chaste during the entire pregnancy, since the wife cannot become pregnant again. Chastity is angelic, lust is not.
But you, on the other hand, work and put an effort in avoiding the primary purpose of marriage, child bearing. So, your comparison was not even remotely similar - for you don't even want children or to fulfill the primary purpose of marriage to begin with.
You are in fact a murderer. Every child God would have wanted to send you, but that you killed though your mortal sins of child avoidance, will you be accused of having murdered.
-
Hietanen said:
Stop being of bad will, stop excuse your mortal sins. You cannot quote anything, not a saint, not a pope,
Have you forgotten Pius XII already after just a couple of posts?
Something else that finally helped me is realizing that the rhythm method was well-publicized, everyone knew Catholics used it, but the Popes never said anything against it. And then Pius XII gave it the final seal of approval. I think it was my, let's say, lack of appreciation of Pius XII's stewardship that resulted in my blind spot on this one.
That being said, Jehanne has to have grave reasons. That's between him and his priest.
-
Hietanen said:
Stop being of bad will, stop excuse your mortal sins. You cannot quote anything, not a saint, not a pope,
Have you forgotten Pius XII already after just a couple of posts?
Must I repeat my self?
Please, tell me one saint that has taught NFP, or one pope (excluding Pope Pius XII, who is the only one, and that in a fallible capacity), that has taught NFP authoritatively.
You cannot find anything. You know it. You are just liars, heretics and of bad will. I have already quoted an infallible dogma condemning all forms of NFP, what ever name it goes under.
To have relations only during the infertile periods, while avoiding relations during all fertile periods, is contraception, as any honest person will agree with, but that is hard to find nowadays. To take effort in finding out just what days the wife is infertile, with thermometers, charts, etc. just to have relations to avoid conception, is obviously unnatural behavior, and was unheard of before in Church history. That's why most people had 8-20 kids in the older days. You dishonest people! Remember, few are Saved, most people are damned. Many people right here, prove this to be very true!
Again, if you cannot prove your case with dogma, then don't hold to your erroneous position, as if it were the truth, when it clearly is not.
You were also wondering if I was Landry. No, I am not. But he is a heretic, though, as you probably already know.
About "Most Holy Family Monastery", they are also heretics, and have been dealt with here:
http://www.catholic-saints.net/heretics/most-holy-family-monastery-exposed.php
Something else that finally helped me is realizing that the rhythm method was well-publicized, everyone knew Catholics used it, but the Popes never said anything against it. And then Pius XII gave it the final seal of approval.
Argument of silence is hardly an argument at all. Pope Pius XII was a very weak Pope, who allowed heresy to flourish during his reign. So just because he never condemned it, as his immediate predecessor (Pope Pius XI), says nothing. Why? Because we already have a dogma condemning this sinful behavior. But you people couldn't care about that.
Please, tell me, why do you people reject the dogmas all the time?
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).”
I think it was my, let's say, lack of appreciation of Pius XII's stewardship that resulted in my blind spot on this one.
Dogma overrules all your pathetic arguments. Dogma is law. Dogma is unchangeable. Dogma is truths fallen from Heaven, directly from God. Why, then, do you reject them, clinging unto everything else? Why? Because it fits your sinful lifestyle, that's why!
Raul, it's perfectly clear. It's your sinful lifestyle that made you fall into countless of heresies and mortal sins, that's why, and nothing but why. If you want to come out of your heresies, you need first to change your way of life. Please, read this article (http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/), and find out if you live in some deliberate mortal sin:
Spiritual Information You Must Know About to be Saved (http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/)
-
Married couples have a divine right not to have sex, if both agree to it, provided, of course, that relationship is at least consummated. Never in Magisterial teaching has it ever been proclaimed that, "One must have sex with one's spouse once a day, every day, or at least once a week, with no sex in a month being a mortal sin."
Consider the Crusades. Married men went off to war, to fight for Christendom. Was that a mortal sin? They were not having sex with their wives, and vice-a-versa (we hope at least!)
-
Married couples have a divine right not to have sex, if both agree to it, provided, of course, that relationship is at least consummated. Never in Magisterial teaching has it ever been proclaimed that, "One must have sex with one's spouse once a day, every day, or at least once a week, with no sex in a month being a mortal sin."
Consider the Crusades. Married men went off to war, to fight for Christendom. Was that a mortal sin? They were not having sex with their wives, and vice-a-versa (we hope at least!)
I have no idea what you are talking about or what it had to do with my previous post. You are obviously delirious and have nothing reasonable to say. This is because you obviously are wrong, and you know about it.
Instead of answering simple questions or answering any of my arguments, you are coming up with new irrelevant things all along. God have left you in such spiritual blindness since you are rejecting His grace. Yes you are resisting the truth as much as possible.
Although you are asking irrelevant questions just to dodge my questions? I will still answer them for you.
No, if the husband goes on a Crusade, both parties must remain chaste. The Church is above the marriage, and the Church affairs (the salvation of souls) has priority before the marriage debt. I have read this or a precise like answer in the Summa Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas, don't recall where thought.
Yes, married couples must give to one another when they demand it, because of concupiscence and human weakness (this is thus nothing meritorious, but allowed to avoid a greater evil). But they are never allowed to make calculations by using charts or thermometers, in order to avoid conception. This is why most families before were very large. They let God decide the number of their children. However, if both couples consents on living chaste, they can do so, until one of the party wants to resume the marriage purpose, the begetting of children.
So, now when I have answered your irrelevant question, maybe you can answer mine?
-
Married couples have a divine right not to have sex, if both agree to it, provided, of course, that relationship is at least consummated. Never in Magisterial teaching has it ever been proclaimed that, "One must have sex with one's spouse once a day, every day, or at least once a week, with no sex in a month being a mortal sin."
Consider the Crusades. Married men went off to war, to fight for Christendom. Was that a mortal sin? They were not having sex with their wives, and vice-a-versa (we hope at least!)
I have no idea what you are talking about or what it had to do with my previous post. You are obviously delirious and have nothing reasonable to say. This is because you obviously are wrong, and you know about it.
Instead of answering simple questions or answering any of my arguments, you are coming up with new irrelevant things all along. God have left you in such spiritual blindness since you are rejecting His grace. Yes you are resisting the truth as much as possible.
Although you are asking irrelevant questions just to dodge my questions? I will still answer them for you.
No, if the husband goes on a Crusade, both parties must remain chaste. The Church is above the marriage, and the Church affairs (the salvation of souls) has priority before the marriage debt. I have read this or a precise like answer in the Summa Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas, don't recall where thought.
Yes, married couples must give to one another when they demand it, because of concupiscence and human weakness (this is thus nothing meritorious, but allowed to avoid a greater evil). But they are never allowed to make calculations by using charts or thermometers, in order to avoid conception. This is why most families before were very large. They let God decide the number of their children. However, if both couples consents on living chaste, they can do so, until one of the party wants to resume the marriage purpose, the begetting of children.
So, now when I have answered your irrelevant question, maybe you can answer mine?
I do not use charts, thermometers, etc., unless, I am drunk and delirious. :wine-drinking: Seriously, I agree, that NFP, if refined to a precise science is sinful. However, having sex with one's spouse during certain times of the month and not others, sorry, don't see it. BTW, please provide one Magisterial and/or theological reference that teaches that married couples should abstain during pregnancy.
-
The church teaches that couples that want to use natural family planning must GET PERMISSION from a priest before doing so.
The reasons are :
Women's health bad or life in jeopardy with another pregnancy
Financial problems
or any reason the priest deems worthy to grant the permission.
Otherwise, natural family planning cannot be practiced b]
-
Hietanen said:
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.
Right, Raoul!!!!! :applause:
-
Why did Pius XII use the term eugenics in connection with his saying that NFP was lawful?
-
I do not use charts, thermometers, etc., unless, I am drunk and delirious. :wine-drinking: Seriously, I agree, that NFP, if refined to a precise science is sinful. However, having sex with one's spouse during certain times of the month and not others, sorry, don't see it.
Even if not refined to a precise science with charts and thermometers, it is still sinful if both husband and wife make a deliberate plan, scheme or schedule that they follow, resulting in husband and wife having relations only during the known infertile periods, while avoiding the fertile periods.
You don't want to have children, that's why you deliberately avoids the fertile periods. Also, you couldn't possibly know about your wifes infertile periods unless you both were in on it. Thus, have you and your wife made up a scheme of your own - a science in keeping track of the infertile periods - maybe not with thermometers or charts - but with full consent of your mind; for a deliberate plan is made. When a deliberate plan is made in avoiding children, the mortal sin of contraception occurs. This is a dogma.
Please, now to my question, that you have avoided all along. Why, Jehanne, and everyone else on this thread, do you deny this dogma that condemn the sinful behavior you defend?
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).”
BTW, please provide one Magisterial and/or theological reference that teaches that married couples should abstain during pregnancy.
I never said you must abstain from each other during pregnancy. I said, spouses should abstain during pregnancy. That is the best thing, and that is what perfect couples do, who only does what is necessary, but nothing beyond that. As I have said before, it is lawful, because of human weakness and concupiscence, and to avoid a greater evil.
The church teaches that couples that want to use natural family planning must GET PERMISSION from a priest before doing so.
The reasons are :
Women's health bad or life in jeopardy with another pregnancy
Financial problems
or any reason the priest deems worthy to grant the permission.
Otherwise, natural family planning cannot be practiced
No, you are clearly wrong. The Pope even mentions those instances that you brought forward and condemn people who used these excuses.
Natural Family Planning is contraception. Therefore, it cannot be practiced for any reason. Pope Pius XI condemned contraception for any reason, no matter how grave, specifically mentioning the medical excuse of “difficulties… on the part of the mother” and the economic excuse of “difficulties… on the part of family circuмstances.”
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: “Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties, whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circuмstances. But, no reason, however grave, may be put forward by 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 power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
Please. Why do you reject dogma all the time? And, where is your faith in God?
GOD FEEDS THE BIRDS WHICH NEITHER REAP NOR SOW
“And he will love thee and multiply thee, and will bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy vintage, thy oil, and thy herds, and the flocks of thy sheep upon the land, for which he swore to thy fathers that he would give it thee.” (Deut. 7:13)
The word of God condemns anyone who attempts to excuse the mortal sin of contraception for any reason, one being economic. Those who use the economic excuse faithlessly say that if they have too many children they will not be able to feed or clothe them, or provide their other necessities. These fallen-away Catholics do not really believe in the word and power of God.
“Therefore I say to you: Be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. The life is more than the meat: and the body is more than the raiment. Consider the ravens, for they sow not, neither do they reap, neither have they storehouse nor barn, and God feedeth them. How much are you more valuable than they? …Consider the lilies, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these. Now, if God clothe in this manner the grass that is to-day in the field and to-morrow is cast into the oven: how much more you, O ye of little faith? …seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Lk. 12:22-24, 27-28, 31)
Dear reader, you will either truly believe in the word of God or not. It does no good to say you believe while your actions prove otherwise. “Let us not love in word nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth.” (1Jn. 3:18) Your professed faith is tested when it comes time to put it into action. “Faith without works is dead. (Ja. 2:20) Be ye doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” (Ja. 1:22) Only those are blessed who hear the word of God and keep it. “Blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it.” (Lk. 11:28) Do you really believe God can feed, clothe, and shelter your family no matter how big it is?
Lactantius, Divine Institutes 6:20 A.D. 307: “[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . .or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife.”
Woe to faithless fallen-away Catholics who say they cannot feed their families due to difficult economic conditions, implying God cannot provide for them. Nothing is impossible with God.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: “We are deeply touched by the sufferings of those parents who, in extreme want, experience great difficulty in rearing their children. However, they should take care lest the calamitous state of their external affairs should be the occasion for a much more calamitous error. No difficulty can arise that justifies putting aside the law of God which prohibits all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circuмstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the Grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted. This truth of Christian faith is expressed by the teaching of the Council of Trent: “Let no one be so rash as to assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able that He may help you”.
-
Hietanen: 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."
Again, no "condemnation" about having sex when your wife is menstruating, even though you both know that there is NO chance that she will get pregnant. I think that the Pope is talking about "withdrawal," but just does not want to put that "description" into a Magisterial text. :smile:
-
No, you are clearly wrong. The Pope even mentions those instances that you brought forward and condemn people who used these excuses. Natural Family Planning is contraception. Therefore, it cannot be practiced for any reason. Pope Pius XI condemned contraception for any reason, no matter how grave, specifically mentioning the medical excuse of “difficulties… on the part of the mother” and the economic excuse of “difficulties… on the part of family circuмstances.”
Pius XI condemned artificial birth control and abortion in Casti connubii. The conjugal act is a single act. ABC frustrates that act.
Now please go away.
-
Again, no "condemnation" about having sex when your wife is menstruating, even though you both know that there is NO chance that she will get pregnant. I think that the Pope is talking about "withdrawal," but just does not want to put that "description" into a Magisterial text. :smile:
Pius XI condemned artificial birth control and abortion in Casti connubii. The conjugal act is a single act. ABC frustrates that act.
Now please go away.
The Pope mentioned the natural infertile periods specifically, and said one could use his right then too, but he never said one could have relations only during the infertile periods while avoiding relations during the known fertile periods. To do so would be contraception.
The key phrase is deliberate. When a deliberate plan is made to avoid children, the mortal sin of contraception occurs. It's not a deliberate plan or contraception to have relations with your wife during known infertile periods so long as your intention is NOT to avoid children. The sin thus lies in the intent. Contraception is thus in your mind or heart, and occurs when you wish for no children during relations. When your intention is to avoid children during relations, God judge this as an contraceptive act in the very same way as he would judge you to be an adulterer if you cherished such (adulterous) thoughts in your mind.
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[/u] natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."
That is exactly what the Pope condemns. The deliberate plan. So it does not matter what you call it, when you by intention is found guilty in the (Heavenly) court of law.
It is intrinsically evil when spouses plan to have sɛҳuąƖ relations while also having planned to make conception impossible. It does not matter in what way the spouses plan to prevent conception. The principle is the same in all cases—the deliberate prevention of conception (child bearing) by the spouses while engaging in the marital act. The goal of contraception is to eliminate the possibility of conception while engaging in the marital act. Contraception takes place during the act by physical obstruction, or before the act by obstructing the fertile period by planning to only commit the act during the infertile period. In both cases the goal of the plan is to perform the sɛҳuąƖ act without the possibility of conception. Guilt of mortal sin occurs when these two conditions are met, either in the mind or in the act. Our Lord teaches us that all sin proceeds from the heart, and manifests itself in men’s actions. “The things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.” (Mt. 15:11, 18-19)
What is a plan? A plan is the words of a man that proceed from his mouth that come forth from his heart that he seeks to put into action. The root of every plan is in the heart. What is in the heart of spouses who plan to use physical contraceptive devices during the marital act, or plan to withdraw so as to make conception improbable, or plan to have marital relations only during the infertile period? In the heart of these spouses is the desire to have marital relations while having deliberately planned to prevent conception. Pope Pius XI describes what is in their heart, he says, “Offspring… they say is to be carefully avoided by married people… by frustrating the marriage act… [They] deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose.” Sin originates from what is in the heart. I ask spouses who practice NFP, “What is in your heart when you practice NFP?” While engaging in the marital act, after having planned to do so only during the infertile period, ask yourself in the heat of your lust, “Am I not committing this very act with the explicit, deliberate, premeditated planned intention of preventing conception while fulfilling my lust?” If your wish or prayer is to have relations and that conception does not occur, then you committed the mortal sin of contraception.
St. Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]: “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility… Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife.”
-
On the Question of Natural Family Planning
http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.html
-
Re: Trent Session VI, Chapter IV, on the justification of the sinner:
. . . quae quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest . . .
My question was:
Would it not be true that, that if the Latin locution at issue, can be correctly rendered in English as, "without the laver of regeneration or else its desire"; OR as, ""without the laver of regeneration or at least its desire", this does not support the position that justification requires sacramental Baptism with water?
The answer I received was:
1) "Can be rendered" does not mean "must be rendered"
2) Should be rendered in a manner that accords with previous definitions, since, as you know they are irreformable, and the Council of the Vatican specifically used the words "of themselves", meaning that the words themselves of the definition are to be held in the very same sense they were declared.
3) If you did render it that way, you still have to look at what the definition was stating. Remember, Latin is not like English, in that it lacks definitive articles ("the", "these", "those"), and also the grammar structure is much more efficient than English, using noun declension, etc. As such, a statement must be taken for what it is saying grammatically.
You will see why this is so important in three paragraphs:
In the case of Session 6, Chapter 4, Trent, the definition states conditions under which justification does not take place in the impious. That is the key that so many people either don't get or refuse to get. Surely you have heard or seen the controversy where people use "except through" as a translation for sine, but if you have done your homework, it is very easy to know that sine has but one meaning when used as a preposition, as it was in Trent, which can be expressed by English words, such as "outside of", "without". It does not mean "except through".
The two choices of words make a world of difference. In the one case, the true case, the decree talks things that must be absent, that must be sine in order for justification to be non potest. But with the illogical and untenable "except through" mistranslation (which would not be sine, but would absolutely require the word per), changes the meaning of the definition into things with which it must take place.
Here it is: Because the definition took the vantage point of things that must not be missing, it is saying this: "Here is how justification is impossible (non potest): no regeneration, or at least no desire."
This is simple, you just have to admit that the qualifying clause of the whole statement is non potest, and that sine means "without". These are not complex theological arguments, but simple "look it up in a dictionary and there's your answer" problems.
My response then was: All I know is that, if I had been composing that sentence in English as its original language, I would have written, 'without the laver or regeneration nor its desire'; or, being even more careful, I would have written, 'without the laver of regeneration nor without its desire'. That is, to make it understood that justification required both sacramental Baptism with water and the desire for sacramental Baptism. If that was what the Council intended.
This agrees with Hietanen's grammatical analysis of the subject locution, i.e., as he illustrated with his example, "A marriage cannot take place without a bride or a groom": in which the meaning is obviously that both a bride and a groom are necessary.
Anyone who cares to comment, please do. Thank you.
-
On the Question of Natural Family Planning
http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.html
It's amazing how you people only cling to fallible sources, denying the infallible. It's called bad will. Also, it should be revealing for honest people, that these demonic teachings which tries to make God to a pimp, was unheard of before in the Church, prior to the end of the world (when certain heretics and people outside of the Church, spread false doctrines and false teachings). This fact alone (that these demonic teachings which tries to justify child avoidance or child murder, and mortal sins of lust), that it was unheard of since the creation of the world till the last 150 years or so, should, for any honest person, tell him it's false.
But, however , I will respond to the arguments brought forward in the article.
The evidence is neither official nor certified as authentic
Mark. A. Pivarunas'- main evidence that defends NFP is neither infallible nor official nor certified as authentic. It is also ambiguous and contradictory.
There was a need in the Church for an organ that contained the official decrees and responses from the Roman Congregations because many decrees and responses were fraudulent or doubtful.
Therefore, the Roman Congregations needed an official organ in which to publish their decrees and responses that would guarantee authenticity. Authentic and official decrees and responses from the Roman Congregations are found in the Acta Sanctae Sedis (ASS) from 1904 to 1908 and in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) from 1909 onward:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, Acta Sanctae Sedis: ―A Roman monthly publication containing the principal public docuмents issued by the Pope, directly or through the Roman Congregations. It was begun in 1865, under the title of ‘Acta Sanctæ Sedis in compendium redacta, etc.‘, and was declared, 23 May, 1904, an organ of the Holy See to the extent that all docuмents printed in it are ‘authentic and official.‘…
On the Roman Congregations: Editors of periodicals on ecclesiastical subjects have been allowed for several years back to publish in their magazines the acts of the Congregations, and one of these periodicals, Acta Sanctae Sedis, has received the privilege of being declared ‘authentic and official for publishing the acts of the Apostolic See‘ (S.C. de Prop. Fid., 23 May, 1904).
The 1917 Code of Canon Law: ―Canon 9: The laws issued by the Holy See are promulgated by being published in the official organ of the Holy See, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless in particular cases another mode of promulgation is prescribed….
A Practical Commentary… : ―The publication of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis began in January, 1909, and from the very beginning it was declared the official organ of the Holy See. [Footnote: The Constitution ‘Promulgandi‘ of Pius X, Sept. 29, 1908; Acta Ap. Sedis, I, 5.]
Consequently, any so-called Holy Office decree or response that exists outside these organs, the ASS from 1904 and the AAS from 1909, is not certified as authentic and is not official. (Hereafter I will simply refer to these docuмents as unofficial while understanding that they are also not certified as authentic.) Hence, Mark. A. Pivarunas‘ argument has no credibility because it rests on responses that are not official and cannot be certified as authentic.
Official Roman Congregations’ decrees and responses are also fallible
Even if Mark. A. Pivarunas‘ produced official Roman Congregations‘ decrees or responses defending NFP, that does not help his case because they are also fallible:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Infallibility: ―Proof of Papal Infallibility - The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements...
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Acts of the Roman Congregations: ―…(b) Authority of doctrinal decrees - Doctrinal decrees are not of themselves infallible; the prerogative of infallibility cannot be communicated to the Congregations by the Pope.
Mark. A. Pivarunas‘, I believe, would agree with this; consequently, he would also have to believe that the unofficial evidence that he uses to defend NFP is likewise fallible.
The 1853 response
The source
The 1853 response is one such piece of incredible evidence. The source quoted, a local moral theology book, is not a first hand source for a Sacred Penitentiary (a Roman Congregation) response. Therefore, it is an unofficial and fallible response. And even if it were an official response, it would still be fallible. That is the main point: the evidence is fallible.
The meaning
The meaning of the response is ambiguous. While it has two interpretations, heretical and orthodox, one cannot be certain of either:
Mark A. Pivarunas ― The very concept of “rhythm” was first considered by the Catholic Church in 1853. The Bishop of Amiens, France, submitted the following question to the Sacred Penitentiary:
―[Q.] “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?“
―The Vatican reply was,
―[A.] “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.“
The first part of the response seems to allow for the contraceptive method of NFP; but the second part does not by saying the spouses can ―do nothing that impedes generation.
The purpose of NFP is to impede generation when the spouses have conjugal relations. If spouses come together only during the infertile period with the purpose of preventing conception, then they are attempting to impede generation. Therefore, the heretical first part of the response contradicts the orthodox second part.
I will now present a possible orthodox interpretation:
First: There is a legitimate reason that spouses may want to know when the wife is fertile and infertile so that they can make a greater effort to have conjugal relations during the wife‘s fertile period because of the greater probability of conception.
Second: There are non-sinful reasons that spouses cannot have relations during known fertile periods, such as the husband is on a business trip or one spouse is sick, etc. Because they did not deliberately impede the fertile period for the purpose of preventing conception, they can have relations during the known infertile period without sinning, even though they did not have relations during the fertile period. For instance, if a husband is away from home during his wife‘s known fertile period and returns to his wife during her known infertile period, he can still have conjugal relations with her without sinning as long as he did not deliberately avoid the fertile period for the purpose of preventing conception (which would be a mortally sinful act of impeding conception, an intrinsic evil). In this case the spouses did not sin, even though they had marital relations only during the wife‘s known infertile period. Pope Pius XI refers to this:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: ―Nor are those considered as acting against nature who, in the married state, use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider, so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
Pope Pius XI says that the ―primary end, child bearing, which is ―the intrinsic nature of the act, must be desired and preserved; therefore, the spouses must do all that is within their means, even if just by prayer, to procure conception when they have conjugal relations.
Nowhere does Pius XI teach that spouses can deliberately avoid the wife‘s fertile period in order to prevent conception when they come together during the infertile period. He is only teaching that spouses can have conjugal relations during the known infertile period or if one of the spouses has a defect, a barren womb or sterile seed. And, he clearly adds that even then they must desire that conception occurs—―as long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
The spouses must conform to the intrinsic nature of the act by hoping conception occurs; if not, they are denying the intrinsic nature of the act.
The last part of the 1853 response, ―provided they do nothing to impede generation, supports the orthodox interpretation. There can be no act, plan, or desire to impede conception when the marital act takes place. The spouses must always desire that conception occurs during conjugal relations, even if conception is improbable or impossible (such as in a barren womb). The 1853 response clearly says that no action may be taken by the spouses that would impede conception: ―[A.] After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation. ―All impediments are condemned. The goal of NFP is to impede generation (conception) when the spouses engage in the marital act.
The decree does not specify any specific type of impediment. It condemns all impediments. The point of the response is if spouses are going to have relations during known infertile periods, they must still desire that conception takes place and thus cannot do or have done anything that would impede it.
The 1880 response
The source
No doubt, there were those like Mark. A. Pivarunas who interpreted the 1853 response in a heretical way. Yet, NFP defenders knew they needed to be more specific so there would be no doubt that NFP, according to them, is not sinful. The 1853 response did not say anything about the spouses deliberately avoiding the fertile period and only having conjugal relations during the wife‘s infertile period with the purpose of preventing conception. This motive is not mentioned in the 1853 question and is even condemned in the last sentence, which says, ―provided they [spouses] do nothing that impedes generation.
Therefore, the NFP defenders needed a decree or response that specifically mentions and justifies the motive of preventing conception while leaving out the part about spouses not impeding generation. Digging deep in their hat of tricks, they found what they believe defends their heresy in one response (found in two unofficial sources) that supposedly refers to a response from the Sacred Penitentiary.
The meaning
The NFP defenders have another serious problem with this incredible evidence, this 1880 response. It is ambiguous, confusing, and contradictory; and it even condemns Mark. A. Pivarunas‘ idea of NFP.
Pivarunas ― Another reference to rhythm appeared in 1880. Fr. Le Conte submitted the following questions to the Sacred Penitentiary:
Q ― “Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin?”
“Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism of her husband but cannot correct him, or to either spouse who shrinks from having numerous children?”
The response of the Sacred Penitentiary, dated June 16, 1880, was:
A ― “Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism.”
1) If this response is meant to allow NFP, it only allows it as a substitute for the husband‘s obstinately sinful Onanism (withdrawal during the marital act by the husband), which presents serious dilemmas.
2) If the husband is not obstinate and repents of his sin of Onanism, then the spouses cannot use NFP, which is how this response has to be interpreted. The only non-sinful use of NFP, according to this response, would be if the husband obstinately commits the sin of Onanism. If not, the confessor cannot even suggest the use of NFP. Therefore, according to this response, NFP cannot be used for any other reason put forward by NFP defenders.
3) By implication the response condemns NFP as contraception by comparing it as a viable substitute for Onanism. The sinful purpose of both remains the same: the deliberate attempt to prevent conception when spouses perform the marital act. The response replaces one evil with another that it perceives as less evil. Man cannot arrive at a good, by the use of an evil means (Rom. 3:8). It is like saying that it is better for a single man to fornicate with an unmarried woman than a married woman because there is no additional sin of adultery. Both actions are mortally sinful. It is like a confessor telling an alcoholic who drinks hard liquor that he will not sin if he gets less drunk by using soft liquor, such as beer or wine. The purpose, getting drunk, remains the same in both cases.
4) The response implies that the use of NFP in this case is a lesser evil (or, even worse, not evil at all) because of the higher probability of conception while using NFP rather than Onanism. In other words, there is no sin as long as conception can occur, even if the spouses do not want it to occur; thus disregarding the motives of the spouses who do not want conception to occur. This motive is precisely when and where sin is first committed. If that were true, then no contraception method is sinful because all are open to conception. None are 100 percent guaranteed to prevent conception. As a matter of fact, NFP has been proven to be one of the most successful forms of contraception other than birth control pills. Hence, even according to this heretical theology, NFP must be considered one of the most sinful methods of contraception because it is more successful in preventing conception than Onanism, which is the least effective contraception method. The following are some testimonies to the great effectiveness of NFP in preventing conception:
Birth control with LadyComp is safe, reliable and natural!
Birth control with LadyComp focuses mainly on the long-term health and well-being of the woman.
LadyComp is programmed with all available natural family planning research data and uses biomathematical forecasting calculations as well as the very latest computer techniques. LadyComp contains the first medical expertise to help provide safe, reliable and natural birth control.
The fertile and infertile days can be determined without any bothersome or harmful interventions in the body's natural functions. Many women suffer from side-effects of the birth control pill. LadyComp offers Contraception without drugs or side-effects…
Safe and reliable:
99.3 percent reliable (Based on independent clinical studies docuмented by the manufacturer)…
Natural Family Planning
What is natural family planning?
Natural family planning is a way to help a couple determine when sɛҳuąƖ intercourse can and cannot result in pregnancy…
How effective are these methods in helping a couple avoid pregnancy?
These methods can help a couple avoid pregnancy if the couple receives training from a specialized instructor and if they carefully follow all of the instructions provided. (Ask your doctor how to find an instructor who is specially trained in teaching natural family planning.) Both methods can be 90% to 98% effective (2 to 10 pregnancies per 100 couples) when they are practiced correctly…
Copyright © 2001-2004 American Academy of Family Physicians
5) The 1880 response appeases stiffnecked sinners by rewarding their obstinate disobedience to God and their confessors. If the obstinate sinner does not listen to the confessor, the confessor must pander to the sinner. Instead of punishing him, the confessor rewards him with another sinful contraceptive method. Since when do God and His representatives compromise faith and morals by appeasing obstinate sinners? The proper action for a good confessor in such a case is to forbid the wife/husband to have relations with her husband/wife under pain of sin until he/she repents of his sin and thus promises to no longer use Onanism, NFP or artificial contraception. If the husband should force himself on his wife (rape her), then that is a reason for separation according to canon law. There are times when a spouse cannot prevent the other spouse from sinning during the marital act; in these cases, the spouse sinned against does not sin. For instance, a husband can pretend he repented of his sin of Onanism and can promise his wife he will no longer use it; but he could still use it, and the wife would not be able to prevent it. Or, one spouse may do something immoral previous to, during, or after the marital act; and the other spouse may be helpless to prevent it. In these cases the spouse sinned against does not sin. Pope Pius XI mentions this:
Casti Connubii: ―Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin.
To conclude, this 1880 response is not only unofficial and fallible, it is also illogical and heretical, and it does not even defend the current practice of NFP.
St. Pope Pius X testifies to the impossibility of a pope’s inspecting every imprimatured book, even with the help of the Holy Office, and also testifies that there were many bad books that were given imprimaturs by either heretical or unvigilant bishops:
St. Pope Pius X, Pacendi Dominici Gregis, 1907: “51. We bid you do everything in your power to drive out of your dioceses, even by solemn interdict, any pernicious books that may be in circulation there. The Holy See neglects no means to put down writings of this kind, but the number of them has now grown to such an extent that it is impossible to censure them all…”
So the perverted theologians opinions is worth nothing, even if their book has Church approved Nihil obstat, if what they say speak against Catholic dogma, moral and the natural law. Their heretical or perverted theories must then be condemned and disregarded.
Let's take a look at one such perverted theologian with a supposed Nihil obstat approval from a perverted Bishop. Only someone who is sick in his head and who is a heretic against the natural law, would say that is it nothing wrong with what he is saying here.
Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone, 1951: “I. Imperfect Sodomy, i.e., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted: Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution…” (“3. The Sins of Married People,” Section 757.)
Fr. Heribert Jone, in every edition of his book Moral Theology from 1929 onwards, teaches that a husband can sodomize his wife and his wife can allow it and neither commit mortal sin as long as he consummates his act naturally with the intention to procreate. And the pervert Jone teaches that this act is not sodomy at all because the husband does not spill his seed when sodomizing his wife. Note that the term “imperfect sodomy” used by Fr. Jone means the mortal sin of sodomy between persons of the opposite sex, and “perfect sodomy” is the mortal sin of sodomy between those of the same sex.
Hence the pervert Fr. Jone says that rectal intercourse between a husband and wife is not a grave sin as long as the husband does not spill his seed when sodomizing his wife. And according to the pervert Fr. Jone, this is not even sodomy! One must ask, then, “What is it?” and “What is the purpose of this filthy perverted act?” It is sodomy, plain and simple! And the purpose is to mock God and to degrade and disgrace the wife. Not only is this sodomitical act by the spouses contrary to nature and the natural law and cries out to God for vengeance, but it is also physically destructive to the health of both spouses.
Hence, as we can learn, books approved by bishops is hardly of any worth at all. That's why dogma, or Councils are the key point in defining Church teaching!
So yes, its perfectly clear that all the perverted theologians and all non-official decrees who approve of the sinful practices of child avoidance and mortal sins of lust are worthless in view of these facts, and only bad willed heretics would choose to build his Faith on what has be proved to be erroneous, and even contradicting Church dogma. When we have a dogma condemning all deliberate practices of child avoidance, then is this a law directly from God and must be followed under pain of mortal sin and excommunication. Only people who are of bad will, chose to disregard the infallible, by choosing the fallible.
Pope Pius XI, [speaking infallibly from the Chair of Peter], 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).”
This agrees with Hietanen's grammatical analysis of the subject locution, i.e., as he illustrated with his example, "A marriage cannot take place without a bride or a groom": in which the meaning is obviously that both a bride and a groom are necessary.
Anyone who cares to comment, please do. Thank you.
Thank you for confirming what I've been trying to say all along. Honesty is rare to find today. Hopefully, some will be converted and be turned from their errors, when they see the truth being spoken and confirmed.
-
2241 Holy Church knows very well that not rarely one of the spouses is sinned against rather than commits a sin, when for a very grave reason he permits a perversion of the right order, which he himself does not wish; and on this account he is without fault, provided he then remembers the law of charity and does not neglect to prevent and deter the other from sinning. Those spouses are not to be said to act against the order of nature who use their right in a correct and natural way, although for natural reasons of time, or of certain defects new life cannot spring from this. For in matrimony itself, as in the practice of the conjugal right, secondary ends are also considered, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence, which spouses are by no means forbidden to attempt, provided the intrinsic nature of that act is preserved, and so its due ordering is towards its primary end. . . .
59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
-
Denzinger 2241
Casti connubii 59
What were you trying to say with those quotes? That the mortally sinful practice of NFP is allowed? Or, was there something else you were trying to say?
For you know, you cannot quote anything authoritatively which approve of the mortally sinful practice of child avoidance. You can only quote perverted theologians or non approved (non authoritative) church docuмents by perverted priests, bishops, cardinals or theologians. All of these have already been dealt with thoroughly.
-
Denzinger 2241
Casti connubii 59
What were you trying to say with those quotes? That the mortally sinful practice of NFP is allowed? Or, was there something else you were trying to say?
For you know, you cannot quote anything authoritatively which approve of the mortally sinful practice of child avoidance. You can only quote perverted theologians or non approved (non authoritative) church docuмents by perverted priests, bishops, cardinals or theologians. All of these have already been dealt with thoroughly.
You are avoiding the quotes. :fryingpan:
-
You are avoiding the quotes. :fryingpan:
No, I have already addressed them. Its you who simply refuse reading my responses. So now I have to repeat my self. After I have once again repeated what I wrote before (that refutes you), we shall see who are the one avoiding the quotes, arguments, and questions... Yes, let's see who will avoid answering, and only bring forth nonsense to direct the attention elsewhere...
---------
The Pope mentioned the natural infertile periods specifically, and said one could use his right then too, but he never said one could have relations only during the infertile periods while avoiding relations during the known fertile periods. To do so would be contraception.
The key phrase is deliberate, as defined infallbily by Pope Pius XI below. When a deliberate plan is made to avoid children, the mortal sin of contraception occurs. It's not a deliberate plan or contraception to have relations with your wife during known infertile periods so long as your intention is NOT to avoid children. The sin thus lies with the intent. Contraception is thus in your mind or heart, and occurs when you wish for no children during relations. When your intention is to avoid children during relations, God judge this as an contraceptive act in the very same way as He would judge you to be an adulterer if you cherished such (adulterous) thoughts in your mind. You see, you don't have to make a physical adultery to be an adulterer, it's enough to be an adulterer in your heart. The same logic implies with child avoidance.
That's why Pope Pius X infallibly mentioned the deliberate plan to avoid conception as mortally sinful and unlawful. He did not mention that having relations during known infertile periods was wrong (so long as the couples did not deliberately restrict the martial act exclusively to those days - for then it would have become a deliberate plan to avoid conception, as infallibly condemned by Pope Pius XI below).
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."
So, it's perfectly clear from above. What the Pope condemns is the deliberate plan in avoiding children that a couple consents to during the act. He is not condemning having relations on known infertile days, he is only condemning the evil intent of child avoidance. Therefore, even if you have relations during known infertile days, but during the marital act wish for no children to occur, you would fall under the same condemnation by Pope Pius XI, since the fault lies with the intent, and not particularly on the fertile/infertile day.
Thus, all the people who only have relations during the infertile days, and deliberately avoid relations during all fertile days, falls under this same divine condemnation by Pope Pius XI, since their intent is against conception. Also a barren couple, who wish for no children during relations, would fall under the same condemnation, since their intention and will is against conception. Only a total liar headed for Hell can disagree with these facts!
When a married couple goes out of its way to avoid children by deliberately avoiding the fertile times and restricting the marriage act exclusively to infertile times, they are committing a sin against the natural law – they are sinning against the God whom they know sends life. NFP is therefore a sin against the natural law, since God is the author of life, and NFP thwarts His designs. Can one imagine what Jacob would have said to Rachel if she had discovered a new way to avoid “the Lord opening her womb?” He would probably have rebuked her as an infidel.
Stop this nonsense now, and let God decide the number of your children!
It is intrinsically evil when spouses plan to have sɛҳuąƖ relations while also having planned to make conception impossible. It does not matter in what way the spouses plan to prevent conception. The principle is the same in all cases—the deliberate prevention of conception (child bearing) by the spouses while engaging in the marital act. The goal of contraception is to eliminate the possibility of conception while engaging in the marital act. Contraception takes place during the act by physical obstruction, or before the act by obstructing the fertile period by planning to only commit the act during the infertile period. In both cases the goal of the plan is to perform the sɛҳuąƖ act without the possibility of conception. Guilt of mortal sin occurs when these two conditions are met, either in the mind or in the act. Our Lord teaches us that all sin proceeds from the heart, and manifests itself in men’s actions. “The things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.” (Mt. 15:11, 18-19)
What is a plan? A plan is the words of a man that proceed from his mouth that come forth from his heart that he seeks to put into action. The root of every plan is in the heart. What is in the heart of spouses who plan to use physical contraceptive devices during the marital act, or plan to withdraw so as to make conception improbable, or plan to have marital relations only during the infertile period? In the heart of these spouses is the desire to have marital relations while having deliberately planned to prevent conception. Pope Pius XI describes what is in their heart, he says, “Offspring… they say is to be carefully avoided by married people… by frustrating the marriage act… [They] deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose.” Sin originates from what is in the heart. I ask spouses who practice NFP, “What is in your heart when you practice NFP?” While engaging in the marital act, after having planned to do so only during the infertile period, ask yourself in the heat of your lust, “Am I not committing this very act with the explicit, deliberate, premeditated planned intention of preventing conception while fulfilling my lust?” If your wish or prayer is to have relations and that conception does not occur, then you committed the mortal sin of contraception.
St. Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]: “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility… Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife.”
-
You don't or won't understand. The quotes stand. :fryingpan:
-
You don't or won't understand. The quotes stand. :fryingpan:
Like I said, I thought you would have acted as you did, for you are dishonest. You cannot answer the arguments and the questions, you cannot face the dogmas and the truth exposing you; that is why you are hiding from the truth.
On judgment day will your dishonesty become apparent, but then, it is already too late for you.
I do hope you will be converted till then, for as now, you are already in Hell. Your soul, is already in Hell, the thine veil of life, the weak body, is all that is keeping you from feeling the eternal hellfire that burneth both body and soul.
In Hell, will you regret your filthy lust. You sought after what will perish and be eaten by worms. What idiocy!
Please, read this chapter, and see, what Jesus thinks of you.
Book 1 - Chapter 6
The Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden.
“My enemies are like the most violent beasts that can never be filled or have rest. Their heart is so empty of my love that they never allow the thought of my suffering into it; and not once has a word like this been uttered by their inmost heart: “O Lord, you have redeemed us, may you be praised for your bitter suffering!” How could my Spirit remain with the people who have no divine love for me, and who willingly betray others in order to satisfy their own will? Their heart is full of vile worms, that is, full of worldly desires. The devil has left his filth in their mouths, and that is why my words do not please them.
Therefore, I will sever them from my friends with my saw, and just as there is no more bitter way to die than to be sawn asunder, so there will not be a punishment in which they will not partake. They will be sawn in two by the devil and separated from me! They are so abhorrent to me that all who cling to them and agree with them will also be severed from me.
Therefore, I send out my friends in order that they might separate the devils from my members, for they are truly my enemies. I send my friends like knights to war. Anyone who mortifies and subdues his flesh and abstains from forbidden things is my true knight. For their lance, they will have the words that I spoke with my own mouth and, in their hands, the sword of the true faith. Their breasts will be covered with the armor of love, so that no matter what happens to them, they will love me no less. They shall have the shield of patience at their side, so that they may suffer and endure all things patiently. I have enclosed them like gold in a vessel; they should now go forth and walk in my ways.
According to the ways of justice, I could not enter into the glory of majesty without suffering tribulation in my human nature, so then, how else will they enter into it? If their Lord endured pain and suffering, it is not surprising that they also suffer. If their Lord endured beatings and torture, it is not too much for them to endure words and contradictions. They should not fear, for I will never abandon them. Just as it is impossible for the devil to touch and divide the heart of God, so it is impossible for the devil to separate them from me. And since they are like the purest gold in my sight, I will never abandon them, even though they are tested with a little fire, for the fire is given to them for their greater reward and happiness.
http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/st-bridget/st-bridget-of-sweden.php
-
You don't or won't understand. The quotes stand. :fryingpan:
Like I said, I thought you would have acted as you did, for you are dishonest. You cannot answer the arguments and the questions, you cannot face the dogmas and the truth exposing you; that is why you are hiding from the truth.
On judgment day will your dishonesty become apparent, but then, it is already too late for you.
I do hope you will be converted till then, for as now, you are already in Hell. Your soul, is already in Hell, the thine veil of life, the weak body, is all that is keeping you from feeling the eternal hellfire that burneth both body and soul.
In Hell, will you regret your filthy lust. You sought after what will perish and be eaten by worms. What idiocy!
Please, read this chapter, and see, what Jesus thinks of you.
Book 1 - Chapter 6
The Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden.
“My enemies are like the most violent beasts that can never be filled or have rest. Their heart is so empty of my love that they never allow the thought of my suffering into it; and not once has a word like this been uttered by their inmost heart: “O Lord, you have redeemed us, may you be praised for your bitter suffering!” How could my Spirit remain with the people who have no divine love for me, and who willingly betray others in order to satisfy their own will? Their heart is full of vile worms, that is, full of worldly desires. The devil has left his filth in their mouths, and that is why my words do not please them.
Therefore, I will sever them from my friends with my saw, and just as there is no more bitter way to die than to be sawn asunder, so there will not be a punishment in which they will not partake. They will be sawn in two by the devil and separated from me! They are so abhorrent to me that all who cling to them and agree with them will also be severed from me.
Therefore, I send out my friends in order that they might separate the devils from my members, for they are truly my enemies. I send my friends like knights to war. Anyone who mortifies and subdues his flesh and abstains from forbidden things is my true knight. For their lance, they will have the words that I spoke with my own mouth and, in their hands, the sword of the true faith. Their breasts will be covered with the armor of love, so that no matter what happens to them, they will love me no less. They shall have the shield of patience at their side, so that they may suffer and endure all things patiently. I have enclosed them like gold in a vessel; they should now go forth and walk in my ways.
According to the ways of justice, I could not enter into the glory of majesty without suffering tribulation in my human nature, so then, how else will they enter into it? If their Lord endured pain and suffering, it is not surprising that they also suffer. If their Lord endured beatings and torture, it is not too much for them to endure words and contradictions. They should not fear, for I will never abandon them. Just as it is impossible for the devil to touch and divide the heart of God, so it is impossible for the devil to separate them from me. And since they are like the purest gold in my sight, I will never abandon them, even though they are tested with a little fire, for the fire is given to them for their greater reward and happiness.
http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/st-bridget/st-bridget-of-sweden.php
Well, you've at least toned down your condemnations some. "Cort Sabin?"
-
You don't or won't understand. The quotes stand. :fryingpan:
So SJB, can a couple decide to have zero (0) children during then entire course of their marraige if they use the approved NFP plan or another "natural" form of birth control?
By the way.. NFP ends with "Family Planning"....
Isn't that the term Planned Parenthood uses? :confused1:
-
You don't or won't understand. The quotes stand. :fryingpan:
So SJB, can a couple decide to have zero (0) children during then entire course of their marraige if they use the approved NFP plan or another "natural" form of birth control?
By the way.. NFP ends with "Family Planning"....
Isn't that the term Planned Parenthood uses? :confused1:
No, they must at least be open to children; however, the Church has never put a "minimum quota" on the number of children.
-
Hietanen, how many accounts have you had on this forum? Have you been banned from here before?
Perhaps just a coincidence, but there have been at least two other forum accounts posting from Sweden promoting certain websites which are notable the same, merely different web addresses which are the same that you promote.
doomsday2012 --- banned
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=profile&w=954
ProphecyFilm
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=profile&w=450
http://www.prophecyfilm.com/
http://www.catholic-saints.net/
-
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.
Let's take each of Pius XI's statements in order:
1) those who in exercising it. Here, clearly, the Pope is talking about those who are having sex and not those who are not. Not to be coy, but to "exercise it," one must be "doing it," so the Pope's comments, clearly, are directed at married couples who are "in the sack," "hay," kitchen floor, etc. He is saying nothing about married couples who are "not exercising."
2) deliberately frustrate its natural powers. What "natural powers" does abstinence have? Clearly, the Pope, while trying to be dignified, is talking about ejaculations. What other "natural power" could he possibly be talking about? Putting sperm into a waiting vagina (6-letter word, begins with a 'v'), that's what he is talking about.
3) commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. The Pope cannot possibly be talking about abstinence here. It is just silly to say that he is. He is talking about withdrawal. The man and woman are engaged in sex, and just before the orgasm and ejaculation, the man "yanks it out," and semen ends up on the bed, carpet, and nearly everywhere else, instead of going into the woman's vagina (the same 6-letter word that begins with a 'v'), where it belongs.
I hope that I have been "explicit" enough for this post. :stare: And, it appears that Matthew has the automated censors going. :smile:
-
Unnecessarily explicit.
-
See the article "Rhythm: The Unhappy Compromise", posted very recently by Parents For Truth in another Crisis thread.
-
Unnecessarily explicit.
I do not see "how." That's what Pius XI is talking about, but clearly, he does not want to make his Papal encyclical "pornographic." However, sin is sin, so the Pope needed to describe it the best he could.
-
You don't or won't understand. The quotes stand. :fryingpan:
So SJB, can a couple decide to have zero (0) children during then entire course of their marraige if they use the approved NFP plan or another "natural" form of birth control?
By the way.. NFP ends with "Family Planning"....
Isn't that the term Planned Parenthood uses? :confused1:
No, they must at least be open to children; however, the Church has never put a "minimum quota" on the number of children.
So if they've never put a minimum quota on it, then 1 would be OK? And the rest of the marraige you could try to avoid any more children?
-
See the article "Rhythm: The Unhappy Compromise", posted very recently by Parents For Truth in another Crisis thread.
Source: http://www.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/rhythm_unhappy_compromise.htm
RHYTHM: THE UNHAPPY COMPROMISE
Fr. Hugh Calkins, O.S.M.
Originally printed in the June 1948 issue of Integrity magazine and reprinted by Angelus Press in 1995 in Raising Your Children; The Integrity Magazine Series
What about Rhythm? That simple question is rapidly becoming a stormcenter of controversy. It comes up during parish missions, Cana Conferences, bull sessions on careers, even high school retreats. All too often, wrong answers are given, bum theology is handed out. Even more often, right answers are given but very imprudently. These cause confusion among the laity and lead to cynical questioning. Why don’t priests get together on this thing voices that cynicism.
This article will discuss Rhythm thoroughly. First, the latest and best theological thought concerning the morality involved shall be presented. This will remove the guesswork of beauty shop theologians and gabfest experts who too easily settle everything with: "Oh, Rhythm’s okay. It’s Catholic birth control." Secondly, we shall present the true picture of how Rhythm is currently being used around America. It is not a pretty picture, but it’s based upon wide missionary experience and thorough research. It may surprise a few too glib advocates of Rhythm —lay, cleric, religious —to see how widely astray Catholic couples have gone on this moral question. Thirdly, we shall discuss how all this fits into a full Christian life, into the synthesis of religion and life any earnest Christian must promote, if we are "to restore all things in Christ."
Moral Considerations
Let’s understand what we mean by Rhythm. Incidentally, we are permitted to discuss the method. The only official prohibition issued by the Church deals with the teaching and recommending of the method. Too long have we kept silent, while imprudently zealous advocates spread the method nationwide. The term Rhythm is a convenient name for a systematic method of performing marital relations on certain days of the month. The method is built around the Rhythm of fertility and sterility which occurs in the monthly cycle of a woman’s menstrual periods. Briefly, it now seems medically certain that on certain days of the month a woman is quite likely to conceive new life and on other days she is quite unlikely to conceive. The days on which conception are quite likely are called "fertile": those on which conception is quite unlikely are called "sterile." The Rhythm Method consists in following a systematic method of performing marital relations only on "sterile" days and abstaining on "fertile" days. This method is followed in order to space children or to avoid having children. Whether the method is used for a few months, a few years, or all during childbearing years, the motive remains the same. The motive in using this method is to avoid conception and pregnancy. Let’s have no talk about "virtuous continence." That’s the red herring often dragged in to confuse the issue. The people who use Rhythm are not primarily concerned about continence. They seek to avoid conception. Hence, they restrict sɛҳuąƖ intercourse strictly to sterile days, safe periods.
Contrary to widespread misunderstanding, Rhythm is not the same as contraception. It’s true that often the aim of the married couple is the same—they use Rhythm to avoid conception—but their method is not the same as the birth-controller. The practice of Rhythm is natural so far as the biological aspect is concerned. The practice of contraception is unnatural, against nature, a perversion just as truly as ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. But just because Rhythm is "natural" doesn’t mean it is always morally good and permissible. The practice of Rhythm proceeds from a free and deliberate will—the will not to have children—that is directly opposed to the primary purpose of marital relations as ordained by God. Is such a free will choice contrary to the will of God and sinful?
Without getting too technical, there are two schools of thought on the essential morality of Rhythm as a system. The more common opinion, the majority opinion, holds that this method is not of itself illicit, and becomes lawful only when there is sufficient cause present for sidestepping the primary purpose of marriage. Both opinions are approved by expert theologians: you may follow either one until the Church makes an official pronouncement on the subject. But keep in mind that all theologians hold certain basic facts to be true. There is perfect agreement among theologians that Rhythm can become sinful because of circuмstances and dangers involved.
Important Conditions
So we can summarize the latest and best theological thought on the subject. The Church neither approves nor disapproves of the Rhythm Method as a system to be followed. The Church merely tolerates the use of this method. Tolerates indicates reluctant permission. And the Church only tolerates this method, when three definite factors are present. These three are: First, there is sufficiently serious reason for a given couple to use this method, sufficiently serious enough to justify side-stepping the first purpose of marriage; Second, both husband and wife are truly willing to follow the method —neither one can force the other to adopt this system; Third, the use of this method must not cause mortal sins against chastity nor become a proximate occasion of such sins. The breakdown of any one of those three factors makes the use of Rhythm sinful. So the correct attitude is this: The use of Rhythm is sometimes no sin, sometimes venial sin, sometimes mortal sin. Please stop saying, "Oh, it’s okay, the Church approves it."
Now study carefully those three factors. First, a sufficient reason; theologians admit there are at times solid reasons to justify the use of the Rhythm system. These reasons may be permanent or only temporary —poverty, poor health of the mother (real, not pretended), frequent still-births or Caesarean births, medical necessity of spacing births because of the unusual fecundity of the wife, in other words, solid and honest reasons for avoiding births for a time, or maybe for all time. But even when such honest reasons are present (and so often today they are not) it still remains true that husband and wife must both be truly willing.
But all too often in actual daily life, one spouse is unwilling and is being high-pressured by the other. All moral theologians would condemn as a grave sin the exclusive use of the sterile period when it is not a truly free agreement on both sides. If not free, a grave injustice is done the other spouse. Such dangers and such mortal sins are frequent in our materialistic age. Confessors would do well to investigate the close relationship between "cheating" by married people and their use of Rhythm. So a good reason by itself is not enough. Circuмstances change cases. A confessor’s help is advised. More about those three factors later.
Assuming there is free consent and no special dangers of mortal sin, would a couple be justified in using Rhythm for only selfish reasons? Theological opinion is divided: some say such a course would be mortally sinful, others say venially sinful. But all eminent theologians say such a course would be sinful and fraught with grave danger. The more you study the theologians on this question, the more you see how cautious priests and laity should be in advocating Rhythm. You see why the Holy See, only with reluctance, tolerates this method. It certainly has never been declared officially that the Holy See approves of the "safe period" method. Not even the much-quoted paragraph from the "Chaste Wedlock" encyclical of Pius XI can be accurately used as giving such approval. It is far more likely that Pius XI was referring to physically sterile people ("certain defects") or those who have passed the menopause ("reasons of time") and not the use of Rhythm. Yet the new supercolossal campaign for selling Rhythm devices by mail dares to quote the Holy Father in approval of such crassly commercial restriction of birth.
Face the Cold Realities
Now that we’ve laid the theological groundwork, let’s be terribly practical. Catholic couples have gone hog-wild in the abusive employment of Rhythm. Theological distinctions have been pitched completely in the utterly selfish desire to avoid conception at any cost. Too many priests are acting imprudently in the public recommendation (in classrooms and sermons) of the method which the Holy See has cautioned "the confessor may cautiously suggest." There is abundant evidence increasing daily that only spiritually strong couples can be trusted really to observe Rhythm prudently, even when a sufficient reason is present. All too many other couples say they’re using Rhythm and they really are following a system of "Don’t become pregnant at any cost." So they use Rhythm, when it "works," varied methods of contraception when it doesn’t work, and even abortion when they get "caught" (what an expression to describe the start of an immortal existence). Yet all the time such people try kidding confessors with "Oh, no, no birth control, we just use Rhythm."
It’s becoming a scandal to their sincere neighbors. John Doe is no theologian. He doesn’t make fancy distinctions between unnatural and natural birth control. All he sees is these selfish couples are married and don’t have kids —even brag about how they’re through having any more. He begins to wonder how they can so easily go to Confession and Communion. I’m beginning to wonder too. Even our adversaries throw a body blow at us by saying: "What’s the difference? You forbid contraception so firmly, but your couples slip through by using Rhythm."
Promoting Sterility
The thing is out of hand. A method meant to be a temporary solution of a critical problem has become a way of life, a very selfish, luxury-loving, materialistic way of life. What theologian would ever justify practices like these actual cases I now cite: parish priests giving a copy of a book on Rhythm to each engaged couple with a word of approval; preachers explaining in weekend retreats the advantages of this method for having children as you planned them; teachers in some of our best colleges teaching the method, often to girls who are well set financially; gynecologists lecturing in leading Catholic medical schools and telling classes of young doctors how to teach this method to patients, so that the doctors assume Church approval to recommend the method has now been given them; engaged couples planning their wedding day with rhythm cycle all plotted so no pregnancy results until a year or two passes, so that they can enjoy all the privileges and none of the obligations of marriage.
It is one thing to permit Rhythm reluctantly, as the Church officially does. It’s quite another to become promoters of sterility, as too many of our people have. Naturally, the commercializing of Rhythm has hit a new high. Expensive gadgets are now available —"every medical and theological student, nurse and social worker should have one," reads the blurb. So now our people have fool-proof methods of "making love by a calendar," effectively blocking God’s creative designs. It’s enough to make God vomit out of His mouth the creatures who ignore so completely the divine purposes of marriage. How will we ever convert godless America, how produce modern saints, if we won’t give God citizens for His Heavenly Kingdom? And most ironic of all, Catholics so anxious to be in on Catholic Action (which to them means anything from bingo to flag-waving) are often the most determined advocates of Rhythm. They labor so hard to get others to attend lectures, Cana Conferences, book reviews; but to have babies as God wants them to —don’t be silly. Have you noticed the heavy emphasis on Rhythm among our wealthy parishes, among our college graduate couples, our social and cultural leaders?
Rhythm Mentality
So there has sprung full-grown from pagan propaganda this vicious Rhythm mentality —a state of mind that won’t trust God. Our moderns concede God knows how to balance the universe in the palm of His hand, knows how to harness atomic energy, can dangle stars and planets at His fingertips, but children? Oh, no, God just doesn’t know how to arrange things there. We’ll take care of that through family planning. But the planning centers about how not to have a family. So our do-gooders extol either the practice of total sɛҳuąƖ abstinence (oh, so piously), even when the other partner is unwilling and is being unjustly defrauded, or the practice of methodical Rhythm. They don’t admit or don’t care about the mortal sins such systems produce. They are determined: No Pregnancy Now! There is the state of mind that despairs of God’s help.
These bleeding hearts, especially busybodies-in-law, and nosey neighbors, scream protestingly: "Who’ll take care of the next baby?" The simple answer is: The same God that takes care of you even when you resist His Will. "But we must give our children security and education." Just because God doesn’t give parents and children all today’s phony materialistic standards require, doesn’t mean He fails them. He didn’t give His own mother much in material security. But heaven, not security, is the goal set for the babies God sends. God established marriage primarily to give children life in this world that would bring eternal life.
Too many people are trying to play God. God alone is still the Author of new life. And God doesn’t need alarmist doctors, despairing parents, nor even thoughtless priests trying to run His affairs and deciding when new life shall be born. What God wants from us is free will co-operation with His Will. That’s the one contribution we alone can make. What God demands from married partners is willingness to have the children He shall decide to send. People go to heaven only by doing God’s Will, not by planning things for Him.
Well, then, should every couple have a flock of children? That’s up to God. Every couple should have the children God wants them to have. But they are not having them. Forty-four percent of American families have no children. Twenty-two per cent have only one child. And Catholics living in cities now have far fewer children than the families in rural areas (which are about eighty per cent Protestant). Obviously, family planners are planning families out of existence. That certainly is not God’s Will. The use of Rhythm by so-called "devout" Catholics is a major factor in that falling birth rate. You say the birth rate is up higher now? Yes, on the first and second babies. But it continues to fall steadily in the number of third, fourth and later babies.
Too Much Prudence
The Rhythm mentality has a tear-jerker argument. It’s turned on, full stops, something like this: "But God wants people to use prudence in bringing children into the world. Neither God nor His Church demands people have as many kids as possible. People should use discretion, be decent enough to plan their family. Isn’t it far better that a few kids be well fed, clothed, educated than a large family endure poverty." It sounds good, doesn’t it? People advancing this line are often quite righteous about it. With pharisaical smugness, they feel sorry for "imprudent pregnancy" of poor parents. But I’m sick of them. They’re the kind who probably pitied Mary of Nazareth, carrying a Baby God has sent, but for whom Joseph and Mary couldn’t find a home (talk about a housing shortage and tough landlords). They’re the kind who pitied my own mother, when she carried me, her twelfth child. Sweet chance I, and many another poor kids like me, would have to be priests, if Rhythm mentality prevailed. And what would the bleeding heart of another day have done about Nancy Hands carrying the Baby who became Abe Lincoln? There would have been no Bernadette of Lourdes, coming from a jail flat, nor Teresa of Lisieux from sickly parents and a mother who lost three babies in a row, and most certainly not a Catherine of Siena, a twenty-third child, if the "prudent planners" had their way. What all these extollers of prudence forget is: God’s Will is the end of man. The essence of the world: ours to do His Will. Prudence is a cardinal virtue, highly praiseworthy indeed. But faith, hope, and charity are supernatural virtues far more praiseworthy. And the greatest of these is charity. What nobler way to practice charity than to co-operate with God in passing on new life, when God wants it to be born, not when humans think it should? Let only God play God.
Hidden Costs
"Such a manner of using the marriage right, followed without a very serious reason during all, or almost all of the married life, is opposed to the plan of Providence for the propagation of the human race, represents a serious attack on the honor of marriage and particularly on the dignity of the wife, and creates grave dangers for the married people." So spoke the bishops of Belgium in their Fifth Provincial Council back in 1937. Their words point up the hidden costs of using Rhythm. Take that point on debasing the honor of marriage and lowering the dignity of the wife. Fifty per cent of today’s mothers are neurotic, say several leading non-Catholic psychologists. In many cases, Rhythm produces the neurosis. It made the "rejecting mother" type. She "got caught" with a pregnancy she had sedulously fled. The unwanted pregnancy results in the lonely, neurotic, unwanted child. Neurosis like this can increase sterility, so often when the "Rhythmeer" finally wants a baby, she can’t have one. It’s odd that women can’t see the debasing results of a system that uses them systematically to satisfy sɛҳuąƖ desires but seldom to produce children.
Advocates of Rhythm are fond of stressing how "natural" the method is. But as Fr. Lavaud, O.P., has said: "We cannot see an adaptation to nature in something which is, in effect a trick to frustrate nature." Rhythm is quite unnatural as currently employed. It requires the couple to "make love by a calendar," so charts, gadgets, graphs rule romance, not the loving desire of devoted partners. Some medical men assure us a wife’s desire for marital union is most vehement precisely during the fertile period. It appears the Jews followed a more natural procedure in abstaining during sterile periods, as the Book of Leviticus indicates. Even Dr. Ogino, the originator of the method, viewed the method primarily as a means of having children. "Rhythm in reverse," having relations on fertile days just to have children, is natural.
Another hidden cost is infidelity. Women puzzled by male misbehaving at certain time periods might well remember the desires of the flesh respect no calendar. And remember, too, man’s sɛҳuąƖ life follows a monthly cycle of vehemence and subsidence, as well as a change of life later. Men not living a properly satisfactory sɛҳuąƖ life with wives, too much calendar restriction, are easy victims to feminine wiles outside the home. The coolness and jittery bickering caused by Rhythm is incalculable. The fulfillment of marriage as a vocation demands that husband and wife minister to each other’s needs through tenderness and understanding often best expressed through love-making and intimate union postponed by the Rhythm calendar. How stupid to live a love-life holding your breath.
Who shall estimate the hidden costs generated in a woman’s finely adjusted emotional and psychical life through fear of having another baby. Once such fear is implanted, how difficult to eradicate it. How easily it leads to desperation about avoiding pregnancy at all costs. Be sure that Satan knows how to employ it to create despair about trusting God. Only in eternity shall we know the immortal souls denied a chance to have life because they were snuffed out through abortions caused by such fear.
The New Synthesis
What’s the answer to all this bogeyman propaganda about babies? It could be expressed in a word Vivant (let them live). One group of splendid parents in Milwaukee have taken that word as their slogan and the title of their magazine circulated among young married couples. It’s a vivid expression of the forgotten virtue of hope. God’s providence still rules the world. True Christians, mindful of their supernatural birth at Baptism, the growth of that life of grace through Mass, Sacraments and prayer know that hope not only springs eternal but it brings eternity as its reward. It devastates right here on earth the creeping paralysis of despair born of these hard times. It cures insecurity by abandoning itself to the constantly supporting arms of God. Married couples, so fearful of what to eat and wear with children arrived or coming, need frequent meditations on that famous sixth chapter of Matthew: "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you." Seeking His justice means doing His Will, doing it with hope in your heart that God will provide and reward generosity. He never is outdone in generosity, as we all should know from experience. Surprising how God fills your heart and life with pulsating affection of children, once you trust Him enough to have the children. Surprising how little warmth there is in the mink coat, the vacation, the television set, the car that you fought so hard for, while denying your arms the warm embrace of children. Or is all this surprising? God keeps His word.
It would be well to meditate frequently on Paul’s vivid reminders about "the great Sacrament" married people give each other on their wedding day. Matrimony joins two hearts and souls and lives by fusing natural and supernatural bonds that day. God and husband and wife become partners that a great vocation might be fulfilled. The virtue of hope receives a mighty increase that day through the grace of Matrimony. At every instant of their married life, the married couple has God’s assurance that His grace is sufficient for them. No obstacle is insurmountable to God.
As Fr. Orville Griese, in his famous book, The Rhythm in Marriage and Christian Morality, says:
Christian couples ought to realize that it is a singular, providential blessing to be able to bring forth new life, thus assuring man and wife of a deeper, most lasting union, offering them means of personal sanctification and of contributing to the strength and growth of both Church and State. The mere fact that the future looks a little uncertain or that the child might be frail or sickly is no reason for substituting faith in the biological computations of the safe period method for trust in God.
-
You don't or won't understand. The quotes stand. :fryingpan:
So SJB, can a couple decide to have zero (0) children during then entire course of their marraige if they use the approved NFP plan or another "natural" form of birth control?
By the way.. NFP ends with "Family Planning"....
Isn't that the term Planned Parenthood uses? :confused1:
No, they must at least be open to children; however, the Church has never put a "minimum quota" on the number of children.
So if they've never put a minimum quota on it, then 1 would be OK? And the rest of the marraige you could try to avoid any more children?
No, absolutely not, except for grave reasons. If you want a number, at least three.
-
You don't or won't understand. The quotes stand. :fryingpan:
So SJB, can a couple decide to have zero (0) children during then entire course of their marraige if they use the approved NFP plan or another "natural" form of birth control?
By the way.. NFP ends with "Family Planning"....
Isn't that the term Planned Parenthood uses? :confused1:
No, they must at least be open to children; however, the Church has never put a "minimum quota" on the number of children.
So if they've never put a minimum quota on it, then 1 would be OK? And the rest of the marraige you could try to avoid any more children?
No, absolutely not, except for grave reasons. If you want a number, at least three.
Actually, no, I did NOT want a number. And at first I didn't know how to respond to the number you have given (although it would be interesting to know which orifice the number came from). However, after having read the article posted above from 1948, I think the best answer is found about half way through when Fr. Calkins said, "Well, then, should every couple have a flock of children? That’s up to God. Every couple should have the children God wants them to have."
-
You don't or won't understand. The quotes stand. :fryingpan:
So SJB, can a couple decide to have zero (0) children during then entire course of their marraige if they use the approved NFP plan or another "natural" form of birth control?
By the way.. NFP ends with "Family Planning"....
Isn't that the term Planned Parenthood uses? :confused1:
No, they must at least be open to children; however, the Church has never put a "minimum quota" on the number of children.
So if they've never put a minimum quota on it, then 1 would be OK? And the rest of the marraige you could try to avoid any more children?
No, absolutely not, except for grave reasons. If you want a number, at least three.
Actually, no, I did NOT want a number. And at first I didn't know how to respond to the number you have given (although it would be interesting to know which orifice the number came from). However, after having read the article posted above from 1948, I think the best answer is found about half way through when Fr. Calkins said, "Well, then, should every couple have a flock of children? That’s up to God. Every couple should have the children God wants them to have."
I agree with that.
-
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.
Let's take each of Pius XI's statements in order:
1) those who in exercising it. Here, clearly, the Pope is talking about those who are having sex and not those who are not. Not to be coy, but to "exercise it," one must be "doing it," so the Pope's comments, clearly, are directed at married couples who are "in the sack," "hay," kitchen floor, etc. He is saying nothing about married couples who are "not exercising."
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 - is what the pope said.
Neither do you have to engage in the marriage act to be guilty of grave sin. You don't have to be an actual adulterer to be guilty of adultery. You just don't want to get that fact through your obstinate head.
Married couples that attempt to frustrate conception while engaging in the marital act must formulate a deliberate plan in order to do so. In every case they deliberately formulate a plan to prevent conception before the marital act. They either plan to use physical contraceptive devices during the act, or plan to withdraw during the act, or plan to take birth control pills that prevent ovulation before the act, or plan to only have relations during the infertile period. In every case the goal of the plan is the same, to prevent conception when engaging in the marital act. Whether they plan by buying the physical contraceptive devices or pills ahead of time, or the husband plans to withdraw at the appropriate time, or they plan by charting fertile and infertile periods, it is exactly the same plan. In every case they plan to prevent conception when engaging in the marital act. In a sense it could be said about NFP that a contraceptive is placed over the fertile period while engaging in the act during the infertile period, or, the husband withdraws from the act during the fertile period while engaging in it during the infertile period, or, instead of preventing ovulation with a pill, it is prevented by charting cycles. Dear reader, open your eyes and ears, can you not see that the intention is the same in every case! Can you not see that NFP is contraception!
2) deliberately frustrate its natural powers. What "natural powers" does abstinence have? Clearly, the Pope, while trying to be dignified, is talking about ejaculations. What other "natural power" could he possibly be talking about? Putting sperm into a waiting #### (6-letter word, begins with a 'v'), that's what he is talking about.
deliberately frustrate its natural powers AND PURPOSE
The natural purpose of the marital act is the begetting of children, which is frustrated by the deliberate plan to avoid children. How many children would God have wanted to send you already?, children that now sadly have been thwarted out of existence (and thus frustrated in its natural order and power) in the way of begetting children? Only God knows the sad answer to this question.
If family planners had their way, there would be no St. Bernadette of Lourdes who was born from a jail flat; nor St. Therese of Lisieux, who came from a sickly mother who lost three children in a row; nor St. Ignatius Loyola, who was the thirteenth of thirteen children; and most certainly not a St. Catherine of Siena, who was the twenty-fourth child in a family of twenty-five children! (Examples of Saints who were the last of many children could probably be multiplied for pages). St. Catherine of Siena and the rest of the Saints who would have been phased out of existence by NFP will rise in judgment against the NFP generation. Natural Family Planners would have been sure to inform St. Catherine’s mother that there was no need having twenty-five children (let alone five), and that she was wasting her time going through all those pregnancies.
Only in eternity shall we know the immortal souls who have been denied a chance at Heaven because of this selfish behavior. The only thing that can foil the will of the all-powerful God is the will of His puny creatures; for He will not force offspring on anyone, just as He will not violate anyone’s free will. NFP is a crime of incalculable proportions.
If family planners had their way, the appearances of Our Lady of Fatima would not have occurred, as she appeared to Lucia (the 7th of seven children), Francisco (the 8th of 9 children) and Jacinta (the 9th of 9 children). Family Planners, by their selfish thwarting of the will of God, would have erased from human history the entire message of Fatima, as well as: the incredible miracle of the Sun; the extraordinary lives of these three shepherd children; and all the graces of conversion obtained by their heroic sacrifices. How many saints, conversions and miracles have been erased by this abominable birth control practice? Only God knows.
A mother of many children, who was about to be a mother once more, came to Ars (the place where St. John Vianney resided) to seek courage from him. She said to him, “Oh, I am so advanced in years Father!” St. John Vianney responded: “Be comforted my child, if you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it!”
1 Timothy 2:15- “Yet she shall be saved through child-bearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.”
Scriptures teaches that a woman can be saved through child-bearing (if she is Catholic and in the state of grace). But NFP advocates would have us believe that a woman is saved through child-avoiding. Moreover, just as a woman who fulfills the will of God and maintains the state of grace in the state of Matrimony is saved by her childbearing, so too are countless women going to be damned for not bearing the children that God wanted them to have.
“Seek first the kingdom of God and His justice and all things will be added unto you.” (Mt. 6:33)
Actually, no, I did NOT want a number. And at first I didn't know how to respond to the number you have given (although it would be interesting to know which orifice the number came from). However, after having read the article posted above from 1948, I think the best answer is found about half way through when Fr. Calkins said, "Well, then, should every couple have a flock of children? That’s up to God. Every couple should have the children God wants them to have."
I agree with that.
No, you don't agree with that, you liar, bad willed heretic headed for Hell (in the sad dark state of the soul your at present).
Although you know you don't let God decide the number of your children (that's why you deliberately avoid the fertile periods), you hypocritically seem to agree with that God should be the decider of the number of our children.
An infallibly mark of heretics and mortal sinners, is contradiction!
3) commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. The Pope cannot possibly be talking about abstinence here. It is just silly to say that he is. He is talking about withdrawal. The man and woman are engaged in sex, and just before the orgasm and ejaculation, the man "yanks it out," and semen ends up on the bed, carpet, and nearly everywhere else, instead of going into the woman's #### (the same 6-letter word that begins with a 'v'), where it belongs.
You seem to forget that God also judges our intentions as well as our deeds. You know, just because you wished to murder someone in your mind - but didn't actually do it - the fact that you never did it in action, does not free you from guilt of grave sin before God. The same is said with adultery. The thought of adultery in your mind is all that is needed for you to be an adulterer. The same applies with child avoidance. When you in your mind make an effort and a deliberate plan to avoid children, God judge this evil act as an actual deed (as if you actually used contraceptives, since the intent is the same). Get this through your obstinate, sinful head now!
Innumerable other examples could be given, but I guess you should understand by now. You seem conveniently to forget these fact all the time, however often I repeat them, as if you never knew about it. That is because you are avoiding the truth, for you wish so dearly to remain living in the mortal sin of contraception and mortal sin of lust, that's why you are avoiding the truth.
So don't dare call it abstinence or chastity, when your real intent is not to abstain, but rather to avoid the "danger" of begetting a child from the hands of God! Greater abomination can hardly be imagined!
To deliberately remain chaste during the fertile cycle while having relations only during the infertile cycle is dishonorable continence and is chastity for Satan. It is chastity in the service of lust, and that is not true chastity. Far from honorable is this dark and dastardly deed. The only reason the spouses remain chaste during the fertile period is so they cannot bear children while at the same time having planned to commit the act as soon as the fertile period is over. This is only pretend chastity; pretend continence.
MAN PLAYS STUPID INDEED; BUT GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
Besides, you are like the mule and the horse over whom the devil hath power, for you have no love or thought for children, but are only after the lust. God's words condemned you also!
“Then the angel Raphael said to him [Tobias]: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power. …And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children… [Tobias said] And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be blessed for ever and ever.” (Tobias 6:16-17, 22; 8:9)
It is not a complicated matter to understand that using Natural Family Planning to avoid pregnancy is wrong. It is written on man’s heart that such activity is wrong.
Genesis 30:1-2 “And Rachel seeing herself without children, envied her sister, and said to her husband: Give me children, otherwise I shall die. And Jacob being angry with her, answered: Am I as God, who hath deprived thee of the fruit of thy womb?”
We all know that God is the One who opens the womb, the One who killeth and maketh alive.
Genesis 30:22- “The Lord also remembering Rachel, heard her, and opened her womb.”
1 Kings 2:6- “The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to hell, and bringeth back again.”
So why would a woman who desires to fulfill the will of God make a systematic effort to avoid God sending her a new life? What excuse could such a person possibly make for going out of her way to calculate how to have marital relations without getting pregnant with the child God was going to send? Why would a woman (or a man) who believes that God opens the womb try to avoid His opening of the womb by a meticulous and organized effort, involving charts, cycles and thermometers? The answer is that those who engage in such behavior as NFP turn from God (which is the essence of sin) and refuse to be open to His will.
When a married couple goes out of its way to avoid children by deliberately avoiding the fertile times and restricting the marriage act exclusively to infertile times, they are committing a sin against the natural law – they are sinning against the God whom they know sends life. NFP is therefore a sin against the natural law, since God is the author of life, and NFP thwarts His designs.
-
The same applies with child avoidance.
One could avoid children by not getting married. Are you saying that is sinful?
-
The same applies with child avoidance.
One could avoid children by not getting married. Are you saying that is sinful?
Jehanne, this is obviously facetious, because those that CHOOSE marriage as their vocation, take on the responsibility of being a parent. Matrimony means: "To make a mother."
One of the first things God told Adam and Eve to do was to "be fertile and multiply." The birds and animals don't fill heaven. WE DO. That's our job as parents. Single people that take part in the act of procreation, are sinning, and against nature, too, because you are first to get married and -then- have children.
To say that single people are somehow sinning by not having children is a silly argument, and one that I don't think you meant. I don't think that's what H is saying here, either. That's ridiculous.
-
Unnecessarily explicit.
I do not see "how." That's what Pius XI is talking about, but clearly, he does not want to make his Papal encyclical "pornographic." However, sin is sin, so the Pope needed to describe it the best he could.
This shows how little you know.
-
The same applies with child avoidance.
One could avoid children by not getting married. Are you saying that is sinful?
Jehanne, this is obviously facetious, because those that CHOOSE marriage as their vocation, take on the responsibility of being a parent. Matrimony means: "To make a mother."
One of the first things God told Adam and Eve to do was to "be fertile and multiply." The birds and animals don't fill heaven. WE DO. That's our job as parents. Single people that take part in the act of procreation, are sinning, and against nature, too, because you are first to get married and -then- have children.
To say that single people are somehow sinning by not having children is a silly argument, and one that I don't think you meant. I don't think that's what H is saying here, either. That's ridiculous.
Jehanne
I think parentsfortruth made the points on your ridiculous response.
However, your bad will must indeed be supernatural. You cannot answer any of the arguments directed at exposing you, and are therefore instead pathetically trying to make some stupid point (that you also know(?) I am not holding). Your resistance of the truth (and deliberate venial and mortal sins) is whats blinding you.
You know you are wrong, yet in your pride refuses to admit to it. Your willful blindness, your denial of dogma, denial of reason, and heresies against the natural law, is truly a sad thing to see.
I will give you a revelation that can be a good read for you. It talks about various number of sins that people make, one of them, child avoidance. Hopefully, it will sink into your obstinate head and convert you; when it is Jesus Christ who is condemning you.
Book 7 - Chapter 27 (http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/st-bridget/saint-bridget-book7.php)
The Revelations of St. Bridget of sweden
...I [Jesus Christ] am the Creator of all and Lord over the devils as well as over the angels, and no one will escape my judgment. The devil, in fact, sinned in a threefold manner against me: namely, through pride; through envy; and through arrogance, i.e., through love of his own will. He was so proud indeed that he wished to be lord over me and that I should be subject to him. He also envied me so much that if it were possible, he would gladly have killed me in order to be lord himself and sit on my throne. Indeed, his own will was so dear to him that he cared nothing at all about my will so long as he could perform his own will. Because of this, he fell from heaven; and, no longer an angel, he became a devil in the depth of hell.
Afterward, however, I, seeing his malice and the great envy that he had toward humankind, showed my will and gave my commandments to human beings that by doing them they could please me and displease the devil. Finally, because of the charity that I have toward human beings, I came into the world and took flesh of a virgin. Indeed, I personally taught them the true way of salvation by work and by word; and to show them perfect charity and love, I opened heaven for them by my own blood.
But what are those human beings who are my enemies doing to me now? In truth, they have contempt for my precepts; they cast me out of their hearts like a loathsome poison; indeed, they spit me out of their mouths like something rotten; and they abhor the sight of me as if I were a leper with the worst of stenches. But the devil and his works they embrace in their every affection and deed. For they bring him into their hearts, doing his will with delight and gladness and following his evil suggestions. Therefore, by my just judgment they shall have their reward in hell with the devil eternally without end.
For in place of the pride that they practice, they will have confusion and eternal shame to such a degree that angels and demons will say of them: 'They are filled with confusion to the very utmost!' And for their insatiable greed, each devil in hell will so fill them with his deadly venom that in their souls there will remain no place that is not filled with diabolic venom. And for the lust with which they burn like senseless animals, they will never be admitted to the sight of my face but will be separated from me and deprived of their inordinate will.
Moreover, know that just as all mortal sins are very serious, so too a venial sin is made mortal if a human being delights in it with the intention of persevering. Wherefore, know that two sins, which I now name to you, are being practiced and that they draw after them other sins that all seem as if venial. But because the people delight in them with the intention of persevering, they are therefore made mortal, and the people in the city of Naples commit many other abominable sins that I do not wish to name to you.
The first of the two sins is that the faces of rational human creatures are being painted with the various colors with which insensible images and statues of idols are colored so that to others, these faces may seem more beautiful than I made them. The second sin is that the bodies of men and women are being deformed from their natural state by the unseemly forms of clothing that the people are using. And the people are doing this because of pride and so that in their bodies they may seem more beautiful and more lascivious than I, God, created them.
And indeed they do this so that those who thus see them may be more quickly provoked and inflamed toward carnal desire. Therefore, know for very certain that as often as they daub their faces with antimony and other extraneous coloring, some of the infusion of the Holy Spirit is diminished in them and the devil draws nearer to them. In fact, as often as they adorn themselves in disorderly and indecent clothing and so deform their bodies, the adornment of their souls is diminished and the devil's power is increased.
O my enemies, who do such things and with effrontery commit other sins contrary to my will, why have you neglected my passion; and why do you not attend in your hearts to how I stood naked at the pillar, bound and cruelly scourged with hard whips, and to how I stood naked on the cross and cried out, full of wounds and clothed in blood? And when you paint and anoint your faces, why do you not look at my face and see how it was full of blood? You are not even attentive to my eyes and how they grew dark and were covered with blood and tears, and how my eyelids turned blue.
Why too do you, not look at my mouth or gaze at my ears and my beard and see how they were aggrieved and were stained with blood? You do not look at the rest of my limbs, monstrously wounded by various punishments, and see how I hung black and blue on the cross and dead for your sake. And there, derided and rejected, I was despised by all in order that, by recalling these things and attentively remembering them, you might love me, your God, and thus escape the devil's snares, in which you have been horribly bound.
However, in your eyes and hearts, all these things have been forgotten and neglected. And so you behave like prostitutes, who love the pleasure and delight of the flesh, but not its offspring. For when they feel a living infant in their womb, at once they procure an abortion by means of herbs and other things so that without losing their fleshly pleasure and further wicked delight, they may thus be always absorbed in their lust and their foul carnal intercourse. This is how you behave. For I, God, your Creator and Redeemer, visit all with my grace, knocking, namely, at your hearts, because I love all.
But when you feel, in your hearts, any knock of an inpouring - namely of my Spirit - or any compunction; or when, through hearing my words, you conceive any good intention, at once you procure spiritually, as it were, an abortion, namely, by excusing your sins and by delighting in them and even by damnably willing to persevere in them. For that reason, you do the devil's will, enclosing him in your hearts and expelling me in this contemptible way. Therefore, you are without me, and I am not with you. And you are not in me but in the devil, for it is his will and his suggestions that you obey.
And so, because I have just spoken my judgment, I shall also now speak my mercy. My mercy, however, is this: namely, that none of my very enemies is so thorough or so great a sinner that my mercy would be denied him if he were to ask for it humbly and wholeheartedly. Wherefore, my enemies must do three things if they wish reconcile themselves to my grace and friendship. The first is that with all their heart they repent and have contrition because they have offended me, their Creator and Redeemer. The second thing is confession - clean, frequent, and humble - which they must make before their confessor.
And thus let them amend all their sins by doing penance and making satisfaction in accord with that same confessor's council and discretion. For then I shall draw close to them, and the devil will be kept far away from them. The third thing is that after they have thus performed these things with devotion and perfect charity, they are to go to communion and receive and consume my Body with the intention of never falling back into former sins but of persevering in good even to the end.
If anyone, therefore, amends his life in this manner, at once I will run out to meet him as a loving father runs to meet his wayward son; and I will receive him into my grace more gladly than he himself could have asked or thought. And then I will be in him, and he in me; and he shall live with me and rejoice forever. But upon him who perseveres in his sins and malice my justice shall indubitably come. For when the fisherman sees the fish in the water playing in their delight and merriment, even then he drops his hook into the sea and draws it out, catching the fish in turn and then putting them to death - not all at once, but a few at a time - until he has taken them all.
This is indeed what I shall do to my enemies who persevere in sin. For I shall bring them a few at a time to the consummation of the worldly life of this age in which they take temporal and carnal delight. And at an hour that they do not believe and are living in even greater delight, I shall then snatch them away from earthly life and put them to eternal death in a place where they will nevermore see my face because they loved to do and accomplish their inordinate and corrupted will rather than perform my will and my commandments.” However, after these things had thus been seen and heard, this vision disappeared.
http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/st-bridget/saint-bridget-book7.php
-
Have you ever considered how this may apply to you, "Cort Sabin?"
-
Unnecessarily explicit.
I do not see "how." That's what Pius XI is talking about, but clearly, he does not want to make his Papal encyclical "pornographic." However, sin is sin, so the Pope needed to describe it the best he could.
This shows how little you know.
Okay, then, please enlighten me, what was the Pope talking about then, if not "withdrawal"?
-
I was speaking of "Unnecessarily explicit."
-
The same applies with child avoidance.
One could avoid children by not getting married. Are you saying that is sinful?
Jehanne, this is obviously facetious, because those that CHOOSE marriage as their vocation, take on the responsibility of being a parent. Matrimony means: "To make a mother."
One of the first things God told Adam and Eve to do was to "be fertile and multiply." The birds and animals don't fill heaven. WE DO. That's our job as parents. Single people that take part in the act of procreation, are sinning, and against nature, too, because you are first to get married and -then- have children.
To say that single people are somehow sinning by not having children is a silly argument, and one that I don't think you meant. I don't think that's what H is saying here, either. That's ridiculous.
That was my point. Marriage is a choice, to have children but also to raise them. If, by mutual consent, there is absolutely nothing wrong with married couples choosing not to have sex, if the relationship has been consummated and both husband and wife are at least open to the possibility of children.
-
I was speaking of "Unnecessarily explicit."
I was merely describing "a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." I have never been guilty of such a sin, and yes, it is disgusting. Here is the definition of vicious:
1
: having the nature or quality of vice or immorality : depraved — (see 1vice)
2
: defective, faulty; also : invalid
3
: impure, noxious
4
a : dangerously aggressive : savage <a vicious dog>
b : marked by violence or ferocity : fierce <a vicious fight>
5
: malicious, spiteful <vicious gossip>
6
: worsened by internal causes that reciprocally augment each other <a vicious wage-price spiral>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicious
Any way you look at it, the Pope was not talking about abstinence.
-
Jehanne, I know. Pius XI was speaking of the conjugal act. That can't be abstinence.
You should be less graphic, that's all.
-
Jehanne, I know. Pius XI was speaking of the conjugal act. That can't be abstinence.
You should be less graphic, that's all.
Apparently, others on this forum don't know that. I felt a detailed (albeit, a private) analysis of the Pope's words was in order. My apologies for the graphic nature of the post. I should have toned it down.
-
I think "onanism" is the euphemism for that, except that lots of people will think that means self-abuse. The other alternative is to talk about "frustrating the marriage act," or a "crime against nature" but that could mean lots of things.
I'm not sure there's anything pornographic about the word Jehanne used. He is describing a specific sin which there is no other word for, at least not that I know of. Then again I was a pagan who was quite frank in my sɛҳuąƖ language, to say the least.
What would you say to get across Jehanne's idea, SJB?
-
Jehanne, I know. Pius XI was speaking of the conjugal act. That can't be abstinence.
You should be less graphic, that's all.
Apparently, others on this forum don't know that. I felt a detailed (albeit, a private) analysis of the Pope's words was in order. My apologies for the graphic nature of the post. I should have toned it down.
The theologial manuals are very detailed, yet in very careful wording.
-
I think "onanism" is the euphemism for that, except that lots of people will think that means self-abuse. The other alternative is to talk about "frustrating the marriage act," or a "crime against nature" but that could mean lots of things.
I'm not sure there's anything pornographic about the word Jehanne used. He is describing a specific sin which there is no other word for, at least not that I know of. Then again I was a pagan who was quite frank in my sɛҳuąƖ language, to say the least.
What would you say to get across Jehanne's idea, SJB?
A lot of people equate the o-word with the m-word.
-
Yeah, that's what I said ( "self-abuse" is a euphemism for the m-word ).
You have to speak another language when you're Catholic. How about "wasting the seed"? If the context is conjugal relations, then "wasting the seed" can only mean one thing.
-
Jehanne, I know. Pius XI was speaking of the conjugal act. That can't be abstinence.
You should be less graphic, that's all.
Apparently, others on this forum don't know that. I felt a detailed (albeit, a private) analysis of the Pope's words was in order. My apologies for the graphic nature of the post. I should have toned it down.
The theologial manuals are very detailed, yet in very careful wording.
I understand that. Yet, if you look at my post, two conclusions follow:
1) My post is a completely accurate description of the contraceptive act of "withdrawal."
2) Pius XI, using ecclesiastical language, is, clearly, describing the same act.
-
Yeah, that's what I said ( "self-abuse" is a euphemism for the m-word ).
You have to speak another language when you're Catholic. How about "wasting the seed"? If the context is conjugal relations, then "wasting the seed" can only mean one thing.
I did not, until I read your post, equate "self-abuse" with the m-word. "Wasting the seed" can mean the m-word or the w-word. I guess that it would depend upon the context in which one is using the phrase, but we are starting to get graphic...
-
I think "onanism" is the euphemism for that, except that lots of people will think that means self-abuse. The other alternative is to talk about "frustrating the marriage act," or a "crime against nature" but that could mean lots of things.
I'm not sure there's anything pornographic about the word Jehanne used. He is describing a specific sin which there is no other word for, at least not that I know of. Then again I was a pagan who was quite frank in my sɛҳuąƖ language, to say the least.
What would you say to get across Jehanne's idea, SJB?
A lot of people equate the o-word with the m-word.
Both "frustrate the act." I think most people can figure this out. The conjugal act's primary function is procreation. An attempt to frustrate procreation in that singular act is absolutely condemned as evil and contrary to the natural law.
-
I was merely describing "a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." I have never been guilty of such a sin, and yes, it is disgusting.
It is indeed an intrinsically vicious and evil deed to be an adulterer, or a murderer or a pedophile in one's mind or heart, even though you never actually performed this deed of pedophilia in reality. Only a total liar would disagree with these facts!
I perfectly understand that you wish to forget this dogmatic truth preached by Jesus Christ, namely, that the sin first comes from your heart, your intention, and your will. When you wish for no children and in your very deed acts upon this thought, then God judge this evil deed as if you were using contraception, since the intent is the same.
If a murderer died with the thought of committing a murder, but never had time to perform it because of a sudden and unexpected death, he would still be condemned to Hell for his evil intent that he at the time had when he died. God judge our intentions as well as our deeds. Get this fact now through your obstinate head!
Married couples that attempt to frustrate conception while engaging in the marital act must formulate a deliberate plan in order to do so. In every case they deliberately formulate a plan to prevent conception before the marital act. They either plan to use physical contraceptive devices during the act, or plan to withdraw during the act, or plan to take birth control pills that prevent ovulation before the act, or plan to only have relations during the infertile period. In every case the goal of the plan is the same, to prevent conception when engaging in the marital act. Whether they plan by buying the physical contraceptive devices or pills ahead of time, or the husband plans to withdraw at the appropriate time, or they plan by charting fertile and infertile periods, it is exactly the same plan. In every case they plan to prevent conception when engaging in the marital act. In a sense it could be said about NFP that a contraceptive is placed over the fertile period while engaging in the act during the infertile period, or, the husband withdraws from the act during the fertile period while engaging in it during the infertile period, or, instead of preventing ovulation with a pill, it is prevented by charting cycles. Dear reader, open your eyes and ears, can you not see that the intention is the same in every case! Can you not see that NFP is contraception!
Any way you look at it, the Pope was not talking about abstinence.
To deliberately remain chaste during the fertile cycle while having relations only during the infertile cycle is dishonorable continence and is chastity for Satan. It is chastity in the service of lust, and that is not true chastity. Far from honorable is this dark and dastardly deed. The only reason the spouses remain chaste during the fertile period is so they cannot bear children while at the same time having planned to commit the act as soon as the fertile period is over. This is only pretend chastity; pretend continence.
Jehanne, and everyone else who agrees with him/her
It's evident from your last posts that you will not change position, nor will you ever admit to being wrong?, or that it is anything intrinsically wrong with what you do, even after being proven wrong?
One can even wonder if you have read my posts?, or, did you read them, but conveniently forgot about everything you've read that exposed you? That's usually what heretics and mortal sinners do. For them, all that sadly matters is to justifying their mortal sins and to resist the truth as much as possible so that they can go on sinning (as their greatest desire and love is in their sad, short, but sinful life). If you would spend time and think on this subject, if you would try answering the arguments, you would be weight down by your coincidence and be exposed, therefore do you choose not to spend to much time thinking on these subjects or to answer any of the arguments; yes you even reject the thought that all mortal sinners and heretics get from God, namely "could I be wrong?". this thought, is what can save you, if you act upon it. But sadly, so far, you have done just the opposite.
What more then can be said to you? Nothing I fear. You seem unconvertible and unchangeable.
Any person of good will, however, will easily see the truth for what it is, and accept it.
I will pray for you.
-
I think "onanism" is the euphemism for that, except that lots of people will think that means self-abuse. The other alternative is to talk about "frustrating the marriage act," or a "crime against nature" but that could mean lots of things.
I'm not sure there's anything pornographic about the word Jehanne used. He is describing a specific sin which there is no other word for, at least not that I know of. Then again I was a pagan who was quite frank in my sɛҳuąƖ language, to say the least.
What would you say to get across Jehanne's idea, SJB?
A lot of people equate the o-word with the m-word.
Both "frustrate the act." I think most people can figure this out. The conjugal act's primary function is procreation. An attempt to frustrate procreation in that singular act is absolutely condemned as evil and contrary to the natural law.
Absolutely. However, some on this forum do not understand that.
-
They either plan to use physical contraceptive devices during the act, or plan to withdraw during the act, or plan to take birth control pills that prevent ovulation before the act,
This behavior is intrinsically evil, and we all agree on that. Realize, of course, that during Pius XI's time "the pill" had not yet been invented, and condoms were not yet widespread, so hopefully by now, you should know what he was talking about.
or plan to only have relations during the infertile period.
This is not intrinsically evil. It may be sinful; it may not be. If there are "grave reasons," then its use can be justified. Even using "standard days" (which is what my wife and I sometimes use -- our last child was born on December 25 of last year), there is still a possibility of conception, a very real possibility. Remember, "marital relations" is not just about procreation, but also about love, intimacy, etc.
In every case the goal of the plan is the same, to prevent conception when engaging in the marital act. Whether they plan by buying the physical contraceptive devices or pills ahead of time, or the husband plans to withdraw at the appropriate time,
I agree.
or they plan by charting fertile and infertile periods, it is exactly the same plan.
I don't agree. Apples & Oranges. Please stop citing Pius XI to support your views. That's not what he taught, nor did any other Pope.
-
What more then can be said to you? Nothing I fear. You seem unconvertible and unchangeable.
Any person of good will, however, will easily see the truth for what it is, and accept it.
Read your own words.
-
It seems fairly clear (to me, at least) that Jehanne didn't read the Rhythm article. If he did, he didn't really read it or take it seriously.
-
It seems fairly clear (to me, at least) that Jehanne didn't read the Rhythm article. If he did, he didn't really read it or take it seriously.
Here's another article:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html
I do try and at least skim everything that everyone writes. Some articles and posts are really long, so it is just too much to read everything that everyone writes and visit every link that everyone posts. Once I "get the idea," that, for me, is enough. I try and keep my posts short and to the point.
-
SJB said:
Both "frustrate the act." I think most people can figure this out. The conjugal act's primary function is procreation. An attempt to frustrate procreation in that singular act is absolutely condemned as evil and contrary to the natural law.
If you said "frustate the act" people would mainly think about using a condom, or even unnatural sɛҳuąƖ practices.
I still don't see any way to describe what Jehanne is talking about without using that exact word. You could say "frustate the act" as a catch-all term that includes both condom use and what we're talking about. But I don't think saying that word is pornographic in the least, that's my point. It sounds like you're taking money from the bank. Every alternative that I've been able to think of so far sounds worse. Because of the more widespread use of condoms these days, as Jehanne points out, I think the language has to become a bit more clear without being graphic.
I'm also not so sure it's true that moral theologians are as delicate with their language as all that. Jone said some stuff that I myself wouldn't even repeat here. You probably know what I'm talking about.
Where I do agree with you -- finally -- is that Pius XII's teaching on NFP really is quite good after all ( because if he was a true Pope, it's God's teaching ). He does say that the reasons to use it are "quite wide" but, wide or not, they still must be grave. I became paranoid because of all the abuses of Vatican II and for some reason I couldn't make the distinction in that case, I thought Pius XII was throwing open Pandora's box.
-
Who is/was in the position to pass authoritatively on the question whether he was or was not a true Pope, if the Popes who followed him were not true Popes? How was this decision arrived at other than by private judgment, group or individual?
If he was a true Pope but, as you think, a bad one, his faults must have pertained to his role of teaching/governing; since he was not, from what is known, guilty of personal sin.
-
Where I do agree with you -- finally -- is that Pius XII's teaching on NFP really is quite good after all ( because if he was a true Pope, it's God's teaching ). He does say that the reasons to use it are "quite wide" but, wide or not, they still must be grave. I became paranoid because of all the abuses of Vatican II and for some reason I couldn't make the distinction in that case, I thought Pius XII was throwing open Pandora's box.
You are quiet wrong there. A speech to midwifes hardly constitutes infallible teaching. You don't seem to know that Popes can err and even fall into heresy (Pope Honorious I fell into heresy) in their fallible capacity. Please read up on what constities papal infalliblity and what a Pope must to to reach the criteria of infallibility.
Pope Pius XII is very near heresy, since he taught explicitly against a defined dogma which condemns all behavior contrary to conception. Pope Pius XII even mentioned those instances which was condemned by Pope Pius XI, i.e, the medical excuse, economic excuse and the "grave reasons" excuse - was all condemned by Pope Pius XI:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: “We are deeply touched by the sufferings of those parents who, in extreme want, experience great difficulty in rearing their children. However, they should take care lest the calamitous state of their external affairs should be the occasion for a much more calamitous error.No difficulty can arise that justifies putting aside the law of God which prohibits all acts intrinsically evil[/u]. There is no possible circuмstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the Grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted. This truth of Christian faith is expressed by the teaching of the Council of Trent: “Let no one be so rash as to assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able that He may help you”.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: “As to the ‘medical and therapeutic indication’ to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless, what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: ‘Thou shalt not kill’. The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it… Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.”
-
They either plan to use physical contraceptive devices during the act, or plan to withdraw during the act, or plan to take birth control pills that prevent ovulation before the act,
This behavior is intrinsically evil, and we all agree on that. Realize, of course, that during Pius XI's time "the pill" had not yet been invented, and condoms were not yet widespread, so hopefully by now, you should know what he was talking about.
If you agree on that it is intrinsically evil to deliberately avoid children by contraception, then you must likewise agree with that it is likewise intrinsically evil to avoid children deliberately by other means as well, since the intent is precisely the same. there is no other way around this.
NFP is simply a tradition of men. It has eliminated the commandment of God that forbids contraception, by making it seem that NFP is not contraception simply because physical devices or techniques are not used during the marital act. They ignore the very heart of this commandment of God by violating it in a most deceptive manner. The ancestors of the Pharisees that Jesus condemned, the apostate Jews and their false religion of Apostate Judaism as practiced by the тαℓмυdic Jews, have carried on these traditions of men to ridiculous and absurd proportions. One such teaching is that it is only murder if one directly kills another, such as by stabbing, shooting, or choking, etc. They teach it is not murder if one locks a man in a room with no food or water and does not give him any. In this case, they teach, the man dies from thirst and starvation, and not by the hands of any man; thus no murder was committed. This is a perfect parallel to NFP. The tradition of men teaches that as long as a physical device or technique is not used during the marital act, the planning ahead of time by charting cycles to prevent conception is not a crime.
or plan to only have relations during the infertile period.
This is not intrinsically evil. It may be sinful; it may not be. If there are "grave reasons," then its use can be justified. Even using "standard days" (which is what my wife and I sometimes use -- our last child was born on December 25 of last year), there is still a possibility of conception, a very real possibility. Remember, "marital relations" is not just about procreation, but also about love, intimacy, etc.
You argue as the тαℓмυdic Jews of the time of Jesus, who perverted the law of God. They namely had as opinion that it wasn't murder if you looked a person inside a room without food or water. Then he was killed by starvation, and not by murder. Do you see how hypocritically they where? You are the same. You condemn the first intent of contraception, but allows the second, even though it's exactly the same and have the exact same consequence, the murder/avoidance of a child God would have wanted to send to you.
You also argue that standard days or whatever you call it, is open to conception. Well, all contraception is open to conception!
Just as the use of Onanism and Birth Control Pills are no guarantee that conception will not occur, because it does, so also, Natural Family Planning is no guarantee that conception will not occur, because it does. They are all open to conception if God so wills it. The sin of contraception has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that God can make conception happen, in spite of the spouses’ deliberate plan not to make it happen. The mortal sin of contraception lies in the intent of the spouses, not whether conception actually happens or not.
All marital acts, no matter what contraception method is used, are open to conception if God so wills it. God opens barren wombs past the childbearing years. If the spouses Natural Family Planning succeeds according to their desires and careful planning, then, conception will not take place when they engage in the marital act. I say if it succeeds, because no form of contraception is 100 percent guaranteed. Even men who had vasectomies and women who had their tubes tied or hysterectomies still conceived children. The fact that conception can take place, even after spouses had planned to prevent it, does not allow the spouses the excuse that the act is still open to conception. Because, according to their premeditated plan and intent it is their hope that the marital act is not open to conception, and that is where the mortal sin lies.
It is the unwillingness to conceive a child while engaging in the marital act that constitutes the mortal sin of contraception, and if there was a premeditated plan to prevent conception, then the mortal sin is committed before the act as soon as the plan is consented to.
The "grave reasons" excuse doesn't turn what is intrinsically evil into something good or licit either, that is impossible. The "grave reason excuse", "medical excuse" and "economic excuse", was all condemned by Pope Pius XI. Please read my immediate above post for those quotes.
In every case the goal of the plan is the same, to prevent conception when engaging in the marital act. Whether they plan by buying the physical contraceptive devices or pills ahead of time, or the husband plans to withdraw at the appropriate time,
I agree.
If you really did agree you would have admitted already that standard days, nfp, or whatever name they go under, is all from the same cloth, and all of them likewise mortally sinful, since they all have the same intent - the avoiding of children while having marital relation.
or they plan by charting fertile and infertile periods, it is exactly the same plan.
I don't agree. Apples & Oranges. Please stop citing Pius XI to support your views. That's not what he taught, nor did any other Pope.
You are just dishonest.
"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" - is what the pope Pius XI said.
You thwart the natural purpose of the marital act by deliberately avoiding conception (which is the purpose of the marital act=children).
-
You are just dishonest.
"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" - is what the pope Pius XI said.
You thwart the natural purpose of the marital act by deliberately avoiding conception (which is the purpose of the marital act=children).
I have already "parsed" the Pope's words on this. Maybe he should have been explicit, yet it is just silly to say that periodic abstinence is "a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."
What is intrinsically vicious about it? Please be specific, and on this one, you can explicit (about abstinence, that is.)
-
You are just dishonest.
"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" - is what the pope Pius XI said.
You thwart the natural purpose of the marital act by deliberately avoiding conception (which is the purpose of the marital act=children).
I have already "parsed" the Pope's words on this. Maybe he should have been explicit, yet it is just silly to say that periodic abstinence is "a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."
What is intrinsically vicious about it? Please be specific, and on this one, you can explicit (about abstinence, that is.)
Jehanne, did you closely read that article on the Rhythm method from a 1948? It gives some very compelling reasons why it is wrong.
-
Yes, I did, in its entirety. It told me nothing that I did not already know. I have only advocated two things in this thread:
1) The rhythm method (or standard days), unlike artificial contraception, is not intrinsically evil.
2) The rhythm method may or may not be sinful.
-
I have already "parsed" the Pope's words on this. Maybe he should have been explicit, yet it is just silly to say that periodic abstinence is "a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."
What is intrinsically vicious about it? Please be specific, and on this one, you can explicit (about abstinence, that is.)
The explicitly evil about the kind of abstinence you do is that you only remain chaste during the fertile period so that you cannot bear children while at the same time having planned to commit the act as soon as the fertile period is over. This is only pretend chastity; pretend continence.
The explicit evil is your intention. You have already become an adulterer (or guilty of contraception) in your heart, by your continual deed of deliberately avoiding the fertile periods while having marital relations. Your intent is what makes you guilty! You are not practicing abstinence, so stop call it abstinence. You are avoiding children deliberately, so call it for what it is.
I really hope I don't have to repeat my self again. I don't know how many times I have told you already, that it is your intent that makes you guilty.
Maybe when you see it from Jesus it will sink in?
"[27] You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. [28] But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)
Haydock Catholic bible commentary explains this verse: Ver. 27. Jesus Christ here perfects the old law, which makes no mention of the acts of the mind and will. (Menochius)
The acts of the mind and will, is what I have been trying to teach you so far without success. But that is only because you have chosen not to understand, since you (so far) have not wanted the truth.
Jesus explains this as well.
"20 For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. 21 But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God." (John 3:20-21)
The two conditions of contraception
Contraception attempts to frustrate the marital act by a deliberate plan of the spouses to prevent conception when they engage in the marital act. Before the marital act there is a premeditated plan to prevent conception in every case. Either the spouses plan to use physical devices during the act; withdraw during the act by spilling the male seed upon the ground; use birth control pills before the act to frustrate the natural fertile cycle by unnaturally inhibiting it; or, use Natural Family Planning before the act to frustrate the natural fertile cycle by unnaturally avoiding it while only engaging in the marital act during the natural infertile period. The motive and goal is the exact same in every case, the deliberate attempt to prevent conception when the marital act is performed. Therefore, the mortal sin of contraception is committed when two conditions are met, the planning to engage in the marital act while also having planned to prevent conception. It does not matter if the plan fails and conception actually takes place, mortal sin is still committed because the intent of the spouses is that conception does not take place.
NFP is simply a tradition of men
NFP is simply a tradition of men. It has eliminated the commandment of God that forbids contraception, by making it seem that NFP is not contraception simply because physical devices or techniques are not used during the marital act. They ignore the very heart of this commandment of God by violating it in a most deceptive manner. The ancestors of the Pharisees that Jesus condemned, the apostate Jews and their false religion of Apostate Judaism as practiced by the тαℓмυdic Jews, have carried on these traditions of men to ridiculous and absurd proportions. One such teaching is that it is only murder if one directly kills another, such as by stabbing, shooting, or choking, etc. They teach it is not murder if one locks a man in a room with no food or water and does not give him any. In this case, they teach, the man dies from thirst and starvation, and not by the hands of any man; thus no murder was committed. This is a perfect parallel to NFP. The tradition of men teaches that as long as a physical device or technique is not used during the marital act, the planning ahead of time by charting cycles to prevent conception is not a crime.
All contraception is open to conception!
Just as the use of Onanism and Birth Control Pills are no guarantee that conception will not occur, because it does, so also, Natural Family Planning is no guarantee that conception will not occur, because it does. They are all open to conception if God so wills it. The sin of contraception has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that God can make conception happen, in spite of the spouses’ deliberate plan not to make it happen. The mortal sin of contraception lies in the intent of the spouses, not whether conception actually happens or not.
All marital acts, no matter what contraception method is used, are open to conception if God so wills it. God opens barren wombs past the childbearing years. If the spouses Natural Family Planning succeeds according to their desires and careful planning, then, conception will not take place when they engage in the marital act. I say if it succeeds, because no form of contraception is 100 percent guaranteed. Even men who had vasectomies and women who had their tubes tied or hysterectomies still conceived children. The fact that conception can take place, even after spouses had planned to prevent it, does not allow the spouses the excuse that the act is still open to conception. Because, according to their premeditated plan and intent it is their hope that the marital act is not open to conception, and that is where the mortal sin lies.
It is the unwillingness to conceive a child while engaging in the marital act that constitutes the mortal sin of contraception, and if there was a premeditated plan to prevent conception, then the mortal sin is committed before the act as soon as the plan is consented to.
-
I have already "parsed" the Pope's words on this. Maybe he should have been explicit, yet it is just silly to say that periodic abstinence is "a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."
What is intrinsically vicious about it? Please be specific, and on this one, you can explicit (about abstinence, that is.)
The explicitly evil about the kind of abstinence you do is that you only remain chaste during the fertile period so that you cannot bear children while at the same time having planned to commit the act as soon as the fertile period is over. This is only pretend chastity; pretend continence.
The explicit evil is your intention. You have already become an adulterer (or guilty of contraception) in your heart, by your continual deed of deliberately avoiding the fertile periods while having marital relations. Your intent is what makes you guilty! You are not practicing abstinence, so stop call it abstinence. You are avoiding children deliberately, so call it for what it is.
We are not "scientific" about it -- no charts, thermometers, books, tapes, CDs (well, maybe a few, but not about NFP), etc. You act like the only purpose of marriage is procreation, that there are no secondary ends to marriage like love, intimacy, mutual support of each other, etc.
As for "avoiding children," I have five, and we only have one car (a SUV), which, at most seats seven people. So, short of strapping a car seat on top, I am not what suggestions that you have for us. But, still, if #6 comes along, we will welcome him/her with open and loving arms.
-
Please read up on what constities papal infalliblity and what a Pope must to to reach the criteria of infallibility.
You need to do some "reading up" in this area.
-
We are not "scientific" about it -- no charts, thermometers, books, tapes, CDs (well, maybe a few, but not about NFP), etc.
It doesn't matter if your scientific about it or not, since the intent is the same whether or not you are using charts or thermometers, etc.
However, while you might not be using charts or thermometers, you are still both in on it. You cannot possibly know about when your wife is infertile unless she makes this explicitly known to you. Thus, you are scientific about the natural periods, and are deliberately abusing them to avoid children.
Natural Family Planning is the unnatural use of the natural cycles of the wife by effectively eliminating the natural cycle of fertility. It is a plan by man, not God, which makes use of only one cycle, the infertile cycle, while deliberately shunning the other. This is a complete overturning of God’s purpose for the natural cycles. In God’s perfect plan, spouses are to only have relations when they either know, or suspect the woman is in her fertile cycle. In the case of a barren womb or sterile male seed, spouses can hope for a miracle of conception.
The sin of contraception is not committed in the case of a barren womb or sterile male seed if the spouses always desire to have children if God should grant a miracle of conception. In the above mentioned cases the spouses can commit other sins of lust, if they seek to inflame concupiscence, but they would not commit the sin of contraception.
A fruit tree has its natural cycles for fertility and infertility. There is a proper time to fertilize the tree. If a gardener fertilized the tree when it was not fertile nothing will come of it. If he were a good gardener he would only fertilize it during its known fertile cycle in order for it to conceive and thus produce fruit. Now, what is to be said of a gardener who only fertilizes the tree during its infertile cycle, while deliberately not fertilizing it during its fertile period? He would have made an unnatural use of the natural cycles of the tree, so unnatural that the people would think him either insane or a hater of fruit. Bad enough, would they say he is, if they see him stupidly wasting time and fertilizing material when nothing can come of it, but worse beyond compare is he when he deliberately stops fertilizing the tree just when it is fertile. Now, if for some reason, not in contempt for the fruit and with the good of the tree in mind, the gardener does not want the tree to bear fruit, then he would not fertilize the tree at all. This is equivalent to honorable continence. This state is most honorable for married people, for God often uses people who love chastity to save people from hell. The chaste or barren husband and wife still have children, but they are of a spiritual kind.
You act like the only purpose of marriage is procreation, that there are no secondary ends to marriage like love, intimacy, mutual support of each other, etc.
There ARE secondary ends. But they MUST be subordinate to the primary end! That's a dogma!
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: “...For in matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider, so long as they are subordinated to the PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved[/b].”
Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”
Therefore, even though NFP does not directly interfere with the marriage act itself, as its defenders love to stress, it makes no difference. NFP is condemned because it subordinates the primary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the procreation and education of children) to the secondary ends.
NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things, by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary end) while having marital relations. NFP therefore inverts the order established by God Himself. It does the very thing that Pope Pius XI solemnly teaches may not lawfully be done. And this point crushes all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP; because all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP focus on the marriage act itself, while they blindly ignore the fact that it makes no difference if a couple does not interfere with the act itself if they subordinate and thwart the primary PURPOSE of marriage.
To summarize, therefore, the only difference between artificial contraception and NFP is that artificial contraception frustrates the power of the marriage act itself, while NFP frustrates its primary purpose (by subordinating the procreation of children to other things).
As for "avoiding children," I have five,... But, still, if #6 comes along, we will welcome him/her with open and loving arms.
Tell me, how many of those 5 children of yours was an accident, not intended to happen? I really do hope you intended for them all to happen. If not, you should look that child in the eye and see what a monster you are for wishing him to never have happened. Yes, think about all the children God would have wanted to send you, but you refused.
If family planners had their way, there would be no St. Bernadette of Lourdes who was born from a jail flat; nor St. Therese of Lisieux, who came from a sickly mother who lost three children in a row; nor St. Ignatius Loyola, who was the thirteenth of thirteen children; and most certainly not a St. Catherine of Siena, who was the twenty-fourth child in a family of twenty-five children! (Examples of Saints who were the last of many children could probably be multiplied for pages). St. Catherine of Siena and the rest of the Saints who would have been phased out of existence by NFP will rise in judgment against the NFP generation. Natural Family Planners would have been sure to inform St. Catherine’s mother that there was no need having twenty-five children (let alone five), and that she was wasting her time going through all those pregnancies.
Only in eternity shall we know the immortal souls who have been denied a chance at Heaven because of this selfish behavior. The only thing that can foil the will of the all-powerful God is the will of His puny creatures; for He will not force offspring on anyone, just as He will not violate anyone’s free will. NFP is a crime of incalculable proportions.
If family planners had their way, the appearances of Our Lady of Fatima would not have occurred, as she appeared to Lucia (the 7th of seven children), Francisco (the 8th of 9 children) and Jacinta (the 9th of 9 children). Family Planners, by their selfish thwarting of the will of God, would have erased from human history the entire message of Fatima, as well as: the incredible miracle of the Sun; the extraordinary lives of these three shepherd children; and all the graces of conversion obtained by their heroic sacrifices. How many saints, conversions and miracles have been erased by this abominable birth control practice? Only God knows.
A mother of many children, who was about to be a mother once more, came to Ars (the place where St. John Vianney resided) to seek courage from him. She said to him, “Oh, I am so advanced in years Father!” St. John Vianney responded: “Be comforted my child, if you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it!”
and we only have one car (a SUV), which, at most seats seven people. So, short of strapping a car seat on top, I am not what suggestions that you have for us.
I would tell you not to worry. If you stop resisting God's laws and precepts he would make the burdens easier for you.
Spouses who use contraception to limit the number of children actually increase their burden instead of lessening it. It does not matter if they have small or large families. Even spouses that have large families who then decide to use contraception fall under the same curse from God as those who use contraception and have small families. What the faithless do not see is that God punishes them by making them work much harder than they would if they did not use contraception.
The word of God condemns anyone who attempts to excuse the mortal sin of contraception for any reason, one being economic. Those who use the economic excuse faithlessly say that if they have too many children they will not be able to feed or clothe them, or provide their other necessities. These fallen-away Catholics do not really believe in the word and power of God.
“Therefore I say to you: Be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. The life is more than the meat: and the body is more than the raiment. Consider the ravens, for they sow not, neither do they reap, neither have they storehouse nor barn, and God feedeth them. How much are you more valuable than they? …Consider the lilies, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these. Now, if God clothe in this manner the grass that is to-day in the field and to-morrow is cast into the oven: how much more you, O ye of little faith? …seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Lk. 12:22-24, 27-28, 31)
-
Tell me, how many of those 5 children of yours was an accident, not intended to happen? I really do hope you intended for them all to happen. If not, you should look that child in the eye and see what a monster you are for wishing him to never have happened. Yes, think about all the children God would have wanted to send you, but you refused.
Actually, with 4 out 5, we used standard days to "time it." The #5 was, more or less, "planned." You might say that we just "got lucky" (or my wife did.)
In any case, it is late, and I will reply to the rest of your post later, unless someone else does first.
-
Tell me, how many of those 5 children of yours was an accident, not intended to happen? I really do hope you intended for them all to happen. If not, you should look that child in the eye and see what a monster you are for wishing him to never have happened. Yes, think about all the children God would have wanted to send you, but you refused.
Actually, with 4 out 5, we used standard days to "time it." The #5 was, more or less, "planned." You might say that we just "got lucky" (or my wife did.)
In any case, it is late, and I will reply to the rest of your post later, unless someone else does first.
It should be pointed out that NFP is not wrong if it is used for the purpose of achieving a pregnancy. For when used to achieve a pregnancy, a couple is doing their utmost the fulfill the primary purpose of marriage.
It is only wrong when it is used for the purpose of deliberately avoiding a pregnancy.
-
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: “...For in matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider, so long as they are subordinated to the PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved[/b].”
Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”
Yes, this sums it up, doesn't it! The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. Not just having them, but raising them, also. Consider this scenario:
A young married Catholic couple, orthodox in their faith, begins their new life together. Ten years and four children later, a routine exam after the mother's last birth reveals a heart murmur. Further tests reveal that she is suffering from heart failure, her heart functioning at only 60% capacity. To live, she will need a transplant sometime in the next 5 years. She has a two-month old newborn whom she is nursing and older children whom she home-schools. Dad, of course, works. She has been told by her physicians that she would not survive another pregnancy. What should she do?
Now, do not tell me that she should abstain. She needs the affection and intimacy of her husband, and he needs hers, also, to keep him and her out of sin.
-
According to my longstanding impression, that would have been the Catholic answer. Isn't a Catholic marriage something greater than the physical intimacy of the spouses? Weren't St. Joseph and the Blessed Mother of the Lord truly married? If a man, perhaps through accident or disease, loses his capacity for marital relations, doesn't a Catholic wife still esteem him as her husband?
-
A young married Catholic couple, orthodox in their faith, begins their new life together. Ten years and four children later, a routine exam after the mother's last birth reveals a heart murmur. Further tests reveal that she is suffering from heart failure, her heart functioning at only 60% capacity. To live, she will need a transplant sometime in the next 5 years. She has a two-month old newborn whom she is nursing and older children whom she home-schools. Dad, of course, works. She has been told by her physicians that she would not survive another pregnancy. What should she do?
Yes, Jehanne, they must either live continent, or be ready to take the risk of the mother. There's no other way. That's a dogma.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: “As to the ‘medical and therapeutic indication’ to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless, what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: ‘Thou shalt not kill’. The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it… Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.”
Now, do not tell me that she should abstain. She needs the affection and intimacy of her husband, and he needs hers, also, to keep him and her out of sin.
Yes, Jehanne, they must abstain. That's exactly what I am going to tell you! Religious and single people can manage without sin. With God's help, all is possible. Such a couple have to pray to God for relief in their concupiscence.
By the way, intimacy is not important for salvation (but rather a danger of damnation since most people during marital relations do things that are unacceptable and sinful, such as foreplay or afterplay, or masturbating each other during the act, or other sinful practices such as NFP). but, following the laws of God, however, is important for salvation, but that does not people think too much about today.
Most people today have an unhealthy view of marital relations. That is because most people live in mortal sin regarding marital relations (by doing unlawful things such as described above). These people are sadly controlled by their lusts, and that is their main goal in life, to find satisfaction to their lust. Following God and keeping His commandments, is not important for them.
The view you have regarding sɛҳuąƖ relations seems to indicate that you have an unhealthy view of it. The examples you bring forth only focuses on the sensuality, the pleasure seeking, and nothing but. You seem to have forgotten that the most Holy Family was completely chaste. Innumerable chaste or holy families could be brought forward. People who seek to much after that which will be eaten by worms, have not understood God nor His pleasure, which cannot be compared to any earthly or fleshly pleasure.
-
Pius XI is condemning abortion in that passage. Hietanen is a flake. He should be banned.
-
According to my longstanding impression, that would have been the Catholic answer. Isn't a Catholic marriage something greater than the physical intimacy of the spouses? Weren't St. Joseph and the Blessed Mother of the Lord truly married? If a man, perhaps through accident or disease, loses his capacity for marital relations, doesn't a Catholic wife still esteem him as her husband?
If their relationship was consummated (which would be necessary for the marriage to be valid), the marital debt still exists. Whether it should be exercised or not is another matter. However, both spouses still have the fundamental right to intimacy and they both have the fundamental right to preserve the life of the mother (not to mention the "education" of their children), so how could NFP not be justified in those instances?
-
Pius XI is condemning abortion in that passage. Hietanen is a flake. He should be banned.
Yes, clearly, that is what Pius XI is teaching. I have resolved not to be "explicit" in any of my posts ever again, so I beg the forum's forgiveness on that indiscretion.
(My cat is trying to eat his way into the dog food bag.)
-
Pius XI is condemning abortion in that passage. Hietanen is a flake. He should be banned.
Yes, clearly, that is what Pius XI is teaching. I have resolved not to be "explicit" in any of my posts ever again, so I beg the forum's forgiveness on that indiscretion.
(My cat is trying to eat his way into the dog food bag.)
Yes, I fully agree.
-
Yes he is talking about abortion there too. But he is also talking about risking the life of the Mother in trying to achieve a pregnancy as well. Why, you may ask? That is because marital relations is unlawful and sinful when one is trying to prevent conception from taking place, as proved by his second quote below.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: ”...Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.”
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."
-
According to my longstanding impression, that would have been the Catholic answer. Isn't a Catholic marriage something greater than the physical intimacy of the spouses? Weren't St. Joseph and the Blessed Mother of the Lord truly married? If a man, perhaps through accident or disease, loses his capacity for marital relations, doesn't a Catholic wife still esteem him as her husband?
If their relationship was consummated (which would be necessary for the marriage to be valid), the marital debt still exists. Whether it should be exercised or not is another matter. However, both spouses still have the fundamental right to intimacy and they both have the fundamental right to preserve the life of the mother (not to mention the "education" of their children), so how could NFP not be justified in those instances?
The problem some have is that they cannot seem to differentiate between the primary and secondary means. The secondary is always subordinate to the primary but they take this to mean the secondary is virtually obliterated by the primary.
-
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."
I already did an analysis on deliberately frustrate its natural powers. I would like you to explain to me how periodic abstinence can ever be "intrinsically vicious"?
-
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."
I already did an analysis on deliberately frustrate its natural powers. I would like you to explain to me how periodic abstinence can ever be "intrinsically vicious"?
He can't. Everybody else seems to understand this except him. He is preaching his errors on this forum.
-
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."
I already did an analysis on deliberately frustrate its natural powers. I would like you to explain to me how periodic abstinence can ever be "intrinsically vicious"?
I have already told you many times over, you just don't care and it is getting tiresome to repeat my self over and over. Maybe the saints will get through your head.
A mother of many children, who was about to be a mother once more, came to Ars (the place where St. John Vianney resided) to seek courage from him. She said to him, “Oh, I am so advanced in years Father!” St. John Vianney responded: “Be comforted my child, if you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it!”
He can't. Everybody else seems to understand this except him. He is preaching his errors on this forum.
What you say means nothing. Most of the Jews where against Jesus. They where right, then?, and Jesus was wrong?
The whole world lies in darkness, and most people are damned. Do not forget that!
Besides, I can prove you wrong with dogma, saints and popes and reason. You cannot do anything but to excuse your mortal sins.
-
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."
I already did an analysis on deliberately frustrate its natural powers. I would like you to explain to me how periodic abstinence can ever be "intrinsically vicious"?
I have already told you many times over, you just don't care and it is getting tiresome to repeat my self over and over. Maybe the saints will get through your head.
A mother of many children, who was about to be a mother once more, came to Ars (the place where St. John Vianney resided) to seek courage from him. She said to him, “Oh, I am so advanced in years Father!” St. John Vianney responded: “Be comforted my child, if you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it!”
He can't. Everybody else seems to understand this except him. He is preaching his errors on this forum.
What you say means nothing. Most of the Jews where against Jesus. They where right, then?, and Jesus was wrong?
The whole world lies in darkness, and most people are damned. Do not forget that!
Besides, I can prove you wrong with dogma, saints and popes and reason. You cannot do anything but to excuse your mortal sins.
You don't even know me, jackass. You are just too stupid to understand what Pope Pius XI was saying and if you did understand it correctly, you'd call him a heretic.
-
A mother of many children, who was about to be a mother once more, came to Ars (the place where St. John Vianney resided) to seek courage from him. She said to him, “Oh, I am so advanced in years Father!” St. John Vianney responded: “Be comforted my child, if you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it!”
Yes, "be comforted my child..." He was talking to her, not about her. Yet another quote taken out of context.
-
A mother of many children, who was about to be a mother once more, came to Ars (the place where St. John Vianney resided) to seek courage from him. She said to him, “Oh, I am so advanced in years Father!” St. John Vianney responded: “Be comforted my child, if you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it!”
Yes, "be comforted my child..." He was talking to her, not about her. Yet another quote taken out of context.
You are so blind it is amazing and sad!
The quote was not cited to expose the woman asking St. John the question, but was directed towards you! St. John Vianney was talking about people who deliberately avoid the Children God would wanted to have sent to them, St. John Vianney was thus talking about people like you and your wife, who do not bring in to the world the children you should have given to it, since you deliberately tries to avoid them (as you have admitted, by practicing NFP or standard days or whatever name they go under).
But it does not matter how many times one proves you wrong or how many times one shows you how wrong you are, for you just don't care! You have made up your mind to continue living in mortal sin until the day of your death. That is why you are resisting the truth as much as possible!
Jesus explains the sad spiritual state your living in below
"20 For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. 21 But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God." (John 3:20-21)
-
I like having "marital relations" (see, I am not being explicit.) The more, the merrier! However, with our last child, my wife had a C-section, and her recovery has been slow. I do not know how see would fare with another pregnancy. In any case, I am going to wait for her to tell me when she is ready for #6. I have no desire to become a single parent.
-
Hieitanen, I don't see that you have proven anyone wrong, just blasted us with out of context scripture along with a little bit of other seasonings.
You are very arrogant and forceful in your proclamations, leading me to wonder what your resume contains to get you to such an unassailable certainty.
Just in general, have you had some kind of standardized religious training attested to by any degrees? Do you rely strongly on someone else's work that has caused you to see the light? Or, are you just a force unto yourself, reading this and that, and then having your awesome intellect produce the answers we are all seeking?
Neither your procedures nor conclusions seem to be Catholic, so I'm just trying to figure out what happened that left you outside the box. Dropped on your head as a baby?
-
Hieitanen, I don't see that you have proven anyone wrong, just blasted us with out of context scripture along with a little bit of other seasonings.
You are very arrogant and forceful in your proclamations, leading me to wonder what your resume contains to get you to such an unassailable certainty.
Just in general, have you had some kind of standardized religious training attested to by any degrees? Do you rely strongly on someone else's work that has caused you to see the light? Or, are you just a force unto yourself, reading this and that, and then having your awesome intellect produce the answers we are all seeking?
Neither your procedures nor conclusions seem to be Catholic, so I'm just trying to figure out what happened that left you outside the box. Dropped on your head as a baby?
If I am wrong, why don't you quote anything that I have said wrong? You don't quote anything, for you have nothing to back up your claims with. I can prove my cause, clearly, with dogma, the bible, and the saints. The problem is, that you reject them all?, or maybe, you haven't read the thread either and seen the arguments?
So, your empty words means nothing. Empty words is what most people use to contradict truth with. Since they have nothing relevant to say or prove their case with, they just throw out all kind of garbage that they can think of without actually proving anything.
-
In my example to you above, you told me that my hypothetical couple "must abstain." Yet, you condemn abstinence between married persons, don't you, saying that they must have marital relations on a regular basis? So, which is it?
-
In my example to you above, you told me that my hypothetical couple "must abstain." Yet, you condemn abstinence between married persons, don't you, saying that they must have marital relations on a regular basis? So, which is it?
No, Jehanne, you are just dishonest.
I only condemn false abstinence, that is, abstinence on fertile days, while only having marital relations on the infertile days. That is chastity for satan and dishonorable continence. And that false abstinence is also condemned since it frustrates the primary purpose of marriage, the rising and education of children.
What I say (in agreement with the Pope), is that if people are to have marital relations (since they are forbidden to prevent conception in any way), they must be ready to take the possible consequences, and risk the life of the mother. If they are not ready the risk the life of the mother, they must remain chaste.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: “As to the ‘medical and therapeutic indication’ to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless, what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: ‘Thou shalt not kill’. The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it… Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.”
You see, I don't make up my own teachings, what I show you, is the Church teaching. So, do you agree with this or not?
-
If you consult any traditional priest you will find out that you are wrong about your beliefs on NFP. The problem with you Feenyites and Diamond Bro followers is that you think priests today, who are Gods representatives on earth given the MISSION to safeguard and interpret the Churches teachings do not have any authority. However, in your priceless opinion, the Diamonds and Feeney have that authority! Who gave the authority to them? Their teachings contradict the teachings of the church.
Give up this discussion Heitman! We have had others like you on here, and they have been banned. Hope you are banned soon, before you confuse the new Catholic members on here! :fryingpan: :heretic:
-
A couple could live chaste all way through their marriage also, and it is nothing wrong about that, but is something good amnd praisworthy.
What is evil, is when people have relations while deliberately have preplanned to avoid conception. If you are to have relations, then you must be open to conception and accept all the children God wishes you to have. This includes having relations spontaneously, and not after a plan, such as planning to have it only on the infertile days and avoid the fertile days. When a couple acts in these ways they are guilty of the mortal sin of contraception.
If you somehow did you not understand this was my position all along, now you know.
-
As has already been pointed out to you, that Papal encyclical is talking about abortion. In addition, no one here has been saying that one can use NFP carte blanche, which we all agree could be at times sinful. This is why Pope Pius XII attached "grave reasons" (now "serious reasons" by JP II, but who listened to him?)
-
If you consult any traditional priest you will find out that you are wrong about your beliefs on NFP. The problem with you Feenyites and Diamond Bro followers is that you think priests today, who are Gods representatives on earth given the MISSION to safeguard and interpret the Churches teachings do not have any authority. However, in your priceless opinion, the Diamonds and Feeney have that authority! Who gave the authority to them? Their teachings contradict the teachings of the church.
Give up this discussion Heitman! We have had others like you on here, and they have been banned. Hope you are banned soon, before you confuse the new Catholic members on here! :fryingpan: :heretic:
Father Feeney was, of course, a priest. So are some of his followers, but this is another issue for another thread. :cop:
-
If you consult any traditional priest you will find out that you are wrong about your beliefs on NFP. The problem with you Feenyites and Diamond Bro followers is that you think priests today, who are Gods representatives on earth given the MISSION to safeguard and interpret the Churches teachings do not have any authority. However, in your priceless opinion, the Diamonds and Feeney have that authority! Who gave the authority to them? Their teachings contradict the teachings of the church.
Give up this discussion Heitman! We have had others like you on here, and they have been banned. Hope you are banned soon, before you confuse the new Catholic members on here! :fryingpan: :heretic:
You seem to act is if no Priest or Bishops or even a Pope (in his fallible capacity) can ever err in their judgments. Well, you are quiet wrong.
Jehanne, Emerentiana
The words by the Pope are clear. It is not lawful to prevent conception in anyway. Therefore, Jehanne, Pope Pius XI was not only talking about abortion, but also about risking the life of the mother if the spouses should decide to have marital relations. Only someone who is dishonest would disagree with this. The problem is that you both seem to reject dogma. You thus reject God, and as a consequence becomes rejected by God:
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."
Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children[/u].”
Therefore, even though NFP does not directly interfere with the marriage act itself, as its defenders love to stress, it makes no difference. NFP is condemned because it subordinates the primary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the procreation and education of children) to the secondary ends.
NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things, by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary end) while having marital relations. NFP therefore inverts the order established by God Himself. It does the very thing that Pope Pius XI solemnly teaches may not lawfully be done. And this point crushes all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP; because all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP focus on the marriage act itself, while they blindly ignore the fact that it makes no difference if a couple does not interfere with the act itself if they subordinate and thwart the primary PURPOSE of marriage.
To summarize, therefore, the only difference between artificial contraception and NFP is that artificial contraception frustrates the power of the marriage act itself, while NFP frustrates its primary purpose (by subordinating the procreation of children to other things).
-
A couple could live chaste all way through their marriage also, and it is nothing wrong about that, but is something good amnd praisworthy.
Their marriage would be invalid; it would need to be consummated.
-
Not that my two cents means anything to anyone: but I for one think Hietanen gives a better account of himself here than do his multiple adversaries. I don't think the exchanges are accomplishing anything, because the minds are already made up.
Not that I know what I'm talking about either: but I seem to remember reading that the basis of a marriage -- what makes it valid -- is the mutual consent of the parties. Anyone who is competent, please correct me.
-
Not that my two cents means anything to anyone: but I for one think Hietanen gives a better account of himself here than do his multiple adversaries. I don't think the exchanges are accomplishing anything, because the minds are already made up.
I quit. We are going in circles.
-
A couple could live chaste all way through their marriage also, and it is nothing wrong about that, but is something good amnd praisworthy.
Their marriage would be invalid; it would need to be consummated.
No, a marriage would still be a marriage even without it being consummated.
the difference between a consummated and unconsummated marriage, is that a marriage not consummated could be absolved by the Pope if either party wished to enter religion. When it had been consummated, however, it "is by Divine Law absolutely indissoluble, so that not even the Holy See can on any grounds whatsoever dissolve it. "
Please, read up on marriage, you don't know what you are talking about.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm
-
A couple could live chaste all way through their marriage also, and it is nothing wrong about that, but is something good amnd praisworthy.
Their marriage would be invalid; it would need to be consummated.
No, a marriage would still be a marriage even without it being consummated.
the difference between a consummated and unconsummated marriage, is that a marriage not consummated could be absolved by the Pope if either party wished to enter religion. When it had been consummated, however, it "is by Divine Law absolutely indissoluble, so that not even the Holy See can on any grounds whatsoever dissolve it. "
Please, read up on marriage, you don't know what you are talking about.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm
According to the article you posted,
"The efficient cause of the marriage contract, as well as of the sacrament, was even in this case the mutual intention of marriage, although expression was not given to it in the regular way. This legal presumption ceased on 5 Feb., 1892, by Decree of Leo XIII, as it had grown obsolete among the faithful and was no longer adapted to actual conditions."
Virtually all married people have relations, unless they are physically unable to. You are splitting hairs, once again. Maybe I should have mentioned valid and indissoluble, because that is the type of marriages that we have been discussing here.
-
As it is certain, therefore, from the point of view of the Church that marriage as a sacrament is fulfilled only through the mutual consent of the contracting parties, it is a matter of secondary consideration, how and in what sense the matter and form of this sacrament are to be taken. The view that most correctly explains this is perhaps the one that is generally prevalent today; in every contract two elements are to be distinguished, the offering of a right and the acceptance of it; the former is the foundation, the latter is the juridicial completion. The same holds true of the sacramental contract of marriage; in so far, therefore as an offering of the marriage right is contained in the mutual declaration of consent, we have the matter of the sacraments, and, in so far as a mutual acceptance is contained therein, we have the form.
From the New Advent article on marriage.
-
Not that my two cents means anything to anyone: but I for one think Hietanen gives a better account of himself here than do his multiple adversaries.
Hietanen's "account of himself" is the problem here.
-
Maybe I should have mentioned valid and indissoluble, because that is the type of marriages that we have been discussing here.
Yes you clearly used the wrong word by saying an unconsummated marriage was not a valid marriage.
Virtually all married people have relations, unless they are physically unable to.
Many married couples during the centuries, both in the old and new testament, have lived chastely. Many married couples after their first or second child, have lived chastely. Abstinence and chastity in marriage is thus something good and praiseworthy.
What I am trying to say, is that married couples must not have relations all the time as you seem to have thought I meant. Spouses must only have relations with one another if either of the spouses demand it. In such a case, it is unlawful to deny, since both parties have a right to the primary and secondary purpose of marriage (the raising and education of children and the quieting of concupiscence).
Real abstinence is thus nothing wrong, but something good and praiseworthy. But this real abstinence is nothing to be compared with another evil practice of false abstinence. The only (false) abstinence that is condemned is when people have relations while deliberately have preplanned to avoid conception. If you are to have relations, then you must be open to conception and accept all the children God wishes you to have. This includes having relations spontaneously, and not after a plan, such as planning to have it only on the infertile days and avoid the fertile days. The only exceptions for preplanning the times for having relations would be if it is done to achieve a pregnancy, in such cases is it licit and lawful. NFP can thus be used lawfully to help achieve a pregnancy (but not so for avoiding pregnancies). When a couple acts in these ways they are guilty of the mortal sin of contraception.
People can thus have relations lawfully even on infertile days, so long as they do not avoid children deliberately, and so long as they do not only have relations on the infertile days.
But there are non-sinful reasons that spouses cannot have relations during known fertile periods, such as the husband is on a business trip or one spouse is sick, etc. Because they did not deliberately impede the fertile period for the purpose of preventing conception, they can have relations during the known infertile period without sinning, even though they did not have relations during the fertile period. For instance, if a husband is away from home during his wife‘s known fertile period and returns to his wife during her known infertile period, he can still have conjugal relations with her without sinning as long as he did not deliberately avoid the fertile period for the purpose of preventing conception (which would be a mortally sinful act of impeding conception, an intrinsic evil). In this case the spouses did not sin, even though they had marital relations only during the wife‘s known infertile period.
-
You never answered my question about the hypothetical (although, all too real) couple. Pulling out that tidbit regarding sacramental but unconsummated marriage is a sophomoric distraction. No such marriages exist in the Catholic world today, so please drop that one. I was fully aware that such marriages did exist during the Middle Ages. Saint Jehanne la Pucelle may have entered into such a relationship, but because the relationship was never consummated, it was nullified, as she took a religious vow.
Okay, so moving on, answer my question above -- Would NFP be lawful and moral for my couple?
-
You never answered my question about the hypothetical (although, all too real) couple. Pulling out that tidbit regarding sacramental but unconsummated marriage is a sophomoric distraction. No such marriages exist in the Catholic world today, so please drop that one. I was fully aware that such marriages did exist during the Middle Ages. Saint Jehanne la Pucelle may have entered into such a relationship, but because the relationship was never consummated, it was nullified, as she took a religious vow.
Okay, so moving on, answer my question above -- Would NFP be lawful and moral for my couple?
You have to repeat your question, and I will try to answer it.
Neither do I think I tried to distract you from anything. I simply pointed out that you where wrong it claiming that an unconsummated marriage was not a valid marriage.
However, I hope your question will not be regarding whether it it's lawful or not to deliberately avoid a pregnancy, for whatever reason... For I have already answered that, many times over, and proved to you, from Catholic dogma, that such behavior is NEVER acceptable.
By the way, did you read my previous post all way through, which may already have answered your questions?
-
In my example to you above, you told me that my hypothetical couple "must abstain." Yet, you condemn abstinence between married persons, don't you, saying that they must have marital relations on a regular basis? So, which is it?
No, Jehanne, you are just dishonest.
I only condemn false abstinence, that is, abstinence on fertile days, while only having marital relations on the infertile days. That is chastity for satan and dishonorable continence. And that false abstinence is also condemned since it frustrates the primary purpose of marriage, the rising and education of children.
What I say (in agreement with the Pope), is that if people are to have marital relations (since they are forbidden to prevent conception in any way), they must be ready to take the possible consequences, and risk the life of the mother. If they are not ready the risk the life of the mother, they must remain chaste.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: “As to the ‘medical and therapeutic indication’ to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless, what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: ‘Thou shalt not kill’. The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it… Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing[/u][/b].”
You see, I don't make up my own teachings, what I show you, is the Church teaching. So, do you agree with this or not?
You consistently misunderstand and/or misrepresent the authortative quotes you present. Pius XI is talking about ABORTION here.
-
You never answered my question about the hypothetical (although, all too real) couple. Pulling out that tidbit regarding sacramental but unconsummated marriage is a sophomoric distraction. No such marriages exist in the Catholic world today, so please drop that one. I was fully aware that such marriages did exist during the Middle Ages. Saint Jehanne la Pucelle may have entered into such a relationship, but because the relationship was never consummated, it was nullified, as she took a religious vow.
Okay, so moving on, answer my question above -- Would NFP be lawful and moral for my couple?
You have to repeat your question, and I will try to answer it.
Neither do I think I tried to distract you from anything. I simply pointed out that you where wrong it claiming that an unconsummated marriage was not a valid marriage.
However, I hope your question will not be regarding whether it it's lawful or not to deliberately avoid a pregnancy, for whatever reason... For I have already answered that, many times over, and proved to you, from Catholic dogma, that such behavior is NEVER acceptable.
By the way, did you read my previous post all way through, which may already have answered your questions?
So, you're saying that a Catholic couple in a valid and consummated marriage cannot morally use NFP even if it is medically certain that a pregnancy would result in the death of the wife and mother? You are saying that such a couple must remain celibate for the remainder of their marriage?
-
I wonder what Fr. Feeney's position was on NFP.
-
It seems that there are at least a few in this forum that can only find the inspiration to post when the subject has some relation to fornication. NFP--Homos-- condoms etc....
It is hardly surprising that these perverts recognise the anti-pope benedict and go ballistic over someone who smokes a little MJ. :whistleblower:
-
You never answered my question about the hypothetical (although, all too real) couple. Pulling out that tidbit regarding sacramental but unconsummated marriage is a sophomoric distraction. No such marriages exist in the Catholic world today, so please drop that one. I was fully aware that such marriages did exist during the Middle Ages. Saint Jehanne la Pucelle may have entered into such a relationship, but because the relationship was never consummated, it was nullified, as she took a religious vow.
Okay, so moving on, answer my question above -- Would NFP be lawful and moral for my couple?
You have to repeat your question, and I will try to answer it.
Neither do I think I tried to distract you from anything. I simply pointed out that you where wrong it claiming that an unconsummated marriage was not a valid marriage.
However, I hope your question will not be regarding whether it it's lawful or not to deliberately avoid a pregnancy, for whatever reason... For I have already answered that, many times over, and proved to you, from Catholic dogma, that such behavior is NEVER acceptable.
By the way, did you read my previous post all way through, which may already have answered your questions?
So, you're saying that a Catholic couple in a valid and consummated marriage cannot morally use NFP even if it is medically certain that a pregnancy would result in the death of the wife and mother? You are saying that such a couple must remain celibate for the remainder of their marriage?
You consistently misunderstand and/or misrepresent the authortative quotes you present. Pius XI is talking about ABORTION here.
The Pope has already mentioned the serious reasons. No reasons, HOWEVER GRAVE may be put forward that prevents or frustrates the natural power of the marriage act, the begetting of children. Therefore, if a person is to have relations, it must be open to conception with the consequences in mind.
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.“
You either accept the dogma, or reject it. Your eternal salvation depends on your decision.
So, to answer your question, again, Jehanne. If a couple are not ready to risk the life of the mother, they must remain chaste during the rest of their lives, or risk the concequences by having marital relations.
The Pope did mention specifically the sufferings of the mother and the reward awaiting her for faithfully carrying out her duty in life, if she dies while becoming pregnant.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: “Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.”
-
It seems that there are at least a few in this forum that can only find the inspiration to post when the subject has some relation to fornication. NFP--Homos-- condoms etc....
It is hardly surprising that these perverts recognise the anti-pope benedict and go ballistic over someone who smokes a little MJ. :whistleblower:
Smoking Marijuana is a mortal sin.
Marijuana is bad for several reason, because it will make you love worldly things. When I smoked I always sinned with masturbation and porn because it tempted me the more, and I became gluttonous and ate a lot since its what it does, I always had a desire to listen to some kind of drug music, or playing a evil video games or watching a bad film.
If a person desires to be damned he shall surely go on smoking marijuana, for it will lead him to all these kinds of sins above and even worse, fornication is not far off.
SMOKING AND DRUGS
We don’t know if smoking (cigarettes) in very small amounts once in a while is a sin. But we believe that smoking habitually or regularly is a sin, and it definitely cuts out graces from people’s lives. We don’t see how those who smoke habitually, for example throughout the day, would be any different from people who eat candy all day and thus try to constantly gratify themselves in that way. This is not even to get into the issue that we know it’s horrible for health and leads to death. If you are smoking, you are giving a horrible example to people, tempting them to start smoking which is highly addictive and lethal. Smoking is so addictive that medical scientists have compared the addiction to Heroin addiction. Most people who get addicted to cigarettes will never be able to stop and will be life long slaves under a most filthy, evil and grace diminishing habit.
The same can be said of all addictive substances that you don't need to survive, such as: coffee, candy, chips, cookies, soda, good meats etc... If you can't abstain from these substances for even a few days, then you are addicted to them and need to learn to abstain from them. Good days for learning to abstain from one's own desires are Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Fridays has always been a day of abstinence in the Catholic Church – since Our Lord suffered and died on that day – which means that one cannot eat anything containing meat under pain of mortal sin (there is no obligation of fast or abstinence on a holy day of obligation such as Christmas, even if it falls on a Friday). One should of course also abstain from other superfluous substances. While some substances may appear to be harmless, grace is highly diminished in people who always uses things which are superfluous.
http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/
-
You consistently misunderstand and/or misrepresent the authortative quotes you present. Pius XI is talking about ABORTION here.
The Pope has already mentioned the serious reasons. No reasons, HOWEVER GRAVE may be put forward that prevents or frustrates the natural power of the marriage act, the begetting of children. Therefore, if a person is to have relations, it must be open to conception with the consequences in mind.
He was condenming ABORTION.
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.“
This is a condemnation of ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL. You can't frustrate an act by the exercise of a natural conjujal act.
-
He was condenming ABORTION.
Yes, but he was also talking about risking the life of the mother through pregnancy. You know, a woman becomes pregnant through marital relations. A woman only become pregnant if the spouses do not prevent conception, of if they get pregnant against their will while trying to prevent conception.
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.“
This is a condemnation of ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL. You can't frustrate an act by the exercise of a natural conjujal act.
No Pope Pius XI condemned all acts of preventing conception, you dishonest liar.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56) “But no reason, however grave...“
This, without a doubt, condemns all REASONS, whether if be NFP, or by fake abstinence by deliberately avoiding the fertile periods while only having relation on the infertile periods.
Contraception is something a person becomes guilty of in his heart in the same way as a person becomes guilty of adultery in his heart. God will judges our intentions as well as our deeds, you dishonest person!
When your intent is to avoid children, you are guilty of contraception. Sadly, simple logic, doesn't work for heretics and mortal sinners, since all they really care about is to excuse their mortal sins and heresies.
Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”
Therefore, even though NFP does not directly interfere with the marriage act itself, as its defenders love to stress, it makes no difference. NFP is condemned because it subordinates the primary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the procreation and education of children) to the secondary ends.
NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things, by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary end) while having marital relations. NFP therefore inverts the order established by God Himself. It does the very thing that Pope Pius XI solemnly teaches may not lawfully be done. And this point crushes all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP; because all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP focus on the marriage act itself, while they blindly ignore the fact that it makes no difference if a couple does not interfere with the act itself if they subordinate and thwart the primary PURPOSE of marriage.
To summarize, therefore, the only difference between artificial contraception and NFP is that artificial contraception frustrates the power of the marriage act itself, while NFP frustrates its primary purpose (by subordinating the procreation of children to other things).
-
No Pope Pius XI condemned all acts of preventing conception, you dishonest liar.
A natural conjugal act does not prevent conception, you stupid idiot.
-
If you consult any traditional priest you will find out that you are wrong about your beliefs on NFP. The problem with you Feenyites and Diamond Bro followers is that you think priests today, who are Gods representatives on earth given the MISSION to safeguard and interpret the Churches teachings do not have any authority. However, in your priceless opinion, the Diamonds and Feeney have that authority! Who gave the authority to them? Their teachings contradict the teachings of the church.
Give up this discussion Heitman! We have had others like you on here, and they have been banned. Hope you are banned soon, before you confuse the new Catholic members on here! :fryingpan: :heretic:
You seem to act is if no Priest or Bishops or even a Pope (in his fallible capacity) can ever err in their judgments. Well, you are quiet wrong.
Jehanne, Emerentiana
The words by the Pope are clear. It is not lawful to prevent conception in anyway. Therefore, Jehanne, Pope Pius XI was not only talking about abortion, but also about risking the life of the mother if the spouses should decide to have marital relations. Only someone who is dishonest would disagree with this. The problem is that you both seem to reject dogma. You thus reject God, and as a consequence becomes rejected by God:
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."
Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children[/u].”
Therefore, even though NFP does not directly interfere with the marriage act itself, as its defenders love to stress, it makes no difference. NFP is condemned because it subordinates the primary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the procreation and education of children) to the secondary ends.
NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things, by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary end) while having marital relations. NFP therefore inverts the order established by God Himself. It does the very thing that Pope Pius XI solemnly teaches may not lawfully be done. And this point crushes all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP; because all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP focus on the marriage act itself, while they blindly ignore the fact that it makes no difference if a couple does not interfere with the act itself if they subordinate and thwart the primary PURPOSE of marriage.
To summarize, therefore, the only difference between artificial contraception and NFP is that artificial contraception frustrates the power of the marriage act itself, while NFP frustrates its primary purpose (by subordinating the procreation of children to other things).
Hietanen, are you married with children? Lots of people who take your position are not married.
This is a traditional Catholic forum. Most of its members recognize the bishops and priest as authority in the church.
The concepts you put forward are OPINIONS of the Diamonds.
Have you ever consulted a priest in this matter, or are you a "home aloner", as most that espose your ideas.
Go and consult a priest, and then come back and discuss this issue. :heretic:
-
It seems that there are at least a few in this forum that can only find the inspiration to post when the subject has some relation to fornication. NFP--Homos-- condoms etc....
It is hardly surprising that these perverts recognise the anti-pope benedict and go ballistic over someone who smokes a little MJ. :whistleblower:
Smoking Marijuana is a mortal sin.
Marijuana is bad for several reason, because it will make you love worldly things. When I smoked I always sinned with masturbation and porn because it tempted me the more, and I became gluttonous and ate a lot since its what it does, I always had a desire to listen to some kind of drug music, or playing a evil video games or watching a bad film.
If a person desires to be damned he shall surely go on smoking marijuana, for it will lead him to all these kinds of sins above and even worse, fornication is not far off.
SMOKING AND DRUGS
We don’t know if smoking (cigarettes) in very small amounts once in a while is a sin. But we believe that smoking habitually or regularly is a sin, and it definitely cuts out graces from people’s lives. We don’t see how those who smoke habitually, for example throughout the day, would be any different from people who eat candy all day and thus try to constantly gratify themselves in that way. This is not even to get into the issue that we know it’s horrible for health and leads to death. If you are smoking, you are giving a horrible example to people, tempting them to start smoking which is highly addictive and lethal. Smoking is so addictive that medical scientists have compared the addiction to Heroin addiction. Most people who get addicted to cigarettes will never be able to stop and will be life long slaves under a most filthy, evil and grace diminishing habit.
The same can be said of all addictive substances that you don't need to survive, such as: coffee, candy, chips, cookies, soda, good meats etc... If you can't abstain from these substances for even a few days, then you are addicted to them and need to learn to abstain from them. Good days for learning to abstain from one's own desires are Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Fridays has always been a day of abstinence in the Catholic Church – since Our Lord suffered and died on that day – which means that one cannot eat anything containing meat under pain of mortal sin (there is no obligation of fast or abstinence on a holy day of obligation such as Christmas, even if it falls on a Friday). One should of course also abstain from other superfluous substances. While some substances may appear to be harmless, grace is highly diminished in people who always uses things which are superfluous.
http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/
In spite of repeated requests by moi, no one in this forum has ever presented Any Church Authority that condemns MJ in Any way-- much less as a mortal sin. In fact, the opposite seems to be true as God blesses All green herbs in the Bible-- which has been noted frequently.
If U 'always sinned' after smoking the stuff then I would advise getting your mind( if U are in possession of it) out of the gutter. It just so happens that I read 30 of Prof Pastor's History Of Popes while I was 'high' on MJ.
On a positive note, it does seem as if U understand the dangers of tobacco-- which substance has been condemned to the point of ex-communication by Urban VIII and Innocent X.
Are U a follower of Dimonds?
-
BTW-- Unless i am mistaken, coffee, cocaine and chocolate are all green herbs.
-
BTW again-- is it really necessary for u to go into such a graphic description of your fallen nature?
-
I wonder what Fr. Feeney's position was on NFP.
Good question. Ask those who knew him:
http://catholicism.org/
-
No Pope Pius XI condemned all acts of preventing conception, you dishonest liar.
A natural conjugal act does not prevent conception, you stupid idiot.
That's not very "ladylike," SJB.
-
No Pope Pius XI condemned all acts of preventing conception, you dishonest liar.
A natural conjugal act does not prevent conception, you stupid idiot.
That's not very "ladylike," SJB.
No, it's not. But it's not explicit either. :wink:
-
I've repented of that. Little did my analysis accomplish, but it was just that, an analysis.
-
If you consult any traditional priest you will find out that you are wrong about your beliefs on NFP. The problem with you Feenyites and Diamond Bro followers is that you think priests today, who are Gods representatives on earth given the MISSION to safeguard and interpret the Churches teachings do not have any authority. However, in your priceless opinion, the Diamonds and Feeney have that authority! Who gave the authority to them? Their teachings contradict the teachings of the church.
Give up this discussion Heitman! We have had others like you on here, and they have been banned. Hope you are banned soon, before you confuse the new Catholic members on here! :fryingpan: :heretic:
You seem to act is if no Priest or Bishops or even a Pope (in his fallible capacity) can ever err in their judgments. Well, you are quiet wrong.
Jehanne, Emerentiana
The words by the Pope are clear. It is not lawful to prevent conception in anyway. Therefore, Jehanne, Pope Pius XI was not only talking about abortion, but also about risking the life of the mother if the spouses should decide to have marital relations. Only someone who is dishonest would disagree with this. The problem is that you both seem to reject dogma. You thus reject God, and as a consequence becomes rejected by God:
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."
Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children[/u].”
Therefore, even though NFP does not directly interfere with the marriage act itself, as its defenders love to stress, it makes no difference. NFP is condemned because it subordinates the primary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the procreation and education of children) to the secondary ends.
NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things, by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary end) while having marital relations. NFP therefore inverts the order established by God Himself. It does the very thing that Pope Pius XI solemnly teaches may not lawfully be done. And this point crushes all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP; because all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP focus on the marriage act itself, while they blindly ignore the fact that it makes no difference if a couple does not interfere with the act itself if they subordinate and thwart the primary PURPOSE of marriage.
To summarize, therefore, the only difference between artificial contraception and NFP is that artificial contraception frustrates the power of the marriage act itself, while NFP frustrates its primary purpose (by subordinating the procreation of children to other things).
Hietanen, are you married with children? Lots of people who take your position are not married.
This is a traditional Catholic forum. Most of its members recognize the bishops and priest as authority in the church.
The concepts you put forward are OPINIONS of the Diamonds.
Have you ever consulted a priest in this matter, or are you a "home aloner", as most that espose your ideas.
Go and consult a priest, and then come back and discuss this issue. :heretic:
Hey Em,
I've never watched anything the Dimond brothers put up on this subject, nor do I care. Also, I am not a "home aloner."
I agree with what he's saying, and I am pregnant with number 6... so...
Um...
What?
-
I hope that isn't you in the avatar -- not recommended for expecting women.
-
No Pope Pius XI condemned all acts of preventing conception, you dishonest liar.
A natural conjugal act does not prevent conception, you stupid idiot.
God judges your intention as well!!! Get this fact through your obstinate sinful head now! When you practice NFP, you have already used contraception in your heart, and are already avoiding children in your heart!
If you really didn't want to use contraception, you wouldn't want to prevent conception from taking place in the first place. You are guilty of contraception and the contraceptive intent in your heart. Realize, sad blind person, that all deliberate mortal or venial sins is first begun in a persons heart and will, by consenting to it. So, since you are guilty of the contraceptive act already in your heart, and since you deliberately actually tries to prevent conception (although naturally) you are guilt of an intrinsically evil act of preventing conception. And if your evil intent will be working, ZERO children will be the result.
Only someone who is a complete liar and dishonest would disagree with this. Sadly, you are not of the truth, its just that simple.
And this brings us to another point. If NFP is not a sin – if it is simply “natural,” as they say – then why can’t married couples use NFP during the whole marriage and have zero children? If NFP is not a sin, then all women are perfectly free to use this method of birth control to phase out of existence all children so that not even one is born! But basically all of the defenders of NFP would admit that it would be immoral and gravely sinful to use NFP to avoid all new life. But when they make this admission they are admitting that NFP is a sin; otherwise, let them confess that it can be used by all couples for any reason to avoid all children.
I will quote again Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), 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.”[/i]
Only someone who is a complete liar and of bad will headed for Hell, could possible say that NOT ALL REASONS for avoiding conception was condemned as intrinsically evil by Pope Pius XI above. Likewise, only a liar could deny that all deliberate acts of prevention conception was condemned, which includes the contraceptive intent in a persons heart as well.
SJB. I will pray for you. Nothing but a miracle seems to be able to wake you up from the spiritual darkness you are living in.
-
Are you a partisan of dimond bros?
-
The Dimonds are Protestant laymen.
-
Are you a partisan of dimond bros?
No. The Dimonds are heretics and are exposed in this article,
http://www.catholic-saints.net/heretics/most-holy-family-monastery-exposed.php
In spite of repeated requests by moi, no one in this forum has ever presented Any Church Authority that condemns MJ in Any way-- much less as a mortal sin.
To deliberately intake substances that alter your mind and reason, is a mortal sin. You would be excused if you where sick and had to take pain killers, for example. But now you are only after a kick, you are really not any different from an alcoholic. Drunkenness is a mortal sin, because it deprives us of reason, Marijuana does the same, we cannot function in our full capacity while high.
You know, one of the reasons for gluttony being a mortal sin is because, if eating to much, we cannot function in our activities as we should. The same goes for sloth, or sadness, etc. If we let these things take control over us and they deprive us of our reason and capacity, it is a mortal sin.
Now, you may fool yourself into thinking that you are acting in the same way. But you are not, for when you deliberately take drugs for pleasure, you are opening up doors for demonic possession. When you smoke and alter your conscience, you are opening up yourself for demonic influences, which will influence you in negative ways. This fact alone, should tell you, that it is wrong, and that you shouldn't be doing it.
In fact, the opposite seems to be true as God blesses All green herbs in the Bible-- which has been noted frequently.
So then, according to you, could we intake hallucinogenic mushrooms, since they are natural? Or would you admit that to intake such substances constitutes mortal sin?
If U 'always sinned' after smoking the stuff then I would advise getting your mind( if U are in possession of it) out of the gutter. It just so happens that I read 30 of Prof Pastor's History Of Popes while I was 'high' on MJ.
That you can read spiritual things or Church docuмents, or that you may or may not fall into other mortal sins deliberately when your high, means nothing. The mortal sin lies with your intent. You are after bodily pleasures, you are worshiping the body! You know what the saints teach, those who are constantly looking for consolations, pleasures, etc, are gravely in error.
St. John of the Cross, in his work "The Dark Night of the Soul" (I, vi), dissects what he calls spiritual gluttony. He explains that it is the disposition of those who, in prayer and other acts of religion, are always in search of sensible sweetness; they are those who "will feel and taste God, as if he were palpable and accessible to them not only in Communion but in all their other acts of devotion." This he declares is a very great imperfection and productive of great evils.
You know, you cannot find a single saint or pope approve of these practices? Besides, I think you know what they teach, mortification and penance, and to not search for sensible delights. The way you're walking on, is not the Catholic way, but the worlds way, satans way, who incite us to live for pleasure and pleasure seeking.
On a positive note, it does seem as if U understand the dangers of tobacco-- which substance has been condemned to the point of ex-communication by Urban VIII and Innocent X.
Yes, then think of what condemnation smoking Marijuana falls under.
-
My responses to the above arguments have been given many times. I would suggest reading past discussions of the topic.
-
OK-- i'll repeat my response to one of the points above. B4 Urban VIII and Innocent X proscribed tobacco, there was no docuмent existing that specifically approved of that substance.
IOW your demand for an approval of MJ use by some Church authority is unreasonable and --yes-- Jansenistic. Be that as it may, a specific blessing has been given to All green herbs in the Bible by God. What part of All needs to be explained.
-
From a medical point of view, it is "more healthy" to smoke weed than tobacco. This is something, from a scientific POV, not in dispute.
-
The proper term is grass-- not weed, but thanks for the support. Weeds are something that ruin your grass.
-
The proper term is grass-- not weed, but thanks for the support. Weeds are something that ruin your grass.
Roscoe, this thread is about the Diamonds. You need to start another on marajuana :soapbox:
-
edit
-
The proper term is grass-- not weed, but thanks for the support. Weeds are something that ruin your grass.
Roscoe, this thread is about the Diamonds. You need to start another on marajuana :soapbox:
Pls note that I did not bring it up. :wave:
-
Do u really want another MJ discussion?
-
I advise you all to ignore roscoe and not reply to him. I've noticed that since I put him on ignore (I was giving his posts more attention than anyone else, I'll admit) his number of posts has decreased. He likes being the center of attention with his pot-smoking. I think if everyone igonres him he will either leave or at the very least stop talking about MJ so much.
-
Apparently it has to be said again-- I did not bring it up. :shocked:
-
I personally believe that the Dimond brothers are 100% correct on the subject of Water Baptism as a requirement.
Those in favor of BOB and BOD can only point to fallible quotes and a mistranslation of the Council of Trent. But those in favor of Water Baptism as a requirement have numerous infallible quotes, including Trent, to back them up.
-
No one gets everything wrong.
-
On a positive note, it does seem as if U understand the dangers of tobacco-- which substance has been condemned to the point of ex-communication by Urban VIII and Innocent X.
Yes, then think of what condemnation smoking Marijuana falls under.[/quote]
i have repeatedly asked for a condemnation of MJ by some Church Authority and it has never been provided. Any thinking like this is therefore a Jansenist illusion.
-
Those in favor of BOB and BOD can only point to fallible quotes and a mistranslation of the Council of Trent. But those in favor of Water Baptism as a requirement have numerous infallible quotes, including Trent, to back them up.
How is it possible to express this much bad faith in so few lines?
"Fallible quotes" -- from at least five DOCTORS of the Church. That makes baptism of desire at least part of the OAUM, or as St. Alphonsus says, DE FIDE.
"Mistranslation of the Council of Trent" -- This "mistranslation" was how it was always translated before the second half of the 20th century.
"Numerous infallible quotes, including Trent, to back them up" -- No, as has been explained many times, you have your blinded-by-pride interpretation of infallible quotes.
Find me one theologian before Father Feeney who interpreted Trent in your sense. Shouldn't be too hard, considering that gives you about four centuries worth of theologians to sift through. Happy hunting.
Matthew, why don't you just ban the David Landry type of Feeneyite as soon as they appear? They just spout the same form-letter type nonsense.
-
As long as we're talking about banning people, I have no idea why Roscoe is still here. I think Matthew considers him comic relief, but as you can see, no one finds him funny anymore.
Until he's gone, it's best to follow what spiritus says and ignore him. He disrupts threads and makes everything shambolic.
-
Those in favor of BOB and BOD can only point to fallible quotes and a mistranslation of the Council of Trent. But those in favor of Water Baptism as a requirement have numerous infallible quotes, including Trent, to back them up.
How is it possible to express this much bad faith in so few lines?
"Fallible quotes" -- from at least five DOCTORS of the Church. That makes baptism of desire at least part of the OAUM, or as St. Alphonsus says, DE FIDE.
"Mistranslation of the Council of Trent" -- This "mistranslation" was how it was always translated before the second half of the 20th century.
"Numerous infallible quotes, including Trent, to back them up" -- No, as has been explained many times, you have your blinded-by-pride interpretation of infallible quotes.
Find me one theologian before Father Feeney who interpreted Trent in your sense. Shouldn't be too hard, considering that gives you about four centuries worth of theologians to sift through. Happy hunting.
Matthew, why don't you just ban the David Landry type of Feeneyite as soon as they appear? They just spout the same form-letter type nonsense.
What Father Feeney taught and what the Council of Trent taught, via the Roman Catechism, are, from my perspective at least, "two sides" of the same coin. First, the Roman Catechism,
Roman Catechism -- Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
"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.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation..."
Now, Father Feeney,
Bread of Life -- page 56
"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."
The One and Triune God commands all to be "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5, RSV), and since with God, "nothing will be impossible" (Luke 1:37, RSV), which means that "all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26, RSV), and since God is a "God of knowledge," (1 Samuel 2:3, RSV), and since nothing happens apart from the "Father's will," (Matthew 10:29, RSV), and since "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27, RSV), we are certainly free, as did Father Feeney and his followers, to conclude that God will provide sacramental Baptism to WHOMEVER sincerely desires it.
Baptism of Desire & Blood may exist as theological hypotheticals; we have excellent reasons and testimony to think that such do not ever occur apart from sacramental Baptism.
-
As long as we're talking about banning people, I have no idea why Roscoe is still here. I think Matthew considers him comic relief, but as you can see, no one finds him funny anymore.
Until he's gone, it's best to follow what spiritus says and ignore him. He disrupts threads and makes everything shambolic.
My posts are rarely, if ever meant to be funny.
-
Roscoe says some quite perceptive things. Anyone who thinks his posts are not worthwhile can choose not to read them. Threads are always getting derailed, because that's how people operate in a "forum" such as this.
As for posters' expressing bad faith, that judgment presumes something that cannot be known. With respect to pride, name one person who posts here who is not guilty of it.
-
As for posters' expressing bad faith, that judgment presumes something that cannot be known.
At all?
-
If you consult any traditional priest you will find out that you are wrong about your beliefs on NFP. The problem with you Feenyites and Diamond Bro followers is that you think priests today, who are Gods representatives on earth given the MISSION to safeguard and interpret the Churches teachings do not have any authority. However, in your priceless opinion, the Diamonds and Feeney have that authority! Who gave the authority to them? Their teachings contradict the teachings of the church.
Give up this discussion Heitman! We have had others like you on here, and they have been banned. Hope you are banned soon, before you confuse the new Catholic members on here! :fryingpan: :heretic:
You seem to act is if no Priest or Bishops or even a Pope (in his fallible capacity) can ever err in their judgments. Well, you are quiet wrong.
Jehanne, Emerentiana
The words by the Pope are clear. It is not lawful to prevent conception in anyway. Therefore, Jehanne, Pope Pius XI was not only talking about abortion, but also about risking the life of the mother if the spouses should decide to have marital relations. Only someone who is dishonest would disagree with this. The problem is that you both seem to reject dogma. You thus reject God, and as a consequence becomes rejected by God:
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."
Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children[/u].”
Therefore, even though NFP does not directly interfere with the marriage act itself, as its defenders love to stress, it makes no difference. NFP is condemned because it subordinates the primary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the procreation and education of children) to the secondary ends.
NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things, by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary end) while having marital relations. NFP therefore inverts the order established by God Himself. It does the very thing that Pope Pius XI solemnly teaches may not lawfully be done. And this point crushes all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP; because all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP focus on the marriage act itself, while they blindly ignore the fact that it makes no difference if a couple does not interfere with the act itself if they subordinate and thwart the primary PURPOSE of marriage.
To summarize, therefore, the only difference between artificial contraception and NFP is that artificial contraception frustrates the power of the marriage act itself, while NFP frustrates its primary purpose (by subordinating the procreation of children to other things).
Hietanen, are you married with children? Lots of people who take your position are not married.
This is a traditional Catholic forum. Most of its members recognize the bishops and priest as authority in the church.
The concepts you put forward are OPINIONS of the Diamonds.
Have you ever consulted a priest in this matter, or are you a "home aloner", as most that espose your ideas.
Go and consult a priest, and then come back and discuss this issue. :heretic:
Hey Em,
I've never watched anything the Dimond brothers put up on this subject, nor do I care. Also, I am not a "home aloner."
I agree with what he's saying, and I am pregnant with number 6... so...
What?
Im not referring to you Parents for truth.
I was referring to Heitanan! LOL Obviously, your name gives it away that you have children
What hes saying is Diamond heresy! If you talk to any trad priest, they will set you straight!
I have 10 children! NFP never worked for me! :
:roll-laugh1:
-
Yes, it's bad faith when someone completely disregards the arguments of the other side and acts as if they've never spoken at all, just going about their business, repeating insipid non-facts that they take for dogmatic truths.
I don't see how someone can avoid the charge of bad faith when they dub the teaching of St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, and St. Bernard, practically a roll call of the greatest minds of the Church, "non-infallible," in comparison to their amateurish interpretation of some sentence from a Pope, especially when almost no theologian of the last three hundred years or longer has interpreted the Popes in that sense.
When I was a semi-heretic against NFP and implicit faith, I never did this, I don't think. I'd try to engage with good points made by the other side, although I admit there were some that I simply didn't get ( like that NFP isn't intrinsically wrong in the same way as ABC ). Anyway, certain people were fairly rough with me, and they should have been, I'm not such a pansy that I'm going to turn away from the truth because someone was mean to me.
People need to get over their fragile, delicate little egos. Do we care about the truth or just never having to admit we're wrong? Why am I practically the only one here who admits constantly I'm wrong? If anything, that is the reason why God has given me so much grace! Try it sometime, not only will it not kill you, it makes you much stronger in the faith.
Jehanne has some rigid views but he also is truly searching, you can tell his mind is fairly open. As you can see, I don't attack him much. But there is another type of Feeneyite who just want to hammer home their drab, limited and legalistic ( though wrong from a legal sense as well, I might add, so they don't even have that going for them ) view of the Catholic faith.
-
I wasn't talking about bad faith in that he didn't believe what he was saying; I meant his argument was in bad faith, because it casually disregarded every point the opposition has made.
But they all do that. The reason why Deliveringit1's quote struck me more than some others is that he repeated almost every Feeneyite error within two brief lines. It was like industrial-strength, undiluted Feeneyistic error. But maybe not bad faith.
So I apologize for saying he was in bad faith. I should say he was just really, really wrong.
Again, find me one single theologian before Father Feeney who interpreted Trent in this way. One single theologian. I'm not sure even Father Feeney interpreted Trent in this way. It should be kept in mind that Jehanne is referring to the Catechism of Trent, but I believe Deliveringit1 is referring to the actual Council, saying you must have either the laver or the desire for it.
-
MO is that the heretical Dimonds can be described as neo--Feenyites but there is No Such Thing as a 'Feenyite'. :wine-drinking: :wine-drinking:
-
How would one know that one has been given great spiritual Grace?
-
I wasn't talking about bad faith in that he didn't believe what he was saying; I meant his argument was in bad faith, because it casually disregarded every point the opposition has made.
But they all do that. The reason why Deliveringit1's quote struck me more than some others is that he repeated almost every Feeneyite error within two brief lines. It was like industrial-strength, undiluted Feeneyistic error. But maybe not bad faith.
So I apologize for saying he was in bad faith. I should say he was just really, really wrong.
Again, find me one single theologian before Father Feeney who interpreted Trent in this way. One single theologian. I'm not sure even Father Feeney interpreted Trent in this way. It should be kept in mind that Jehanne is referring to the Catechism of Trent, but I believe Deliveringit1 is referring to the actual Council, saying you must have either the laver or the desire for it.
Raul. I already refuted you on page 1 on this thread. You never responded after being refuted, and neither could anyone else refute the arguments. Please, go back to page 1 (more then half page down) and read my response to your questions/statements, and read the following posts after that, which had already dealt with all your false arguments.
That is why everyone standing for bod/bod have been silenced and exposed on this thread, as all the honest people who have read the thread have agreed upon.
So you are completely wrong, Raoul76. The only one of bad will here are you and the people like you who willingly deny infallible Catholic dogma.
-
Jehanne has some rigid views but he also is truly searching, you can tell his mind is fairly open. As you can see, I don't attack him much. But there is another type of Feeneyite who just want to hammer home their drab, limited and legalistic ( though wrong from a legal sense as well, I might add, so they don't even have that going for them ) view of the Catholic faith.
Well, gee, thank you, but you do not hold to the views of Saint Thomas, either. He was quite explicit about the need for explicit faith in at least the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, as was most of the Doctors whom you cite in support of Baptism of Desire & Blood. So, if you can abandon Saint Thomas on such a fundamental point of Catholic dogma/doctrine, what can't others? It seems to me that the Saint Benedict Centers are closer to the views of Saint Thomas than anyone else in the Church today.
Remember, do not associate everyone who has a "dogmatic" view of EENS with Father Feeney. See this for more information:
http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html
Just because people have jumped on the bandwagon of defending EENS does not mean that they are representing Father Feeney's views or those of the SBCs.
-
MO is that the heretical Dimonds can be described as neo--Feenyites but there is No Such Thing as a 'Feenyite'. :wine-drinking: :wine-drinking:
Amen to that Roscoe! (I have no idea why your ignore count is going up, with posts like this!) Yes, indeed, the Dimonds are not representative of the views of Father Feeney, whom they label as a heretic.
-
Again, find me one single theologian before Father Feeney who interpreted Trent in this way. One single theologian. I'm not sure even Father Feeney interpreted Trent in this way. It should be kept in mind that Jehanne is referring to the Catechism of Trent, but I believe Deliveringit1 is referring to the actual Council, saying you must have either the laver or the desire for it.
I agree that the Church has taught Baptism of Desire & Blood, and we are, as Catholics, are bound to believe in both doctrines. Saying, however, that Baptism of Desire & Blood can occur is completely different than saying that they do occur.
If you read the writings of the SBC, Father Feeney taught that sanctifying grace can be given without sacramental Baptism; in this sense, he fully agreed that the One and Triune God is not "bound by His Sacraments." I agree. God can save us using any method that He wishes. For whatever reason, He chose Baptism. Why, I do not know; it's just the way things are. Father Feeney simply made an additional observation, that is, the One and Triune God, even though He is not bounded by His Sacraments is also not bound by the physical laws of the Cosmos which He, after all, created. Therefore, He can bring sacramental Baptism to whomever He deems to be worthy of it.
Since we are all commanded to be Baptized and since God does not command the impossible, it is reasonable to concluded that whoever sincerely desires Baptism will find his or her way to that Sacrament.
-
God can save us using any method that He wishes. For whatever reason, He chose Baptism. Why, I do not know; it's just the way things are. Father Feeney simply made an additional observation, that is, the One and Triune God, even though He is not bounded by His Sacraments is also not bound by the physical laws of the Cosmos which He, after all, created. Therefore, He can bring sacramental Baptism to whomever He deems to be worthy of it.
A Sacrament is an external visible ceremony. If God is not bound by His Sacraments, then he is not bound by visible external ceremonies. He requires that we use them, yet He is not bound by them. You are saying that he always provides for the external ceremony, even if nobody is present to see it.
-
God can save us using any method that He wishes. For whatever reason, He chose Baptism. Why, I do not know; it's just the way things are. Father Feeney simply made an additional observation, that is, the One and Triune God, even though He is not bounded by His Sacraments is also not bound by the physical laws of the Cosmos which He, after all, created. Therefore, He can bring sacramental Baptism to whomever He deems to be worthy of it.
A Sacrament is an external visible ceremony. If God is not bound by His Sacraments, then he is not bound by visible external ceremonies. He requires that we use them, yet He is not bound by them. You are saying that he always provides for the external ceremony, even if nobody is present to see it.
You cannot prove otherwise, ever. It would be tantamount to "proving a negative," that is, for a particular individual that sacramental Baptism did not occur, even in that person's infancy. Of course, this is impossible to ever prove. We all agree that an Act of Perfect Contrition can reconcile one to God in absence of Sacramental Confession but any such desire for Holy Orders is insufficient. For that, one would need the actual Sacrament. It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that the same is true of sacramental Baptism. While the Church has clearly taught that one's desire may be sufficient, the Church has never bound us to believe that such events ever occur. Father Feeney and his followers have given us excellent reasons and testimony to conclude otherwise.
-
God can save us using any method that He wishes. For whatever reason, He chose Baptism. Why, I do not know; it's just the way things are. Father Feeney simply made an additional observation, that is, the One and Triune God, even though He is not bounded by His Sacraments is also not bound by the physical laws of the Cosmos which He, after all, created. Therefore, He can bring sacramental Baptism to whomever He deems to be worthy of it.
A Sacrament is an external visible ceremony. If God is not bound by His Sacraments, then he is not bound by visible external ceremonies. He requires that we use them, yet He is not bound by them. You are saying that he always provides for the external ceremony, even if nobody is present to see it.
You cannot prove otherwise, ever. It would be tantamount to "proving a negative," that is, for a particular individual that sacramental Baptism did not occur, even in that person's infancy. Of course, this is impossible to ever prove. We all agree that an Act of Perfect Contrition can reconcile one to God in absence of Sacramental Confession but any such desire for Holy Orders is insufficient. For that, one would need the actual Sacrament. It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that the same is true of sacramental Baptism. While the Church has clearly taught that one's desire may be sufficient, the Church has never bound us to believe that such events ever occur. Father Feeney and his followers have given us excellent reasons and testimony to conclude otherwise.
Only you seem to need this "proof." The fact is that a visible external ceremony is NOT required by God but He requires that we make use of the Sacraments He has instituted. That is the teaching of the Church.
The comparison of Baptism to Holy Orders seems strange, as one needs baptism and confession, but most do not need Holy Orders and Holy Orders is to provide some service to the Church, which would not be absolutely required for salvation anyway.
-
God can save us using any method that He wishes. For whatever reason, He chose Baptism. Why, I do not know; it's just the way things are. Father Feeney simply made an additional observation, that is, the One and Triune God, even though He is not bounded by His Sacraments is also not bound by the physical laws of the Cosmos which He, after all, created. Therefore, He can bring sacramental Baptism to whomever He deems to be worthy of it.
A Sacrament is an external visible ceremony. If God is not bound by His Sacraments, then he is not bound by visible external ceremonies. He requires that we use them, yet He is not bound by them. You are saying that he always provides for the external ceremony, even if nobody is present to see it.
You cannot prove otherwise, ever. It would be tantamount to "proving a negative," that is, for a particular individual that sacramental Baptism did not occur, even in that person's infancy. Of course, this is impossible to ever prove. We all agree that an Act of Perfect Contrition can reconcile one to God in absence of Sacramental Confession but any such desire for Holy Orders is insufficient. For that, one would need the actual Sacrament. It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that the same is true of sacramental Baptism. While the Church has clearly taught that one's desire may be sufficient, the Church has never bound us to believe that such events ever occur. Father Feeney and his followers have given us excellent reasons and testimony to conclude otherwise.
Only you seem to need this "proof." The fact is that a visible external ceremony is NOT required by God but He requires that we make use of the Sacraments He has instituted. That is the teaching of the Church.
The comparison of Baptism to Holy Orders seems strange, as one needs baptism and confession, but most do not need Holy Orders and Holy Orders is to provide some service to the Church, which would not be absolutely required for salvation anyway.
I do not need any "proof"? Proof of what? Yes, the seven Sacraments are different from each other. As for Baptism just being some "external ceremony," that is not what Saint Thomas taught:
"As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, 'He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,' a gloss says: 'He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.'" (ST, III, 69, 4)
-
As for Baptism just being some "external ceremony," that is not what Saint Thomas taught...
I didn't say it was "just" some "external ceremony." The Sacraments ARE external ceremonies. That fact does not diminish them in any way nor make them "only external ceremonies.".
-
Regarding baptism of desire being taught after the Council of Trent, we have:
Magisterium:
Roman Catechism, P. II, chap. II, q. 36
Pope St. Pius V, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus: Dz. 1031, 1033, 1043, 1070
Pope Paul V, Roman Ritual, Part II, chap. I, par. 1
Pope Gregory XIII, Roman Martyrology – unbaptized saints proposed for veneration by the faithful (Ss. Emerentiana, Genesius of Arles, Alban of Verulam, Victor of Braga, and Rogatian)
Pope St. Pius X, 1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 737 §1; 1239 §2 (see also the personal Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)
Holy Office Letter to Archbishop of Boston, Suprema Haec Sacra: DS 3869-3872 (see also Ven. Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives, 29 October 1951)
Doctors:
St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Lib. VI, Tr. 2, chap. 1, nn. 95-97
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Ecclesia militante, Lib. III, chap. 3
Theologians:
Cano, De Locis Theologicis, Lib. IV, chap. 2-3 (de Ecclesiae Catholicae Auctoritate)
Suarez, De Baptismo, disp. XXVII, sect. II, n. 5 (cited by Tanquerey)
Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, vol. III, sec. 694, pp. 224-226
Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, t. VI (?), n. 423 (cited by Tanquerey)
*Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, vol. I, pp. 243-248
*Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. III, p. 362
Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, q. VII, th. 14; De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, q. XXIV, th. 25, pp. 240-261; De Gratia Christi, th. 13, p. 197sqq. (cited by Fr. Laisney in Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 79)
Franzelin, De Ecclesia, pp. 414-423 (cited by Fr. Laisney)
Wilhelm and Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Based on Scheeben's 'Dogmatic', vol. II, Lib. VII, sec. 252, I, 2, a
Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione, pp. 613-615 (cited by Fr. Laisney)
*Herve, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. III, p. 562
*Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 356
McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology: A Complete Course, vol. II, sec. 2662, pp. 631f.
Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, sec. 551, p. 253; sec. 555, p. 254
*All four cited Sess. VI, chap. 4 (Dz. 796) as well as the pre-Tridentine pontiffs as evidence in support of baptism of desire.
Regarding the necessity of having explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and in the Incarnation, it is a disputed question, although a number of sources I have come across (cf. Fenton*, Jone, McHugh & Callan*, Tanquerey, Van Noort) have said that it is the safer and more probable opinion. Prümmer and the 1949 Revised Baltimore Catechism, No. 3 both state that it must be followed/taught in practice.
* Fenton and McHugh & Callan have both said that a majority of theologians hold this opinion.
-
Implicit faith is a novelty, at least prior to the Council of Trent. Today no doubt it is the "super majority" view, but it was De Vega who in 1560 first proposed it.
Once again, we can fully acknowledge Baptism of Desire, but that is completely different than saying that it ever happens. We have excellent reasons to think otherwise.
-
As for Baptism just being some "external ceremony," that is not what Saint Thomas taught...
I didn't say it was "just" some "external ceremony." The Sacraments ARE external ceremonies. That fact does not diminish them in any way nor make them "only external ceremonies.".
Yet another reason to think that Baptism of Desire, while possible, just never happens. As Saint Thomas taught, there are graces in sacramental Baptism that are not available merely from the "desire" to receive the Sacrament. The same is true of sacramental Confession.
-
Regarding baptism of desire being taught after the Council of Trent, we have:
Magisterium:
Roman Catechism, P. II, chap. II, q. 36
Pope St. Pius V, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus: Dz. 1031, 1033, 1043, 1070
Pope Paul V, Roman Ritual, Part II, chap. I, par. 1
Pope Gregory XIII, Roman Martyrology – unbaptized saints proposed for veneration by the faithful (Ss. Emerentiana, Genesius of Arles, Alban of Verulam, Victor of Braga, and Rogatian)
Pope St. Pius X, 1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 737 §1; 1239 §2 (see also the personal Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)
Holy Office Letter to Archbishop of Boston, Suprema Haec Sacra: DS 3869-3872 (see also Ven. Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives, 29 October 1951)
Doctors:
St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Lib. VI, Tr. 2, chap. 1, nn. 95-97
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Ecclesia militante, Lib. III, chap. 3
Theologians:
Cano, De Locis Theologicis, Lib. IV, chap. 2-3 (de Ecclesiae Catholicae Auctoritate)
Suarez, De Baptismo, disp. XXVII, sect. II, n. 5 (cited by Tanquerey)
Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, vol. III, sec. 694, pp. 224-226
Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, t. VI (?), n. 423 (cited by Tanquerey)
*Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, vol. I, pp. 243-248
*Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. III, p. 362
Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, q. VII, th. 14; De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, q. XXIV, th. 25, pp. 240-261; De Gratia Christi, th. 13, p. 197sqq. (cited by Fr. Laisney in Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 79)
Franzelin, De Ecclesia, pp. 414-423 (cited by Fr. Laisney)
Wilhelm and Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Based on Scheeben's 'Dogmatic', vol. II, Lib. VII, sec. 252, I, 2, a
Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione, pp. 613-615 (cited by Fr. Laisney)
*Herve, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. III, p. 562
*Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 356
McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology: A Complete Course, vol. II, sec. 2662, pp. 631f.
Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, sec. 551, p. 253; sec. 555, p. 254
*All four cited Sess. VI, chap. 4 (Dz. 796) as well as the pre-Tridentine pontiffs as evidence in support of baptism of desire.
Regarding the necessity of having explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and in the Incarnation, it is a disputed question, although a number of sources I have come across (cf. Fenton*, Jone, McHugh & Callan*, Tanquerey, Van Noort) have said that it is the safer and more probable opinion. Prümmer and the 1949 Revised Baltimore Catechism, No. 3 both state that it must be followed/taught in practice.
* Fenton and McHugh & Callan have both said that a majority of theologians hold this opinion.
Please show us the infallible Quotes (if there are any) in favor of baptism of desire... If you can't show anything, then you are just quoting nothing. empty words means nothing. Neither are saints infallible, neither are catechisms infallible, only Pope speaking ex cathedra are infallible, and the Councils approved by him. That is what you need to prove your cause. So, do you have it, or is it only empty words?
Besides, most of your arguments have already been refuted on this thread. Please read from page 1 onwards.
-
As long as we're talking about banning people, I have no idea why Roscoe is still here. I think Matthew considers him comic relief, but as you can see, no one finds him funny anymore.
Until he's gone, it's best to follow what spiritus says and ignore him. He disrupts threads and makes everything shambolic.
I agree. Roscoe serves no further purpose on this forum, especially since he thinks we and even Matthew are "Jansenists". I think when Matthew notices that nobody finds roscoe funny anymore he will ban him. Matthew likely hasn't seen many of roscoe's posts lately.
-
Roscoe says some quite perceptive things. Anyone who thinks his posts are not worthwhile can choose not to read them. Threads are always getting derailed, because that's how people operate in a "forum" such as this.
As for posters' expressing bad faith, that judgment presumes something that cannot be known. With respect to pride, name one person who posts here who is not guilty of it.
What's so "perceptive" about someone who endorses smoking an illegal drug? I remember seeing a post from Raoul a while back where he said that having a pot smoker on a Traditional Catholic forum isn't good because it makes it look like Traditional Catholics see no problem with it. I completely agree with Raoul on that. Anyway, I'll let this thread get back on topic now.
-
It's not just that, spiritus. Yes, he is talking about a mind-altering drug ( and even encouraging people to smoke it. ) But he also makes the whole site look bad, he makes it look like some den of conspiracy-theory crackpots. Someone new here who might hear us talking about the moon landings or 9/11, events where there is real evidence of cօռspιʀαcιҽs, might just associate us all with Roscoe and write us off.
There's no doubt that people who are aware of certain cօռspιʀαcιҽs are deliberately associated with eccentrics by those who want to neutralize them. Someone like David Icke fits the bill perfectly, talking about Queen Elizabeth being a lizard and so on. People who may be inclined to investigate certain conspiracy FACTS -- like Vatican II, the biggest one of all, and one that no mainstream conspiracy guy like Alex Jones ever touches -- if they are well-presented with evidence, don't even bother in many cases, most likely, because they associate the whole idea of conspiracy theories with people like Icke. Guilt by association, as it were, a very powerful tool in the hands of the enemy.
Trolls are all over the place who exaggerate and have ridiculous theories which are meant to make those who see the truth ( which is also fairly hard to believe ) seem like nutbags. It's all planned. I'm not saying roscoe is one of these, I'm not saying he's intentionally disrupting the forum, but whatever his intentions, he has the same effect.
He also repeats the same things over and over in every thread, about Boniface VIII being an anti-Pope ( give me a break ) or about MK Ultra or "There is no such thing as a sedevacantist." It's no coincidence almost everyone ignores him now. He's making himself a black sheep.
-
MJ is a green herb( of which All are blessed by God in the R Catholic Bible)-- not a drug(pharmakia). Med MJ is also legal--not illegal-- here in Kalifornia.
-
Someone new here who might hear us talking about the moon landings or 9/11, events where there is real evidence of cօռspιʀαcιҽs, might just associate us all with Roscoe and write us off.
Raoul, I am interested. Do you believe that we never really sent people to the moon and that the videos were done on a Hollywood set? I find that possibility fascinating, though I do not know enough about that conspiracy theory to have an informed opinion. Now I am going to look for that topic in old threads.
-
Go to http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com for Moon story
Raoul and SS are worried about some 60 yr old man who smokes some MJ. Below is a good example of an MK Ultra cult-- a little bigger problem.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/09/paedophile-satanic-cult-baily-kidwelly
-
IMO, most people who write off conspiracy theorists as the lunatic fringe, would not listen to any evidence you could conceivably present them with.
Those who are open to new ideas and might happen to come across this forum, will make their own judgments about how much credence they are prepared to give various opinions they read.
-
Roscoe - that UK/Guardian link doesn't work.
-
The story you linked to is found in the news report for March 11, 2011, not March 9, Roscoe.
-
Raoul, I'm aware of those problems of his as well, and I agree with you. Let's also not forget to mention that he is obssessed with the Siri thesis, he is a Beatles fan, and thinks he is a Stigmatist (about the only thing roscoe has ever said on this forum that actually made me laugh). I highly doubt there has ever been a pot-smoking Stigmatist. His ignore count is the highest of any member that still posts here as far as I know, and as you said it only shows that more people prefer him to be banned rather than those that want him to stay. I don't find his posts the least bit humorous. Anyone who recommends a 17 year old should smoke pot to get over his personal problems has serious problems of their own.
-
Anyone who recommends that those properly diagnosed with mental illnesses should have no recourse to drugs & treatment prescribed by competent medical doctors, has serious problems pf his own.
-
Sorry about mixup but i did copy the link correctly. If you go to Rense and scroll down a ways the story can be accessed directly. The point is that the MJ issue that some are obsessed with is quite insignificant.
-
Raoul, I'm aware of those problems of his as well, and I agree with you. Let's also not forget to mention that he is obssessed with the Siri thesis, he is a Beatles fan, and thinks he is a Stigmatist (about the only thing roscoe has ever said on this forum that actually made me laugh). I highly doubt there has ever been a pot-smoking Stigmatist. His ignore count is the highest of any member that still posts here as far as I know, and as you said it only shows that more people prefer him to be banned rather than those that want him to stay. I don't find his posts the least bit humorous. Anyone who recommends a 17 year old should smoke pot to get over his personal problems has serious problems of their own.
SS thinks a 17 yr old suffering from MPD(DID) is better off on prozac( flouride) or ritalin(meth) than a natural remedy blessed by God in the Bible. It is certainly not surprising he can't figure out that Ben 16 is anti-pope.
MPD(DID) is hardly to be thought of as a mere 'personal problem'.
-
Innocenza said:
Anyone who recommends that those properly diagnosed with mental illnesses should have no recourse to drugs & treatment prescribed by competent medical doctors, has serious problems pf his own.
Ah, now what is under the surface seeps out.
Good. Well, when you find one of these competent medical doctors, let me know, because what I see is a bunch of quacks who treat humans like guinea pigs, giving them more problems than they already have, making them drug addicts. These people will even admit to your face they don't know what they're doing, or in their words, "it's not an exact science."
From what I can tell the whole psychotherapeutic industry is a diabolical extension of Freud and the confessional, intended to make people sick, not to make them better. The very idea that people should tinker with their brains when they are depressed, rather than work on their spiritual life, is in itself going to make people sick and weak. The whole approach is backwards -- God asks us to endure, not to pop a pill. But many of the victims caught in this spiderweb don't even know God exists, unfortunately.
Even if there are some people who really need the drugs, come on -- do you really think that ALL these people who are on antidepressants really need them, or will have improved life because of them? And do you really think that most of these doctors are concerned with mental well-being and not with turning a buck? You must be living under a rock if you think that, because the psychotherapeutic industry is losing whatever little respect it still had on a daily basis, these people are showing themselves as greedy and conscienceless, not a good combo. They hand drugs out like candy and that's a fact. One company LOST a lawsuit after someone using a certain drug committed ѕυιcιdє, that means the jury decided that the drug was actually responsible for the ѕυιcιdє -- and yet doctors still give out this drug.
Of course I don't speak of all "mental-health amateurs" -- I won't call them professionals -- but I'd say there are more bad than good... Just from what I dealt with with my mom, I never met anyone that I liked, their attitude was chilling, there was no human warmth coming from anyone that I saw in that hospital -- they were like zombies themselves, the doctors. I never, ever want to go anywhere near those people again as long as I live, I never want to go near another psych ward or psychiatrist with their deterministic and heartless views of life. Just talking to the "doctors" ( quacks ) and being around them for twenty minutes made me feel depressed, and yet depressed people go to these guys for help! Maybe there's a good Catholic guy out there somewhere, I don't know, but if so he's a needle in the haystack.
Innocenza, do you know of the writer David Foster Wallace? He was also going to these quacks all his life, had shock therapy, his whole story was exactly like my mom -- ended up hanging himself. Read about Hemingway? You see, whether you want to hear it or not, drugs can't solve the problem, they just cover it up. It's like putting fresh wallpaper on a wall teeming with cockroaches. The cockroaches are not killed first, they're just given a pretty wrapping.
-
My mom had an absolutely wonderful point about BOD BOB.
Saint John said that a library of books could not hold all that Jesus said. The Apostles would have passed this kind of thing down if it were a dogma. We have such teachings already, such as, the Immaculate Conception, et cetera.
Don't you think that this BOD/BOB question would have come up to Jesus Himself among his talks with the Apostles? I do. The conversation probably would have been something like this.
"But Lord, what if we don't get to everyone and tell them the Gospel and baptize them. Won't many of good will end up in Hell?"
Don't you think Jesus would have said something definitively on the subject so major to the salvation of souls?
He did! He said, "He that believeth and IS BAPTIZED shall be saved. He that shall not shall be CONDEMNED." He even told us HOW we were to be baptized, "BY WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST."
He Who dangles the planets by His very fingertips, and keeps you in existence, Who knew you before you were in your mother's womb, an angel to help you (as He has done already miraculously) to assure you that you got Baptism if you were meant to have it.
And on that same line, HE WHO DANGLES THE PLANETS BY HIS FINGERS, DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO PLAN YOUR FAMILY?
You do not TRUST Him with your life, that created it? "Oh, I shall die if I become pregnant again. The doctor says so!" DID GOD SAY SO? GOD will send you all the children you were meant to have, and you don't need charts, graphs, OR DEVICES to tell you your ovulation. GOD knows when it is, and HE decides if there should be a child there. WHY do people feel they're FINE meddling with their role in the co-operation of creation WITH GOD!?
God knows your intentions. He knows what the intentions of the people that made "NFP" (formerly known by the Egyptians, don't fool yourselves)... and that goal was to stop YOU from co-operating with God to fill heaven with souls, which is what our job as parents is (AKA DEPOPULATION!)
You say that you "can't afford" another one. What did Jesus tell us about how precious we are to Him? "Think of the birds of the air!" "How much more precious are you than these?!" Do you not realize that God will take care of you NO MATTER WHAT? "If one had the faith of a mustard seed..." And we prove we have none when we do this, no matter what the excuse is. It always centers around, "I am selfish. I want to have extra things. I want to save my own hide rather than have another child." Just think about it. "No greater love has he that gives up his life for a friend." Do you not understand that (if you're a woman,) as a mother, if you died in childbirth, or endured extreme hardship, THAT IS NOT A BAD THING? GOD WILL REWARD YOU!
Why did God allow the Israelites to divorce? Jesus told us, "Because of the HARDNESS OF THEIR HEARTS!" Is that why it took sooooo many years for the Church to come out and tell people that they could only use this type of method for a GRAVE reason? Because our hearts have become so hardened, that God has to PREVENT us from committing SERIOUS MORTAL SIN?
I really believe these two issues go hand in hand, personally, and I didn't need to read anything by the Dimonds to get these ideas. I HAVE talked to my confessor about this issue, and I DO know, Em, what the Church teaches. The Church teaches GRAVE REASON, and I believe that people can make up any "GRAVE REASON *wink wink*" they want to justify their SINFUL behavior! I mean, a GRAVE REASON would mean, that I wouldn't KNOW THREE PEOPLE PERSONALLY that HAD one! It'd be like annulment. They USED to be VERY few, so few, that MOST people didn't even KNOW ANYONE that had an annulment in their entire lives! NOW, people probably know several (at least in the NO church. I don't know any in the true Church at all.) So, what does this tell me? I think it's being SEVERELY ABUSED, EVEN AMONG PEOPLE THAT CLAIM TO HAVE A GRAVE REASON! It is POSSIBLE that I would know someone ONE PERSON with a grave reason, and probably that ONE PERSON would never mention this in conversation. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that I would know THREE people that claim to have a GRAVE REASON, mathematically speaking.
The fact is, people ARE being dishonest. Go ahead and do whatever you want, but whoever is doing this and DOES NOT have that "grave reason," have been called out GENERALLY, and better check their behaviors. It's absolutely frightening of what the consequences of such behavior would be. Whatever child you're preventing "naturally," might have been a SAINT, or a POPE, or a SPOUSE for one of MY children, or someone else's!
Sorry for seemingly ranting. I'm a pretty passionate person, as you've probably noticed.
-
You make an excellent point. Not many theologians and catechisms teach that infants who die without Baptism go to the Hell of Suffering (the view of Saint Augustine), yet are we to conclude that Saint Augustine's view is now heretical or even incorrect, because so few people hold to it, yet even teach it? (This is called modernism, the view that our perspective on theological questions is superior to those who came before us.) As for me, I do not hold to it, finding the view of Saint Thomas to be more in line with God's mercy, justice, and perfection. Still, I am not going to go so far as to say that Saint Augustine was wrong in his ideas.
I certainly disagree with those who say that Baptism of Desire & Blood are heretical, just given the majority of Church Fathers who held to the idea. (By the same token, they would never had extended the "desire" to receive Baptism to those who, in fact, showed no desire to receive it.) Still, Saint Augustine struggled with the issue, and if it was so clearly defined as its proponents of today argue, one must wonder why Saint Augustine held different positions on the question throughout his lifetime.
-
Please show us the infallible Quotes (if there are any) in favor of baptism of desire... If you can't show anything, then you are just quoting nothing. empty words means nothing. Neither are saints infallible, neither are catechisms infallible, only Pope speaking ex cathedra are infallible, and the Councils approved by him. That is what you need to prove your cause. So, do you have it, or is it only empty words?
Besides, most of your arguments have already been refuted on this thread. Please read from page 1 onwards.
The opinion that you are obligated "only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all" has been condemned (Ven. Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, n. 22: Denz. 1722).
It is, moreover, necessary for you to accept "the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions" (Ven. Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, 21 December 1863: Denz. 1864).
With thirteen Doctors of the Church, the Roman Catechism, the implicit approval of the 1917 CIC, and the approved veneration of non-baptized martyrs, I think it's safe to assume that baptism of desire and of blood is theologically certain. Generally speaking, you cannot oppose it without committing a mortal sin.
-
For me, you are "pounding on an open door." I accept both Baptism of Desire & Blood, but I do not think that they happen, ever. In any case, all of the authorities that you cite only applied BoD & BoB to those individuals who actually desired baptism at least implicitly, which means that they at least had explicit faith in the two foundational truths of the Catholic Faith, the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. The whole "implicit faith in its entirety" thing came later; this is just a historical observation, more so than a theological one.
Unless all of the authorities in question are prepared to say that Saint Augustine was either a heretic or at least in error, the position that modern "Feeneyites" is simply the one which he, in his final years, held to:
http://www.romancatholicism.org/augustine-final.htm
Even the later Father Karl Rahner agrees with this, stating,
"…we have to admit…that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus’, and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory nαzιanzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire." (Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church)
To embrace modern "Feeneyism" is simply to embrace the view of Saint Augustine.
-
Raoul,
You are again patting yourself on the back. Thinking like yours, could well make people, open to new ideas and who happen across this forum, judge that these so-called traditional Catholics are extremists. (In that respect Roscoe with his marijuana and Jansenism are insignificant. Were you calling the shots here, it would make much more sense to ban people like me, who don' t accept that the drug industry/medical profession are tools of the Devil, rather than good-natured, harmless Roscoe.) Pursuing this is a waste of time.
-
Raoul,
You are again patting yourself on the back. Thinking like yours, could well make people, open to new ideas and who happen across this forum, judge that these so-called traditional Catholics are extremists. (In that respect Roscoe with his marijuana and Jansenism are insignificant. Were you calling the shots here, it would make much more sense to ban people like me, who don' t accept that the drug industry/medical profession are tools of the Devil, rather than good-natured, harmless Roscoe.) Pursuing this is a waste of time.
If anything, roscoe makes this forum look like extremists. You're quick to jump all over Raoul just because you like roscoe's posts (why you do I'll never know). It would be different if you, like at least 15 other people here, found roscoe's posts annoying. I'd like to ask you something, innocenza. Have you ever heard of a Stigmatist who thinks there is no such thing as sedevacantism and racism, smokes pot, is obssessed with the Beatles, and thinks he is the only person who is not a Jansenist? Of course you haven't, yet roscoe claims to be a Stigmatist. You obviously have a veil over your head if you can't see through his posts. Some may find roscoe's posts funny, but I see right through them. They are in no way commical. His excuse for recommending a 17 year old should use an illegal drug is that MJ is blessed by God, yet he has never presented any evidence. God does not want people to smoke pot. Any doctor who recommends it, regardless of whether or not the patient has a medical issue, is a fool and should be fired and thrown in jail. If you think it's good to have a pot smoker on here that makes innocent kids think MJ is ok to use, go right ahead. But I think any pot smoker who comes on here should be banned, and I KNOW that Belloc, Gladius Veritatis, and Raoul would agree with me.
-
There has never been produced one shred of evidence from Any Church Authority that smoking MJ( a green herb of which All are blessed by God in the Bible) is sinful.
I have never claimed to be a stigmatist.
There is the blood of hundreds of thousands of victims on the hands of those teatotalers who support the Puritanical, Jansenistic drug war-- which has turned society into a police state.
But I guess Ben 16 is 'pope' of the Roman Catholic Church--NOT.
-
The opinion that you are obligated "only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all" has been condemned (Ven. Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, n. 22: Denz. 1722).
Things that are not infallibly defined as a dogma by the Pope, or holds the unanimous consent of the fathers, can be believed and must be believed in most cases. This quote above speaks about decrees of the ordinary magisterium for example, which must be believed unless there is some infallible dogma contradicting it. One cannot contradict an infallible dogma with fallible words. This must be understood by anyone but a complete liar. For example: there are no dogma defined by a Pope, as far as I know anyway, that says that one cannot have sex with a donkey, but yet it is a heresy to claim that one can do this. Thus, there are many things that are not dogmatically defined, but which must be believed. But infallible dogmas can never be contradicted by fallible words. Only a liar can misinterpret such a statement above.
It is, moreover, necessary for you to accept "the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions" (Ven. Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, 21 December 1863: Denz. 1864).
Of course, all things flowing from theologians which do not contradict infallible dogmas or divine and natural law, must be followed without objection, unless there is some higher authority condemning these fallible statements. Only a willful liar can misinterpret this. God does not contradict Himself when he makes infallible statements. Period!
With thirteen Doctors of the Church, the Roman Catechism, the implicit approval of the 1917 CIC, I think it's safe to assume that baptism of desire and of blood is theologically certain.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica Constitutio, (# 6), June 26, 1749: "The Church’s judgment is preferable even to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching."
No, as you can see, you are completely wrong. When a doctor or a Saint teach in contradiction with the Church (the Pope), the doctor and the saint must be disregarded, and the infallible Pope must be followed (to do otherwise is a mortal sin and heresy). So, let's see if you will follow the Church, shall we. It is a dogma that water baptism is necessary for salvation. Tell me, do you believe in the following dogmas proving this?
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “But in fact this sacrament [Penance] is seen to differ in many respects from baptism. For, apart from the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, are totally distinct, there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”
This definition is particularly significant because it proves that only through water baptism is one incorporated into the Body of the Church. The significance of this will become clearer in the later sections where it is proven that Body membership is necessary for salvation.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism[/u], 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.[/u]”
and the approved veneration of non-baptized martyrs, I think it's safe to assume that baptism of desire and of blood is theologically certain.
I have already refuted this argument, yet you bring it up. I hope you didn't see my previous refutation, since that would make you a dishonest liar on top of it.
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.”
Generally speaking, you cannot oppose it without committing a mortal sin.
Dogmatically certainly, you cannot oppose infallible Catholic dogmas without damning yourself and making yourself become a heretic separated from God. Please, accept the dogmas, stop rejecting them!
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 : “Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration.”
I do hope you will accept the dogmas. Hopefully, you will not reject them as most other people in here sadly seems to do. Most people, today, sadly, are not of God, they hate God, and that is why they reject his dogmas and follow men.
-
There has never been produced one shred of evidence from Any Church Authority that smoking MJ( a green herb of which All are blessed by God in the Bible) is sinful.
Only a mortal sinner would defend or approve or tempt his neighbor into committing something bad and harmful such as Marijuana. You are a drunkard on MJ, therefore, you are in mortal sin!
St. Thomas Aquinas, Whether drunkenness is a mortal sin? "We read in the Canons of the apostles (Can. xli, xlii): 'A bishop, priest or deacon who is given to drunkenness or gambling, or incites others thereto, must either cease or be deposed; a subdeacon, reader or precentor who does these things must either give them up or be excommunicated; the same applies to the laity.' Now such punishments are not inflicted save for mortal sins. Therefore drunkenness is a mortal sin." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica , II:II, Q 150, A II.)
MJ is a green herb( of which All are blessed by God in the R Catholic Bible)-- not a drug(pharmakia).
Answer this question now, you avoided it last time. Since God blessed all green herbs, may we then likewise intake hallucinogen mushrooms, according to you? Or would you admit that to intake such substances would constitute mortal sin?
Your answer will expose you.
Med MJ is also legal--not illegal-- here in Kalifornia.
Neither are we to judge what is licit or illicit depending on the laws of the pagan world. For in the world, abortion is legal, in the world, porn is legal, in the world, fornication is legal, in the world, divorce is legal...
-
Because one drinks a glass of wine or 2 does not make him a drunkard. Because one takes a few puffs of MJ does not make him a viper( some one who smokes a joint with his morning coffee).
Mushrooms are not a green herb. :smoke-pot:
-
Hietanen, you'll soon learn to ignore rosoce. Very few people here take him seriously. He can't be reasoned with. Then again, it's not all that surprising that you cannot reason with someone who's mind has been slowly yet steadily turned to mush thanks to an illegal drug.
-
Things that are not infallibly defined as a dogma by the Pope, or holds the unanimous consent of the fathers, can be believed and must be believed in most cases.
This sounds like you just made it up. How do you know with any precision what has been "infallibly defined" or otherwise must be believed "in most cases?"
-
It must be pointed out that the present Pope is citing saints in support of his position to not proselytize Jews.
-
Things that are not infallibly defined as a dogma by the Pope, or holds the unanimous consent of the fathers, can be believed and must be believed in most cases.
This sounds like you just made it up. How do you know with any precision what has been "infallibly defined" or otherwise must be believed "in most cases?"
Limbo is a good example of something that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have spoken about, and that the Church has never infallibly defined. Must we believe it? NO! But, can we? YEP!
-
Things that are not infallibly defined as a dogma by the Pope, or holds the unanimous consent of the fathers, can be believed and must be believed in most cases.
This sounds like you just made it up. How do you know with any precision what has been "infallibly defined" or otherwise must be believed "in most cases?"
Limbo is a good example of something that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have spoken about, and that the Church has never infallibly defined. Must we believe it? NO! But, can we? YEP!
As I pointed out in another thread, Limbo has not been defined. What has, however, been defined is that infants who die without Baptism do not attain the Beatific Vision. Where they end-up is a matter of theological debate.
-
My question was: "How do you know with any precision ... ?"
-
...someone who's mind has been slowly yet steadily turned to mush thanks to an illegal drug.
The legality of MJ has nothing to do with it, IMO. If it does not notably affect reason, it is allowable morally. I am not here to say it does or does not notably affect reason, when used in small amounts, but there is no need to twist the facts to make a case one way or another. [I tend to think it DOES notably affect reason, but I am NO expert on this issue.]
Similarly, alcohol is not evil, in se. It is the excessive intake that is sinful.
-
Are you talking to me? I posted this in another thread but it is applicable here:
The Council of Carthage (418) declared,
"It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: 'In my father’s house there are many mansions' (John 14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :'Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God' (John 3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left." (Canon 3.1, Council of Carthage, Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)
Even though the Council of Carthage was a regional Council and, therefore, technically not binding upon the universal Church, St. Pope Zosimus published Carthage’s canons as his own, which made them infallible and binding upon the universal Church. This is referred to in the Council of Ephesus. Pope Zosimus' Tractoria was sent to the whole world:
”…Pope Zosimus of blessed memory directs us, when writing to the bishops of the whole world…” (Ephesus; Denzinger 134)
"The same teacher Zosimus trained us, who, when spoke to the the bishops of the whole world….” (Ephesus; Denzinger 135)
"We[Zozimus], however, by the inspiration of God…have referred all things to that of our brothers and co-bishops." (Ephesus; Denzinger 134)
This is the beginning of his Tractoria and it tells us all things are referred to the African bishops, which is why the Council of Carthage received this great praise:
"Furthermore that which was determined in the decrees of the synod of Cathage [418 AD], we have embraced as the Apostolic See’s own…” (Ephesus; Denzinger 136), and,
"But although we do not dare to esteem lightly the deeper and more difficult parts of the questions which they [Augustine and Zozimus] have treated in more detail who have restrained the heretics, we do not consider it necessary to add what their writings, according to the aforementioned regulation of the Apostolic See, have taught us…" (Ephesus; Denzinger 142)
-
Things that are not infallibly defined as a dogma by the Pope, or holds the unanimous consent of the fathers, can be believed and must be believed in most cases.
This sounds like you just made it up. How do you know with any precision what has been "infallibly defined" or otherwise must be believed "in most cases?"
Its not hard to find out, if you have the intention to learn the truth. The problem today is that most people do not care about the Catholic Faith enough, which is why they reject the truth when it is being presented to them. Neither do many people have the interest to check out the facts being presented, and if it where true. I don't understand how many times I have to refute the same arguments over and over for some people, whether on NFP or BOB/BOD. I have proved you wrong, yet, you and many just don't care. To act in such a way is an infallible mark of damnation.
However, I will gladly help you to understand what constitutes infallibility (which must be believed by all).
For those who rightly believe that the Catholic Faith is the true Faith, there are four levels of Catholic teaching that a person must assent to, each having a different level of authority.
1) Solemn Magisterium
2) Ordinary and Universal Magisterium
3) Ordinary Magisterium.
4) Teachings of Saints, Doctors, etc.
[First[/b], the Solemn or Extraordinary Magisterium is any infallibly defined (divinely revealed) dogma. Here are the criteria for infallibility, there are four of them.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, 1870 Session 4, Chapter 4, Paragraph 9: "Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians[/b] [number 3 below], in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority [number 2 below], he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church [number 1 below], he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable[/u]."
To paraphrase, what this means is that the pope cannot err when:
1) Teaching on faith and morals
2) In virtue of his apostolic authority
3) With the intent of binding all Christians to belief/obedience
There is one more thing that pertains to infallibility, from the same Council:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, 1870 Session 4, Chapter 4, Paragraph 6: "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."
4) Something that is already contained in the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles and not a new doctrine.
Any Papal statement that meets the previous 4 points is infallible and God the Holy Ghost has spoken through the lips of the Pontiff. To willingly deny any such teaching severs one immediately from the Body of Christ; such a person is a heretic. Any Catholic who unwittingly believes a material heresy, that is accidentally and unknowingly believes contrary to such a teaching is generally understood to be still Catholic, unless their heretical understanding contradicts the divine or natural law or unless they reject the truth when they are presented with evidence of it (ie, the relevant Papal decree, etc...), or unless the heretical belief they hold is contrary to a necessary dogma of the Catholic Faith contained in the basic Christian Creed (such as the Trinity or the Incarnation). Such infallible teachings are Ecuмenical Councils approved by the Pope, any papal teaching with an anathema attached, some encyclicals or PORTIONS of encyclicals reaching the criteria of infallibility, and some Papal bulls. Also, the opposite statement of any proposition condemned by the pope as heretical, is also an infallible dogma.
This is where many people often get hung up. They proclaim with their lips that they believe in the dogmas, when in reality they deny them. Just how is a person to believe a dogma? Are we to wait for some theologian or priest to explain it to us? Not at all. We simply need to read these precious words of God the Holy Ghost, very, very carefully, and believe and obey their objective sense, as evidenced by the following teachings:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, 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."
As is clear, the meaning of a dogma is to be maintained as it has been declared, not as it has been explained by this or that saint or theologian. This is why wise Catholics read the ecuмenical Councils and other ex cathedra statements and believe them in all simplicity, exactly as they are written.
Second, adhere to all the teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium consists of teachings that have been held by unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church, but have not been solemnly declared as above.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 4, AD 1546: "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established."
This means that if many of the fathers held different opinions on interpreting the Scriptures on such and such a doctrine, while other Fathers interpreted it otherwise, then we are not bound to believe either interpretation as divinely revealed. Only if the Church Fathers was unanimous when they taught concerning the point of revelation, can we say that their teachings on the matter are to be held as a divinely revealed dogma.
Teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium are to be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith, that is to say they are Divinely revealed, inerrant dogmas, as Pope Pius IX defined:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 3: "Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.[/b]"
Further proof that these interpretations are to be understood as dogmas of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium comes from the Profession of Faith uttered by the same pope:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 2, #1, #3, ex cathedra: "I, Pius, bishop of the Catholic Church, with firm faith... accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."
If it is forbidden even to the pope, the one who is given the power, by God Himself, of defining the dogmas of faith, to interpret Scripture in a sense contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, then it logically follows that such interpretations of the Scriptures are indeed dogmas of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
This Magisterium, by the fact that is consists of divinely revealed dogmas, can and will never be contrary to the Extraordinary (Solemn) Magisterium, which consists of the same, and vice versa.
Pope Leo X, Apostolici Regiminis, 1513: "As truth cannot contradict truth, we declare every assertion contrary to the truth of Divine faith to be absolutely false, and strictly forbid any one to teach differently; we command that those who adhere to such assertions shall be avoided and punished, as men who seek to disseminate damnable heresies."
To willfully reject a teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is the mortal sin of heresy.
Third, consent to the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, understanding that these teachings, while reliable, are not guaranteed by God the Holy Ghost to be free of error. The Ordinary Magisterium is any teaching issued by the pope while exercising his Ordinary teaching capacity, such as some encyclicals, sermons, addresses to different groups, etc... While these demand assent of intellect and will and our obedience, they are fallible, liable to error, and thus are subject to future correction. If a later ex cathedra (infallible) decree contradicts a previous pope's ordinary (fallible) teaching, we must assent to the ex cathedra decree.
Fourth, follow the examples and teachings of our great Church Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, realizing too that while these great men and women led extraordinary lives, they are not protected by infallibility either, and often taught on matters that the Church would not solemnly define until years or centuries later, and in some cases, may even have appeared to err greatly in matters that were already defined. Since the Ordinary Magisterium, Fathers, Doctors and Saints are able to and have erred, the faithful should, when deciding whether or not to adhere to one of their teachings, always cross-reference the higher authorities of Church, the dogmas, to make sure that it does not contradict them.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica Constitutio, (# 6), June 26, 1749: "The Church’s judgment is preferable even to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching."
This is especially important, since the devil has means at his disposal, whereby he might make his own doctrines appear to have come from the friends of God.
Revelations of St. Birgitta of Sweden, Book 2, Chapter 14 (on the words of God, spoken through His saints): "My enemy's second method is to use deception in order to make my gold look like clay. For this reason, when any of my words are being transcribed, the transcriber should bring two trusty witnesses or one man of proven conscience to certify that he has examined the docuмent. Only then may it be transmitted to whomever he wants, in order not to come uncertified into the hands of enemies who could add something false, which could lead to the words of truth being denigrated among simple folk."
http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/st-bridget/st-bridget-of-sweden.php
-
Hietanen,
You are asking me to believe that the Church has not only refused to condemn, but has instead approved of error for the last 440 years. She has made Doctors and allowed to teach in her Pontifical universities men who believed in and spread a doctrine which, according to you, is expressly heretical.
"Not to resist an error is to approve of it — not to defend a truth is to reject it" (St. Augustine, Decr. Grat., dist. 83, c. error).
You're also asking me to believe that you know better than her own Theologians, theologians who taught (and whose works were approved) under apparently orthodox pontficates. How is it that several centuries' worth of the Church's most-highly learned men could not grasp what only Fr. Feeney could?
"When, however, the majority of approved and weighty Theologians agree, it must be presumed that their teaching is not opposed to that of the Church. ... The consent of Theologians produces certainty that a doctrine is Catholic truth only when on the one hand the doctrine is proposed as absolutely certain, and on the other and the consent is universal and constant" (Wilhelm & Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, vol. I, lib. I, chap. IV, sec. 27).
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Sess. VII, can. 4: Denz. 847; see also Denz. 796).
-
Most "modern" theologians approve of "gαy sex," openly teach that infants who die without Baptism go to Heaven, Jews need not convert to Catholicism, state that Pope Boniface taught error, etc. What of them and their "teachings"?
-
Most "modern" theologians approve of "gαy sex," openly teach that infants who die without Baptism go to Heaven, Jews need not convert to Catholicism, state that Pope Boniface taught error, etc. What of them and their "teachings"?
It is dishonest to make this link between "modern theologians" and the manualists of the 1st half of the 20th century.
-
Hietanen, You are asking me to believe that the Church has not only refused to condemn, but has instead approved of error for the last 440 years. She has made Doctors and allowed to teach in her Pontifical universities men who believed in and spread a doctrine which, according to you, is expressly heretical.
The Church has condemned baptism of desire and blood, although not in name. That is why mistakes have happened, and this is not really an easy subject to understand, and even harder to misunderstand when the Council of Trent spoke about the desire for baptism in a way that could be misunderstood to mean salvation apart from the actual baptism (which is false), it only made the point that an adult needs both a desire for baptism and to receive the actual baptism to be Saved. If the adult does not desire baptism, he cannot be lawfully baptized.
You're also asking me to believe that you know better than her own Theologians, theologians who taught (and whose works were approved) under apparently orthodox pontficates. How is it that several centuries' worth of the Church's most-highly learned men could not grasp what only Fr. Feeney could?
No, many people have uphold the dogma on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation. In fact, every Church father upheld the dogma except for St. Augustine (I think) and someone else, but they where unsure about it and only applied it to people who already believed in Jesus Christ. In fact, every saint and theologian who has believed in bod/bob only applied it to people who believed in Jesus Christ. But sadly, most people today who believe in bob/bod, applies it to everyone, are you one of those?
So, the baptism of desire/blood myth only became widespread first after St. Thomas Aquinas wrote of it and started to believe in it. But as we know, he was wrong on other things as well, such as the Immaculate Conception, many followed his opinion on that as well. That is why we do not build our Faith on theologians or saints, but on infallible dogma. Only someone but a bad willed liar headed for Hell would disagree with this.
"When, however, the majority of approved and weighty Theologians agree, it must be presumed that their teaching is not opposed to that of the Church. ... The consent of Theologians produces certainty that a doctrine is Catholic truth only when on the one hand the doctrine is proposed as absolutely certain, and on the other and the consent is universal and constant" (Wilhelm & Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, vol. I, lib. I, chap. IV, sec. 27).
Of course, all things flowing from saints and non-heretical theologians which do not contradict infallible dogmas or divine and natural law should be followed without objection, unless there is some higher authority condemning these fallible statements. Only a willful liar can misinterpret this. God does not contradict Himself when he makes infallible statements. Period.
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Sess. VII, can. 4: Denz. 847; see also Denz. 796).
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments in General: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”
Since this canon is anathematizing a false position on the necessity of the Sacraments in General for justification, what doesn’t hold true for all the sacraments on justification must therefore be qualified in the canon. It is a canon on the Sacraments in General. In other words, the Council of Trent couldn’t anathematize the statement: “If anyone says that one can obtain justification without the sacraments...” – since, in the case of one sacrament, the Sacrament of Penance, one can obtain justification by the desire for it. The Council of Trent explicitly defined this no fewer than three times.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”
Therefore, since one can obtain justification without the Sacrament of Penance, in order to make room for this truth in its definition on the Sacraments in General and Justification, the Council had to add the clause “without them or the desire for them” to make its statement applicable to all the sacraments and their necessity or lack thereof for justification.
With this in mind, one can clearly see that this canon doesn’t assert or state anywhere that one can obtain justification or salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism; it is dealing with a different issue in a very specific context. Those who obstinately insist that this canon teaches baptism of desire or that one can be justified by the desire for baptism are simply wrong; they err in understanding the canon, while contradicting the clear definition of Trent on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
To further prove this point, let’s look at two other dogmatic definitions (one from Trent and one from Vatican I) which deal with the sacraments in general and salvation. This comparison will corroborate the point above.
Pope Pius IV, “Iniunctum nobis,” The Council of Trent, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, although all, are not necessary for each individual…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, ex cathedra: “I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all.”
Before we compare these two definitions with Sess. 7, Can. 4 above, the reader must notice that the Councils of Trent and Vatican I infallibly define here that “the sacraments” as such (i.e., the sacramental system as a whole) are necessary for man’s salvation. Both definitions add the qualification that all 7 sacraments are not necessary for each individual. This is very interesting and it proves two points:
1) It proves that every man must receive at least one sacrament to be saved; otherwise, “the sacraments” as such (i.e. the sacramental system) couldn’t be said to be necessary for salvation. Hence, this definition shows that each man must at least receive the Sacrament of Baptism in order to be saved.
2) Notice that the Council of Trent and Vatican I made it a special point when defining this truth to emphasize that each person does not need to receive all of the sacraments to be saved! This proves that where exceptions or clarifications are necessary in defining truths, the Councils will include them! (That is why the Council of Trent declared that Our Lady was an exception to its Decree on Original Sin). Thus, if some men could be saved without “the sacraments” by “baptism of desire,” then the Council could have and would have simply said that; but it didn’t.
Nothing about salvation being possible without the sacraments was taught in these dogmatic professions of Faith. Rather, the truth that the sacraments are necessary for salvation was defined, with the necessary and correct qualification that all 7 of the sacraments are not necessary for each person. The First Vatican Council defined this dogma in the very first statement on Faith at Vatican I.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, ex cathedra: “I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all.”
No matter how hard one tries to avoid it, “baptism of desire” is incompatible with this truth, a truth which must be professed and believed by Catholics and by converts from heresy. In fact, this dogma utterly refutes the theory of baptism of desire.
Sess. 7, Can. 4 (the quote you used) is condemning the Protestant idea that one can be justified without the sacraments or even without the desire for them, by faith alone. Why didn’t it simply condemn the idea that one can be justified without the sacraments by faith alone? The answer is, as stated above, because a person can be justified without the sacrament of Penance by the desire for it! Therefore, Trent condemned the Protestant idea that one can be justified without the sacraments or without the desire for them by faith alone. But a person can never be saved without incorporation into the sacramental system through the reception of Baptism. That is why no qualification was made in this regard in any of these definitions. Considering these facts, one can see that this canon is not in any way teaching baptism of desire.
In fact, when looking at Sess. 7, Can. 4 again, we can see something very interesting. Notice that Sess. 7, Can. 4 condemns anyone who says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation. It adds no qualification, except that all 7 are not necessary for each individual.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments in General: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”
After declaring that the sacraments are necessary for salvation (baptism of desire is not a sacrament), it adds at the end the qualification (as the other definitions did) that all 7 are not necessary for each individual! But it adds no qualification that salvation can be attained by the desire for the sacraments in general. Notice that it DOESN’T SAY:
“If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law [/u][/i]or the desire for them are not necessary for salvation[/i][/u] but are superfluous… let him be anathema.”
Not at all. All of this serves to prove again that the Council of Trent didn’t teach baptism of desire, as so many assert.
Some may object that this seems rather complicated. It really isn’t complicated for anyone who thinks about it carefully. And if it is complicated, it is complicated by the people who deny the simple truth that one must be baptized to be saved, and who tenaciously assert that it is not necessary for all to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost. Those who misunderstand or stray from the straightforward and totally simple truth (defined in the Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism) are the ones who make it complicated and burdensome to refute their errors and/or perversions of the truth. If people simply repeated and adhered to the truths defined in the Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, it would be very simple.
The Council of Trent had every opportunity to declare: “If anyone shall say that there are not three ways of receiving the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism, by desire, by blood or by water, let him be anathema,” but it never did. Rather, it declared:
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.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
-
If no one heard of Fr. Feeney, BOB & BOD would not be an issue, but I wonder who was the first to say that BOB & BOD was false, was Fr. Feeney or Catherine Clark? :scratchchin:
I think she had alot of influence on him.
-
St. Thomas lived AFTER some of the relevant dogmatic definitions, ergo he is NOT really a Saint OR a Doctor, but a LIAR?
St. Alphonsus lived after the dogmatic definitions AND Trent, ergo he is NOT really a Saint OR a Doctor, but a LIAR?
While Saints are but men, if these two lights among men were wrong on this already-defined point, what chance does a modern dope have of being right? Moreover, why pay attention to the Church's canonizations at all?
-
St. Thomas lived AFTER some of the relevant dogmatic definitions, ergo he is NOT really a Saint OR a Doctor, but a LIAR?
St. Alphonsus lived after the dogmatic definitions AND Trent, ergo he is NOT really a Saint OR a Doctor, but a LIAR?
While Saints are but men, if these two lights among men were wrong on this already-defined point, what chance does a modern dope have of being right? Moreover, why pay attention to the Church's canonizations at all?
Good point! :cheers:
That heretic Alphonsus Liguori specifically said that Trent taught BOD, and at no time was he rebuked! Instead the Church made this heretic a Saint and then Doctor!!! Obviously this Church is not infallible. Why believe anything it teaches? (sarcasm)
-
Most "modern" theologians approve of "gαy sex," openly teach that infants who die without Baptism go to Heaven, Jews need not convert to Catholicism, state that Pope Boniface taught error, etc. What of them and their "teachings"?
It is dishonest to make this link between "modern theologians" and the manualists of the 1st half of the 20th century.
I don't think so. It is called Catholic liberalism, and it arose at the end of the Enlightenment. It is what Popes in the late 1700s and early 1800s were condemning.
-
If no one heard of Fr. Feeney, BOB & BOD would not be an issue, but I wonder who was the first to say that BOB & BOD was false, was Fr. Feeney or Catherine Clark? :scratchchin:
I think she had alot of influence on him.
It was actually Saint Augustine (see below.)
-
St. Thomas lived AFTER some of the relevant dogmatic definitions, ergo he is NOT really a Saint OR a Doctor, but a LIAR?
St. Alphonsus lived after the dogmatic definitions AND Trent, ergo he is NOT really a Saint OR a Doctor, but a LIAR?
While Saints are but men, if these two lights among men were wrong on this already-defined point, what chance does a modern dope have of being right? Moreover, why pay attention to the Church's canonizations at all?
Good point! :cheers:
That heretic Alphonsus Liguori specifically said that Trent taught BOD, and at no time was he rebuked! Instead the Church made this heretic a Saint and then Doctor!!! Obviously this Church is not infallible. Why believe anything it teaches? (sarcasm)
Maybe he was simply in error. The present Pope is, of course, quoting another saint of the Church (Blessed Hildegard of Bingen) to support his position on not converting Jews. Was that saint a heretic?
-
Most "modern" theologians approve of "gαy sex," openly teach that infants who die without Baptism go to Heaven, Jews need not convert to Catholicism, state that Pope Boniface taught error, etc. What of them and their "teachings"?
It is dishonest to make this link between "modern theologians" and the manualists of the 1st half of the 20th century.
I don't think so. It is called Catholic liberalism, and it arose at the end of the Enlightenment. It is what Popes in the late 1700s and early 1800s were condemning.
No, you can't claim all the approved theologians were liberals and were actually being condemned by the popes. The moral unaniminity of the Catholic theologians cannot be promoting liberalism.
-
Most "modern" theologians approve of "gαy sex," openly teach that infants who die without Baptism go to Heaven, Jews need not convert to Catholicism, state that Pope Boniface taught error, etc. What of them and their "teachings"?
It is dishonest to make this link between "modern theologians" and the manualists of the 1st half of the 20th century.
I don't think so. It is called Catholic liberalism, and it arose at the end of the Enlightenment. It is what Popes in the late 1700s and early 1800s were condemning.
No, you can't claim all the approved theologians were liberals and were actually being condemned by the popes. The moral unaniminity of the Catholic theologians cannot be promoting liberalism.
They are now, and at least some of them were then. Here are some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_catholicism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity#Roman_Catholic
-
Maybe he was simply in error.
That does not cut it, Jehanne. We are talking of two Doctors who CERTAINLY knew of the definitions in question -- and still taught what Feeneyites believe is (and was at the time) heretical. Then, Holy Church supposedly goes over their writings with combs of the finest teeth imaginable, yet completely misses the obvious. NOT happening.
-
The present Pope is, of course, quoting another saint of the Church (Blessed Hildegard of Bingen) to support his position on not converting Jews. Was that saint a heretic?
No, if I'm not mistaken it was not Saint Hildegarde of Bingen that was quoted in that book but Hildegard Brem. Saint Hildegarde (if memory serves right) is criticized by moderns for being "anti-Semitic." "Anti-Semitic" being illustrated nowadays by examples of Catholics using words like "deicide" or "Christicide" or examples of anyone questioning Zionism and its related ideologies and agendas.
-
I am sorry if I messed up names. I have not read either his book or the excerpts. I do know that there are other saints who have said things similar.
-
Maybe he was simply in error.
That does not cut it, Jehanne. We are talking of two Doctors who CERTAINLY knew of the definitions in question -- and still taught what Feeneyites believe is (and was at the time) heretical. Then, Holy Church supposedly goes over their writings with combs of the finest teeth imaginable, yet completely misses the obvious. NOT happening.
One fundamental difference, though -- saying that something can happen is completely different from saying that it does happen. I have read a lot of SBC literature over the past few years, and they will be the first to tell you that Father Feeney's Bread of Life was not a theological treatise, but a polemic. It was written for popular audiences. Now, if you were some Jew, pagan, Muslim, etc., reading that book, it is a stretch of the imagination to say that you could be "invincibly ignorant" of the absolute necessity of sacramental water Baptism. For Saint Thomas (and, I am sure, St. Alphonsus Liguori) Baptism of Desire was the exception and not the rule even though today it has become the rule and not the exception.
If the Council of Trent had wanted to define Baptism of Desire, then they would have said something like this:
"If anyone says that a catechumen who sincerely and devotely desires Water Baptism but who, through no fault of his own, dies before receiving it cannot attain Heaven, let him be anathema."
Of course, they didn't say it; maybe it would have been better if they had said that. This is the problem with BoD/BoB, in that groups like the SSPX will spend 90% of their time justifying it in the case of catechumens, only in the end to apply it to everyone else. From a historical point of view, this is pure theological novelty. It resulted from Catholic liberalism which arose at the end of the 18th-century, a product of Enlightenment thinking. It was definitively condemned by the Popes of the day (such as Pope Gregory XVI), but it kept spreading, and eventually, Pope Pius IX tolerated the idea, which is all that he is remembered for. Not even the IC or Vatican I gets as "much press" as did those two little Magisterial docuмents, which he may not have even written himself.
-
Maybe he was simply in error.
That does not cut it, Jehanne. We are talking of two Doctors who CERTAINLY knew of the definitions in question -- and still taught what Feeneyites believe is (and was at the time) heretical. Then, Holy Church supposedly goes over their writings with combs of the finest teeth imaginable, yet completely misses the obvious. NOT happening.
One fundamental difference, though -- saying that something can happen is completely different from saying that it does happen. I have read a lot of SBC literature over the past few years, and they will be the first to tell you that Father Feeney's Bread of Life was not a theological treatise, but a polemic. It was written for popular audiences. Now, if you were some Jew, pagan, Muslim, etc., reading that book, it is a stretch of the imagination to say that you could be "invincibly ignorant" of the absolute necessity of sacramental water Baptism. For Saint Thomas (and, I am sure, St. Alphonsus Liguori) Baptism of Desire was the exception and not the rule even though today it has become the rule and not the exception.
If the Council of Trent had wanted to define Baptism of Desire, then they would have said something like this:
"If anyone says that a catechumen who sincerely and devotely desires Water Baptism but who, through no fault of his own, dies before receiving it cannot attain Heaven, let him be anathema."
Jehanne, I think you're on the right track - but most likely it seems someone changed Scripture, as well as what the popes really said - let's fix it shall we?
1) Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, or at least have the desire to be baptized, or make a perfect act of contrition before death, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
2) One Lord, one faith three baptisms.
3) All those who say Lord Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven.
4) How wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to life: and most, if not all that desire it shall find it!
5) CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are necessary unto salvation, and that, without them, or without Baptism of Desire or Blood, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;- though the sacraments are a nice thing to have, they are not indeed necessary for every non-Catholic individual; let him be anathema.
6) Urged by faith, we are obliged to do what we can to desire that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is both salvation and the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles (Sgs 6:8) proclaims: "One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her", and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor 11:3). In her then is one Lord, one faith, three baptisms (Eph 4:5). There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed except those who desired to hop aboard the ark as the rain started to drown them.
7) It (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, can actually share in eternal life and will not go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such unimportance, that only for those who desire to abide in it and desire to do the church's sacraments, desire to contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church, or at least have had the desire to.
There, all fixed! Now everyone can go back to loving one anther! :read-paper:
-
:sleep:
One Sacrament of Baptism; three ways to receive the grace thereof.
Why do you misrepresent what your opponents say, Stubborn?
-
St. Thomas lived AFTER some of the relevant dogmatic definitions, ergo he is NOT really a Saint OR a Doctor, but a LIAR?
St. Alphonsus lived after the dogmatic definitions AND Trent, ergo he is NOT really a Saint OR a Doctor, but a LIAR?
While Saints are but men, if these two lights among men were wrong on this already-defined point, what chance does a modern dope have of being right? Moreover, why pay attention to the Church's canonizations at all?
Good point! :cheers:
That heretic Alphonsus Liguori specifically said that Trent taught BOD, and at no time was he rebuked! Instead the Church made this heretic a Saint and then Doctor!!! Obviously this Church is not infallible. Why believe anything it teaches? (sarcasm)
Maybe he was simply in error. The present Pope is, of course, quoting another saint of the Church (Blessed Hildegard of Bingen) to support his position on not converting Jews. Was that saint a heretic?
I know nothing of the Hildegard quote to comment on it.
This being thread on "Dimond errors", I was commenting on thier belief that anyone who reads the council of Trent on baptism, as THEY interperate it, and many other things they quote, and still believes in BOB and BOD has "bad will". I believe a Saint could be "in error" about a certain teaching before the magisterium speaks on it, but St. Alphonsus was a theologian of the Church and has read the things the Dimonds quote. St. Alphonsus didn't have a problem with english "translation errors" of the Council of Trent, because he never read Trent in english, he read it in Latin. Yet St. Alphonsus still believed the Church (including Trent) taught BOD and BOB, therefore St. Alphonsus had "bad will".
Secondly, The Dimonds believe that anyone who believes in BOB and BOD is somehow denying the dogma "no salvation outside the Catholic Church", therefore according to the Dimonds logic, St. Alphonsus was a heretic.
-
:sleep:
One Sacrament of Baptism; three ways to receive the grace thereof.
Father Feeney, by the way, never denied this.
-
St. Thomas lived AFTER some of the relevant dogmatic definitions, ergo he is NOT really a Saint OR a Doctor, but a LIAR?
St. Alphonsus lived after the dogmatic definitions AND Trent, ergo he is NOT really a Saint OR a Doctor, but a LIAR?
While Saints are but men, if these two lights among men were wrong on this already-defined point, what chance does a modern dope have of being right? Moreover, why pay attention to the Church's canonizations at all?
Good point! :cheers:
That heretic Alphonsus Liguori specifically said that Trent taught BOD, and at no time was he rebuked! Instead the Church made this heretic a Saint and then Doctor!!! Obviously this Church is not infallible. Why believe anything it teaches? (sarcasm)
Maybe he was simply in error. The present Pope is, of course, quoting another saint of the Church (Blessed Hildegard of Bingen) to support his position on not converting Jews. Was that saint a heretic?
I know nothing of the Hildegard quote to comment on it.
This being thread on "Dimond errors", I was commenting on thier belief that anyone who reads the council of Trent on baptism, as THEY interperate it, and many other things they quote, and still believes in BOB and BOD has "bad will". I believe a Saint could be "in error" about a certain teaching before the magisterium speaks on it, but St. Alphonsus was a theologian of the Church and has read the things the Dimonds quote. St. Alphonsus didn't have a problem with english "translation errors" of the Council of Trent, because he never read Trent in english, he read it in Latin. Yet St. Alphonsus still believed the Church (including Trent) taught BOD and BOB, therefore St. Alphonsus had "bad will".
Secondly, The Dimonds believe that anyone who believes in BOB and BOD is somehow denying the dogma "no salvation outside the Catholic Church", therefore according to the Dimonds logic, St. Alphonsus was a heretic.
It's a stretch to say that St. Alphonsus would agree with BoD/BoB as it is taught in today's Church.
-
Well, no one IS saying that is the case, so it is irrelevant.
-
Well, no one IS saying that is the case, so it is irrelevant.
Then, there is far more to agree than disagree on. Father Feeney's beliefs can be summed up in one sentence:
Absolutely everyone who attains the Beatific Vision, Heaven, will have died with Sacramental Baptism of Water.
The Church has never condemned such a statement, neither do we have to view it as conflicting with the ideas of Baptism of Desire & Blood. Saint Alphonsus Liguori may have even agreed with it, who knows? When Saint Thomas first gave a well-defined understanding of Limbo based squarely upon the Fathers before him, his idea "took off," and quickly replaced the somewhat harsher view of Saint Augustine.
Doctrines can develop, provided that they, in no way, contradict or overturn that which came before them. I believe that JP II said this; although, I have not been able to find the exact quote.
-
:sleep:
One Sacrament of Baptism; three ways to receive the grace thereof.
Why do you misrepresent what your opponents say, Stubborn?
I merely fixed some appropriate scripture and dogma to reflect justification via BOB and BOD . See below how one can win salvation without water.
Your "three ways" is incorrect - the Church teaches there are "three kinds".
157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
:sleep:
-
Absolutely everyone who attains the Beatific Vision, Heaven, will have died with Sacramental Baptism of Water.
The Church has never condemned such a statement, neither do we have to view it as conflicting with the ideas of Baptism of Desire & Blood.
I disagree. There is a clear conflict between the ideas.
Saint Alphonsus Liguori may have even agreed with it, who knows?
He taught that Baptism de flumine is de fide. While it is arguable whether or not he assigned the proper theological note to the idea, the idea, in se, is directly opposed to the idea that water MUST be involved in order to receive the grace of the sacrament.
-
Absolutely everyone who attains the Beatific Vision, Heaven, will have died with Sacramental Baptism of Water.
The Church has never condemned such a statement, neither do we have to view it as conflicting with the ideas of Baptism of Desire & Blood.
I disagree. There is a clear conflict between the ideas.
Saint Alphonsus Liguori may have even agreed with it, who knows?
He taught that Baptism de flumine is de fide. While it is arguable whether or not he assigned the proper theological note to the idea, the idea, in se, is directly opposed to the idea that water MUST be involved in order to receive the grace of the sacrament.
In light of infallible teachings, why does it even matter what he taught fallibly?
Obviously if he taught that Baptism de flumine is de fide, he was wrong per the declaration to the contrary from the Counsel of Florence.
Why place the opinion of anyone above infallible declarations I wonder?
-
Only an idiot or a man of bad will (or a bad-willed idiot) would actually think anyone is putting St. Alphonsus' teachings ABOVE those of the Church. The problem is this (and it affects the Church):
St. Alphonsus lived AFTER the dogmatic definitions AND Trent, ergo Feeneyites MUST conclude he is NOT really a Saint OR a Doctor, but a HERETIC. Further, Holy Church apparently does not know what the hell she is doing when she canonizes a man and makes him a Doctor. Feeneyites are saying canonizations are completely meaningless.
Sorry, but no one will take ANY Feeneyite seriously until he addresses this issue (calmly and rationally).
-
Why place the opinion of anyone above infallible declarations I wonder?
You are spending your time wondering about something that no one is doing. Are you bad-willed, or just stupid?
-
Absolutely everyone who attains the Beatific Vision, Heaven, will have died with Sacramental Baptism of Water.
The Church has never condemned such a statement, neither do we have to view it as conflicting with the ideas of Baptism of Desire & Blood.
I disagree. There is a clear conflict between the ideas.
Saint Alphonsus Liguori may have even agreed with it, who knows?
He taught that Baptism de flumine is de fide. While it is arguable whether or not he assigned the proper theological note to the idea, the idea, in se, is directly opposed to the idea that water MUST be involved in order to receive the grace of the sacrament.
I am not claiming that Baptism of Water must happen; I am claiming that it does happen, in every case without exception. That is what Father Feeney taught.
-
Obviously if he taught that Baptism de flumine is de fide, he was wrong per the declaration to the contrary from the Counsel of Florence.
It cannot be THAT obvious, as NO ONE noticed or mentioned it until very recently -- and you can take it to the bank that he knew of the teachings of the Council of Florence (and Trent, and all the dogmatic definitions, etc).
-
Only an idiot or a man of bad will (or a bad-willed idiot) would actually think anyone is putting St. Alphonsus' teachings ABOVE those of the Church. The problem is this (and it affects the Church):
St. Alphonsus lived AFTER the dogmatic definitions AND Trent, ergo Feeneyites MUST conclude he is NOT really a Saint OR a Doctor, but a HERETIC. Further, Holy Church apparently does not know what the hell she is doing when she canonizes a man and makes him a Doctor. Feeneyites are saying canonizations are completely meaningless.
Sorry, but no one will take ANY Feeneyite seriously until he addresses this issue (calmly and rationally).
Once again, claiming that something can happen is completely different than claiming that it does happen. No Father and/or Doctor of the Church has taught Baptism of Desire and/or Blood as being anything more than a possibility.
Again, the Roman Catechism:
Roman Catechism -- Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
"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.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation..."
Now, Father Feeney:
Bread of Life -- page 56
"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."
-
I am not claiming that Baptism of Water must happen; I am claiming that it does happen, in every case without exception.
Why DOES it happen? Is it a matter of NECESSITY? Do you see the connection?
That is what Father Feeney taught.
I am not trying to be hard, but I do not care what he did or did not teach. He has not been held up as a teacher in matters pertaining to faith and morals. IOW, he is as much of a nobody in this matter as you or I.
-
St. Alphonsus' “de fide” opinion is fallible - if for no other reason than he is contradicted by other Doctors and Theologians.
Below are but two (there are many more) that contradict St. Alphonsus. This should serve as bold proof that St. Alphonsus was - or at least very well could have been - wrong on BOB and BOD.
St. Thomas.....Men are bound to those things without which they cannot attain salvation… Consequently, it is clear that everyone is bound to be baptized, and that without baptism there is no salvation for men. (Summa, pt. 3, q. 68, a. 1.)
St. Augustine, 400: Or how can they fail to be saved by water… the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.‘ If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. …nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water. (On Baptism (De Baptismo), 5:28.)
-
No Father and/or Doctor of the Church has taught Baptism of Desire and/or Blood as being anything more than a possibility.
This is the very thing most Feeneyites DENY.
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.
The vast majority of Feeneyites deny the part in bold.
For them, no water = no dice. Period.
-
Only an idiot or a man of bad will (or a bad-willed idiot) would actually think anyone is putting St. Alphonsus' teachings ABOVE those of the Church. The problem is this (and it affects the Church):
St. Alphonsus lived AFTER the dogmatic definitions AND Trent, ergo Feeneyites MUST conclude he is NOT really a Saint OR a Doctor, but a HERETIC. Further, Holy Church apparently does not know what the hell she is doing when she canonizes a man and makes him a Doctor. Feeneyites are saying canonizations are completely meaningless.
Sorry, but no one will take ANY Feeneyite seriously until he addresses this issue (calmly and rationally).
First I heard Feeneyites don't take St. Alphonsus as a saint. Sounds like more slanderous ignorance that the unknowing choose to believe if ya ask me.
-
St. Alphonsus' “de fide” opinion is fallible...
NSS ("No ___, Sherlock.")
No one is arguing the contrary.
You completely avoided the essence of the question at hand. Spare me the cut and pastes, as you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
-
No Father and/or Doctor of the Church has taught Baptism of Desire and/or Blood as being anything more than a possibility.
This is the very thing most Feeneyites DENY.
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.
The vast majority of Feeneyites deny the part in bold.
For them, no water = no dice. Period.
Catechisms are not infallible..........it's a book, written by men, with obvious errors in it.
-
St. Alphonsus' “de fide” opinion is fallible...
NSS ("No ___, Sherlock.")
No one is arguing the contrary.
You completely avoided the essence of the question at hand. Spare me the cut and pastes, as you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Well nitwit, why not reply to the rest of the post instead of replying at the idiot who posted it.
-
Actually, the Roman Catechism IS infallible, at least in part (which part includes all the teachings on the sacraments).
-
Actually, the Roman Catechism IS infallible, at least in part (which part includes all the teachings on the sacraments).
Not so. It is a fallible book that gets revised every X years.
-
I am not claiming that Baptism of Water must happen; I am claiming that it does happen, in every case without exception.
Why DOES it happen? Is it a matter of NECESSITY? Do you see the connection?
It has happens because the One and Triune God commands all to be "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5, RSV), and since with God, "nothing will be impossible" (Luke 1:37, RSV), which means that "all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26, RSV), and since God is a "God of knowledge," (1 Samuel 2:3, RSV), and since nothing happens apart from the "Father's will," (Matthew 10:29, RSV), and since "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27, RSV), we are certainly free, as did Father Feeney and his followers, to conclude that God will provide sacramental Baptism to WHOMEVER sincerely desires it.
That is what Father Feeney taught.
I am not trying to be hard, but I do not care what he did or did not teach. He has not been held up as a teacher in matters pertaining to faith and morals. IOW, he is as much of a nobody in this matter as you or I.
Father Feeney died in 1978. If he was a "nobody," we would not still be talking about him and his ideas.
-
No Father and/or Doctor of the Church has taught Baptism of Desire and/or Blood as being anything more than a possibility.
This is the very thing most Feeneyites DENY.
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.
The vast majority of Feeneyites deny the part in bold.
For them, no water = no dice. Period.
The brothers at the SBCs have disavowed the Dimond brothers. They are not followers of Father Feeney.
-
No Father and/or Doctor of the Church has taught Baptism of Desire and/or Blood as being anything more than a possibility.
This is the very thing most Feeneyites DENY.
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.
The vast majority of Feeneyites deny the part in bold.
For them, no water = no dice. Period.
Fr. Feeney did not deny that part in bold.
He did not deny that their "desire" is - or more accurately, can be - the same as a perfect act of contrition and will avail them to grace and righteousness. Again, he never denied that.
He said they were denied salvation without the water. Same as Trent: CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; ...........so far, Fr. Feeney is right - agree? - don't touch another word till you fully understand and comprehend this first part of Canon IV..........now let's move on........... and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Now, where are Feeneyites denying anything?
-
He did not deny that their "desire" is - or more accurately, can be - the same as a perfect act of contrition and will avail them to grace and righteousness. Again, he never denied that.
He said they were denied salvation without the water.
But, most importantly, for him, that was simply a "null set"; that is, for someone who sincerely desired sacramental Baptism, the One and Triune God, in His Providence over His Creation, would see to it that such an individual was properly Baptized. Again, God does not "command the impossible," for with Him, "nothing is impossible."
-
Not so.
Your mere denial is insufficient as proof. I will get the pertinent quotes for you, but I must leave for an appointment.
-
...will avail them to grace and righteousness....He said they were denied salvation without the water.
So, can a man die in a state of grace and righteousness yet NOT be saved?
-
He did not deny that their "desire" is - or more accurately, can be - the same as a perfect act of contrition and will avail them to grace and righteousness. Again, he never denied that.
He said they were denied salvation without the water.
But, most importantly, for him, that was simply a "null set"; that is, for someone who sincerely desired sacramental Baptism, the One and Triune God, in His Providence over His Creation, would see to it that such an individual was properly Baptized. Again, God does not "command the impossible," for with Him, "nothing is impossible."
Exactly.
-
Jehanne said:
Father Feeney died in 1978. If he was a "nobody," we would not still be talking about him and his ideas.
We're talking about him because we're trying to talk you down off the ledge that his wayward ideas put you on, my good sir.
Like certain Jansenists, the man had some kind of magical formula for implanting scruples in the brains of those suffering from massive intellectual pride.
Once you break free from it, if you do, you will see as clearly as day that it is of the devil, this Feeneyism, this is not the spirit of God. It's rules, rules, rules, the letter of the law, dry and sad and narrow and suffocating and also just wrong. It leads people to question everything about the Church, to be paranoid and mistrustful.
It is also tragically easy to fall into these days because there is so much reason to be paranoid and mistrustful. Hence the devil, as soon as someone escapes from the Novus Ordo, launches himself at them and works on their pride, giving no quarter, as he is a rather nasty sort.
I wish you could read a foreign language, maybe you can, because one thing that helped me was realizing just how Feeneyites and semi-Feeneyites are treated in France. Not only are there no Feeneyites there, you'd get simply laughed out of the room if you said there was no baptism of desire. In two seconds flat you would have no credibility. It would be like saying that Mary wasn't a virgin, something just that ridiculous.
A Feeneyite like David Landry was humored here for a long time, but in France, when he posted on a message board, he was treated practically like a circus freak. There is room for disagreement on certain things, of course, but being against baptism of desire is considered wildly off-base to the point of not even being worthy of discussion. It is considered the backwater invention of an eccentric American priest, which happens to be exactly what it is.
If you stop to think for one second, you will realize the idea that all these Doctors of the Church were wrong is prideful and absurd. Maybe you already do realize that but you can't admit you're wrong. That would certainly be failing a test of God, who is more impressed by humility than by someone's imagined righteousness and misapplied quotes from Augustine. I noticed the other day when I rebuked you for talking about nuclear winds reaching America, you didn't admit you were wrong, you just attacked me for something else... That is pride, sir. Instead of correcting yourself, you tried to discredit me and make me look bad on some other subject.
We all have pride, of course, and yours strikes me as much less bad than some, that is why I predict you won't be a Feeneyite for long.
-
...will avail them to grace and righteousness....He said they were denied salvation without the water.
So, can a man die in a state of grace and righteousness yet NOT be saved?
Trent was quite clear in that the actual sacrament was needed for salvation.......no?
-
Raoul, all unfounded accusations designed to slander a very good and brave priest.
Nothing more.
-
So, can a man die in a state of grace and righteousness yet NOT be saved?
Trent was quite clear in that the actual sacrament was needed for salvation.......no?
That is not an answer to my question. You know you are in a pickle on this one, so you seek to evade.
-
...will avail them to grace and righteousness....He said they were denied salvation without the water.
So, can a man die in a state of grace and righteousness yet NOT be saved?
Such a person will always have been sacramentally baptized with Water. Remember, the One and Triune God, being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient has seven years (during that person's infancy and childhood) to have secured sacramental Baptism for him/her. We ought not to "underestimate" Him.
-
Hey Stubborn, you are being "stubborn". The Traditionalists on this forum know what they're talking about on this matter.
-
...will avail them to grace and righteousness....He said they were denied salvation without the water.
So, can a man die in a state of grace and righteousness yet NOT be saved?
Such a person will always have been sacramentally baptized with Water. Remember, the One and Triune God, being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient has seven years (during that person's infancy and childhood) to have secured sacramental Baptism for him/her. We ought not to "underestimate" Him.
This is Jehanne's theology. You want to bind God by His Sacraments.
-
So, can a man die in a state of grace and righteousness yet NOT be saved?
Trent was quite clear in that the actual sacrament was needed for salvation.......no?
That is
not an answer to my question. You know you are in a pickle on this one, so you seek to evade.
You're the one in a pickle. Trent clearly granted salvation with the sacrament but justification via desire.
The reason is because one cannot lose salvation, but one can fall from grace as long as they are alive.........why on earth would Trent grant salvation without baptism?
-
Jehanne said:
Father Feeney died in 1978. If he was a "nobody," we would not still be talking about him and his ideas.
We're talking about him because we're trying to talk you down off the ledge that his wayward ideas put you on, my good sir.
Like certain Jansenists, the man had some kind of magical formula for implanting scruples in the brains of those suffering from massive intellectual pride.
Once you break free from it, if you do, you will see as clearly as day that it is of the devil, this Feeneyism, this is not the spirit of God. It's rules, rules, rules, the letter of the law, dry and sad and narrow and suffocating and also just wrong. It leads people to question everything about the Church, to be paranoid and mistrustful.
It is also tragically easy to fall into these days because there is so much reason to be paranoid and mistrustful. Hence the devil, as soon as someone escapes from the Novus Ordo, launches himself at them and works on their pride, giving no quarter, as he is a rather nasty sort.
I wish you could read a foreign language, maybe you can, because one thing that helped me was realizing just how Feeneyites and semi-Feeneyites are treated in France. Not only are there no Feeneyites there, you'd get simply laughed out of the room if you said there was no baptism of desire. In two seconds flat you would have no credibility. It would be like saying that Mary wasn't a virgin, something just that ridiculous.
A Feeneyite like David Landry was humored here for a long time, but in France, when he posted on a message board, he was treated practically like a circus freak. There is room for disagreement on certain things, of course, but being against baptism of desire is considered wildly off-base to the point of not even being worthy of discussion. It is considered the backwater invention of an eccentric American priest, which happens to be exactly what it is.
If you stop to think for one second, you will realize the idea that all these Doctors of the Church were wrong is prideful and absurd. Maybe you already do realize that but you can't admit you're wrong. That would certainly be failing a test of God, who is more impressed by humility than by someone's imagined righteousness and misapplied quotes from Augustine. I noticed the other day when I rebuked you for talking about nuclear winds reaching America, you didn't admit you were wrong, you just attacked me for something else... That is pride, sir. Instead of correcting yourself, you tried to discredit me and make me look bad on some other subject.
We all have pride, of course, and yours strikes me as much less bad than some, that is why I predict you won't be a Feeneyite for long.
David Landry is not a follower of Father Feeney. As for message boards in France, I do not know, but I have never claimed that "there was no baptism of desire," and am not a "follower" of Mr. Landry. If Father Feeney was "off the ledge," one must wonder why he was fully reconciled to the Church and why his Bread of Life did not endure a censorious condemnation. Instead, Brother Thomas Mary Sennott's book, which contains excerpts from Father Feeney, was granted an imprimi:
http://catholicism.org/our-status-in-the-church.html
As for the three nuclear power plants in Japan that are in trouble, I am not sure why, if all of them experienced a catastrophic meltdown, those of you on the West Coast would not be concerned, but we can talk about that more in the GD forum.
-
This is Jehanne's theology. You want to bind God by His Sacraments.
Not so.
You seem to deny God is not a monster and providing water is no different to Him than allowing BOD......the only difference is that God made the requirement.
At least consider the Divine Providence is trustworthy.
-
...will avail them to grace and righteousness....He said they were denied salvation without the water.
So, can a man die in a state of grace and righteousness yet NOT be saved?
Such a person will always have been sacramentally baptized with Water. Remember, the One and Triune God, being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient has seven years (during that person's infancy and childhood) to have secured sacramental Baptism for him/her. We ought not to "underestimate" Him.
This is Jehanne's theology. You want to bind God by His Sacraments.
No one is making that claim, not me, at least. I agree that 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.
However, He is also,
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.
But, He
3) Is bound by His Perfection. God cannot lie, and He has commanded us to be baptized in Water, and since He is capable of bringing this about even via miraculous means, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that He will bring sacramental Baptism to whomever He deems to be worthy of it.
-
This is Jehanne's theology. You want to bind God by His Sacraments.
Not so.
You seem to deny God is not a monster and providing water is no different to Him than allowing BOD......the only difference is that God made the requirement.
At least consider the Divine Providence is trustworthy.
You think God is a monster?
-
No lol........this phone is a pain with this format.
I wanted to say God is not a monster who acts as if an accident is unforseen by Him or somehow out of His control.......takes the one unbaptized and sends her to hell.
Had He not made water required explicitly, then BOD would actually make sense.
-
Only an idiot or a man of bad will (or a bad-willed idiot) would actually think anyone is putting St. Alphonsus' teachings ABOVE those of the Church. The problem is this (and it affects the Church):
St. Alphonsus lived AFTER the dogmatic definitions AND Trent, ergo Feeneyites MUST conclude he is NOT really a Saint OR a Doctor, but a HERETIC. Further, Holy Church apparently does not know what the hell she is doing when she canonizes a man and makes him a Doctor. Feeneyites are saying canonizations are completely meaningless.
Sorry, but no one will take ANY Feeneyite seriously until he addresses this issue (calmly and rationally).
Saints can be wrong on many issues, however, but because they where not obstinate in there position, they where not heretics as most of you are. They where material heretics, for they didn't deny what they didn't understand to be true. And if they had seen the infallible dogmas they would have accepted them. You, on the other hand, reject them even after you have seen them. Therefore, where they material heretics (mistaken Catholics, while you are a heretic.
Shall we see whether or not you are a heretic? You know what exposes you people the most? It is the fact that you have nothing infallible to back up your claims of bod/bob with. If you cannot prove your cause with dogma, don't hold to your position as if it where true!
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “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.”
Now, I don't know how many times I have repeated these and similar dogmas which totally crushes your argument. Yet, you people just don't care.
By the way, out must be pointed out once again, that the saints and theologians that did believed in bob/bod, only applied it to catechumens and to people who already believed in Jesus Christ. But this is not the case with most bod/bob believers today. So tell me, gladius_veritatis, are you a salvation heretic as well. You you believe that Jews, Muslims, Atheists or pagans, etc, who either reject or hate Jesus Christ or don't even believe in Him, can somehow be Saved through bob/bod? Please Answer this question.
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.
The vast majority of Feeneyites deny the part in bold.
For them, no water = no dice. Period.[/quote]
The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Their introduction contains the following interesting quote from Dr. John Hagan, Rector of the Irish College in Rome, about the Catechism’s authority.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”
The fact that the Catechism of Trent is not infallible is proven by the fact that small errors can be detected within its text. For example:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, p. 243: “For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, outside of which none can attain grace.”
Here the Catechism teaches that outside the Church none can attain grace. This is not true. Predisposing or prevenient graces are given to those outside the Church so that they can turn to God, change their lives and enter the Church. Without these graces no one would ever convert. Pope Clement XI in the dogmatic constitution Unigenitus (Sept. 8, 1713) condemned the proposition that, “Outside the Church, no grace is granted.” Thus, what we have here is an error in the Catechism of Trent. The Catechism probably intended to teach that outside the Church no sinner can attain sanctifying grace, which is true, since outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, ex cathedra). Nevertheless, God allowed the Catechism to err in this manner because it is not infallible in everything it teaches.
Furthermore, in the entire Catechism of the Council of Trent there is no mention at all of the so-called “three baptisms,” nor is there any mention of “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood,” nor is there any clear statement that one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. What we find, rather, is one ambiguous paragraph which seems to teach that one can achieve grace and righteousness without baptism. But even in this paragraph we find errors. For instance, the passage says that “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for an adult to receive baptism, his intention and determination to receive baptism will avail him to grace and righteousness.”
There is no such thing as an “unforeseen accident” which could make it “impossible” to receive baptism. This is clearly erroneous.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: “EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.”
God has commanded all men to receive baptism, and He does not command impossibilities.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: “... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do…”
Therefore, the reference to the unforeseen and impossible to avoid accident in the Catechism demonstrates, once again, that not everything it says is infallible. An infallible docuмent could not assert that accidents are unforeseen or impossible to avoid.
Even though the Catechism of Trent is not infallible in every sentence, as just proven, taken as a whole it is an excellent catechism which expresses the Catholic Faith accurately and effectively. But most importantly, the Catechism of Trent makes statement after statement clearly and unambiguously teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for all for salvation with no exceptions, thereby repeatedly excluding any idea of salvation without water baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divine and admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark that all are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the same.
“Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind. The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [/u](Jn. 3:5).”
This means that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely and universally necessary for salvation with no exceptions! It excludes any idea of salvation without water baptism. It also means that John 3:5 is understood literally.
-
Saints can be wrong on many issues, however, but because they where not obstinate in there position, they where not heretics as most of you are. They were material heretics, for they didn't deny what they didn't understand to be true. And if they had seen the infallible dogmas they would have accepted them.
Earth to Hietanen...
Are you seriously arguing that St. Alphonsus DID NOT KNOW about the dogmatic definitions pertaining to Baptism? If so, there is no point to discussing this further.
-
Shall we see whether or not you are a heretic? You know what exposes you people the most? It is the fact that you have nothing infallible to back up your claims of bod/bob with.
So, both St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were heretics, NOT Saints and Doctors. This is the logical conclusion of your line of thinking. Further, Holy Church is worthless because she puts forth men as examples of holiness and teachers of sound doctrine when they are, in fact, heretics.
-
Shall we see whether or not you are a heretic? You know what exposes you people the most? It is the fact that you have nothing infallible to back up your claims of bod/bob with.
So, both St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were heretics, NOT Saints and Doctors. This is the logical conclusion of your line of thinking. Further, Holy Church is worthless because she puts forth men as examples of holiness and teachers of sound doctrine when they are, in fact, heretics.
Neither of them, in my view, were heretics (God forbid) or even in error; rather, they were both describing situations, which, while possible, we have reason to believe never occur.
-
Neither of them, in my view, were heretics (God forbid) or even in error; rather, they were both describing situations, which, while possible, we have reason to believe never occur.
You do realize this is NOT what Hietanen (or those like him) is claiming?
-
I speak for myself. I have read a lot of the SBC literature, and this, I believe, is the views of Father Feeney's followers. Even Saint Thomas, over his lifetime, developed his view of the Immaculate Conception, arriving, near the end of his life, with a view close to that which Pope Pius IX defined as dogma. Father Feeney's views, as those of his followers, were not "set in stone," either, but have been a "work in progress" over the past decades.
-
Saints can be wrong on many issues, however, but because they where not obstinate in there position, they where not heretics as most of you are. They were material heretics, for they didn't deny what they didn't understand to be true. And if they had seen the infallible dogmas they would have accepted them.
Earth to Hietanen...
Are you seriously arguing that St. Alphonsus DID NOT KNOW about the dogmatic definitions pertaining to Baptism? If so, there is no point to discussing this further.
Did St. Alphonsus know about this...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”
When he (St. Alphonsus ) wrote this...
St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: “Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious.”
?
-
It is highly probable. He was learned, had access to all such docuмents, had the time to read them all, and lived for a long time. What do you think?
More importantly, you need to show how the two are at serious odds. Merely cutting and pasting them does not suffice. IMO, there is no real conflict between the two citations.
-
Baptism of blood is...comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato...
This comment, according to some, is contrary to ALL their favorite passages. Yet, it is literally impossible that St. Alphonsus was ignorant of ALL such passages.
There are two choices:
1. He is RIGHT, and understood Church teaching better than a bunch of laymen from the 20th Century, or...
2. He is WRONG, and in a way that is impossible to excuse (making him a HERETIC).
All other talk is nonsense.
-
Saints can be wrong on many issues, however, but because they where not obstinate in there position, they where not heretics as most of you are. They were material heretics, for they didn't deny what they didn't understand to be true. And if they had seen the infallible dogmas they would have accepted them.
Earth to Hietanen...
Are you seriously arguing that St. Alphonsus DID NOT KNOW about the dogmatic definitions pertaining to Baptism? If so, there is no point to discussing this further.
Did St. Alphonsus know about this...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”
When he (St. Alphonsus ) wrote this...
St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: “Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious.”
?
The Holy Innocents were, of course, all Jєωιѕн who had been circuмcised. As with the Thief of the Cross, Baptism did not become obligatory until Pentecost, the Birth of the Church. Certainly, Baptism was not obligatory prior to the Birth of Christ, so if Baptism was not obligatory at Pentecost, one must find another date when that Sacrament was instituted.
-
Apparently, the following question has to be posed to umblehay, too:
Are you seriously arguing that St. Alphonsus DID NOT KNOW about the dogmatic definitions pertaining to Baptism? Would you contend that he knew about all, some, or, what is literally impossible (and the only excuse), none?
I am seeking YOUR answer; not a quote from this or that Council.
-
Baptism of blood is...comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato...
This comment, according to some, is contrary to ALL their favorite passages. Yet, it is literally impossible that St. Alphonsus was ignorant of ALL such passages.
There are two choices:
1. He is RIGHT, and understood Church teaching better than a bunch of laymen from the 20th Century, or...
2. He is WRONG, and in a way that is impossible to excuse (making him a HERETIC).
All other talk is nonsense.
There may be Option 3: He was right, but in all instances where Baptism of Blood occurred there was, prior to it, Baptism of Water.
One reason why you should at least consider "Feeneyism" is what St. Alphonsus did not know about, that is, the Theory of Intelligent Design.
The Cosmos is incredibly huge, far bigger than anyone could have imagined. Go back 100 years to the time of Einstein and all cosmologists, Einsten included, believed that the Universe was the size of the Milky Way Galaxy, and that the Sun & Earth were at the center of it all.
After Einstein completed his Theory of General Relativity (a set of 16 non-elliptical partial differential equations), other theorists came along and provided solutions to those equations that said that the Universe must be expanding. Einstein did not believe them, and instead, added the infamous Cosmological Constant to his equations, which he believed must exist to favor a static universe. Other theorists, to Einstein's dismay, showed that even with such a "cosmological constant," the Universe must still be expanding.
Then along came Edwin Hubble, who showed that our Galaxy, the Milky Way, is one of many galaxies scattered throughout the Universe. Einstein dropped his cosmological constant, calling it the "biggest blunder of his life."
Over the past several decades, the Universe has gotten "bigger" (literally and figuratively.) It is difficult to tell just how big it is, but according to one astronomer, the ratio of the radius of a proton to the radius of the observable universe (around 80 billion light-years) is equal to the ratio of the observable universe to the total universe. In other words, the Universe is really, really big.
The Infinite and Perfect Being who brought all of this into existence and upon whose Power sustains it is simply beyond our wildest comprehension. It is simply a "slap in His face" to say that He cannot bring sacramental Baptism to whomever He wants to.
Perhaps St. Alphonsus, if he had lived in our time, and had looked through our telescopes may have appreciated this fact for what it is. Father Feeney, of course, lived his life at the beginning of this incredible revolution in human understanding, and his theological ideas and insights reflect that understanding.
-
It is simply a "slap in His face" to say that He cannot bring sacramental Baptism to whomever He wants to.
Since no one is arguing that He cannot do so, let's move on...
BTW, God's omnipotence also means He can infuse knowledge at any time.
IMO, your line of argumentation is a REAL stretch, and reeks (mildly, at least) of fascination with, and over-appreciation of modern gizmos, achievements, etc. Do you REALLY think some modern dope with a telescope and a book on intelligent design can grasp the idea of God's omnipotence better than one of His greatest Saints? If so, you have a pathetic idea of what it is to be holy.
-
Apparently, the following question has to be posed to umblehay, too:
Are you seriously arguing that St. Alphonsus DID NOT KNOW about the dogmatic definitions pertaining to Baptism? Would you contend that he knew about all, some, or, what is literally impossible (and the only excuse), none?
I am seeking YOUR answer; not a quote from this or that Council.
Did St. Alphonsus know about this...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”
Is BOB a sacrament? If not, was Pope Eugene wrong by saying that no other remedy was possible?
Also, if Saints and Doctors of the Church were not in error from time to time during thier lives, why would they have to write books of corrections? Wasn't St. Thomas Aquinas in the process of writing a book of corrections toward the end of his life?
-
Also, if Saints and Doctors of the Church were not in error from time to time during thier lives, why would they have to write books of corrections?
No one is arguing that Saints are NEVER wrong, so I would kindly encourage you to cut the nonsense and quit acting like that is part of the discussion. There is no need to talk about the color or texture of an apple when we are discussing oranges.
Wasn't St. Thomas Aquinas in the process of writing a book of corrections toward the end of his life?
I do not know or care, but that is not even germane to this discussion.
As for the rest, it is actually not that hard to see what is being misread, etc., but, as it is after midnight, it shall have to wait until the morn. Good night. :sleep:
-
Are you seriously arguing that St. Alphonsus DID NOT KNOW about the dogmatic definitions pertaining to Baptism? Would you contend that he knew about all, some, or, what is literally impossible (and the only excuse), none?
I am seeking YOUR answer; not a quote from this or that Council.
Your responded by simply pasting the same quote, umblehay, yet I am certain both read AND understood my words.
-
unmblehay,
I will grant you more than you have already said:
St. Alphonsus' quote (and others from him and St. Thomas) will NOT gel (superficially) with an entire list of such quotes.
Now, you must believe:
1. he DID NOT KNOW of the existence of ANY of them, which is preposterous, or
2. he knew of them, but had a reading comprehension level only slightly higher than a broom handle, or
3. he knew of them, but willingly chose to defy them (repeatedly).
I say he knew of most, if not all, of them (which is certain), but he understood the entire body of Church teaching, and the science of theology, better than you do. You must say this is incorrect and finds its explanation in one of two places: he was both incomprehensibly ignorant and shockingly negligent in his priestly duties (which seems odd in a Saint), or he was a heretic (which is odder still).
Now, before you go cutting and pasting again, do you or do you not realize that you really have no choice but to call him a heretic, however unpleasant a prospect that may be? Yes, doing so takes consistency and courage, but that is the logical conclusion that flows from reading the various quotes as you seem to read them. Once you do so (i.e., face the 'fact' that he is a heretic), you are parting ways with Holy Church, which has declared him a Saint/Doctor. Apparently, such a designation is about as legitimate and meaningful as if she had said he was, despite all appearances to the contrary, really a hippopotamus.
If Holy Church can be so wrong in these matters, I see no need to listen to her at all. If even her 'Saints' can be so wrong (in areas that had been settled for centuries), I see no chance that a dope like me could be right, so there is no point even trying to be. Either way, the logical thing to do is chuck it all and go live life however the hell I am inclined.
As I have already had dozens of discussion on this matter and seen that they never go anywhere, I shall not bother getting entangled again. It is nothing personal, but life is short and I see no point spending any more time going around in circles within a very small, poorly-ventilated box constructed almost entirely by laymen of the 20th C.
-
gladius_veritatis,
I am not entirely sure what your fixation with St. Alphonsus is in regards to BOB/BOD.
Certainly you are well aware that the great saint actually contradicted himself at least once that we are aware of in regards to this issue, and since he was made a saint, instead of believing that he retracted his BOB/BOD belief before he died, you choose to believe his word trumps the Church's clear, infallible teaching. You should try to avoid doing that from now on - just imho.
Was he teaching heresy regarding bob/bod? Per the infallible pronouncements of the Counsels, yes. It comes down to either he was preaching error, or the Holy Ghost was preaching error ---- well, we all know who wins that debate.
I only read about 10 pages of this thread so I will guess that you are trying to prove that Fr. Feeney called St. Alphonsus (one of my personal top 3 favorites btw) heretical because he taught bob/bod - again, this is unjustifiable by any stretch of whatever imagination one chooses to apply.
FWIW, Fr. Feeney was a family friend of ours for about the last 8 or 10 years of his life - personally, I believe he was rewarded and today is a very powerful saint in heaven for the sufferings he endured at the hands of his own. Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.
The fact that his name is still falsely associated with heinous error, heresy, disobedience etc some 30+ years after his death shows how thorough a smear job the enemy is capable of doing - and, if nothing else, how long ago the NO was "in the works".
St. Alphonsus, please, pray for us!
-
It is simply a "slap in His face" to say that He cannot bring sacramental Baptism to whomever He wants to.
Since no one is arguing that He cannot do so, let's move on...
BTW, God's omnipotence also means He can infuse knowledge at any time.
IMO, your line of argumentation is a REAL stretch, and reeks (mildly, at least) of fascination with, and over-appreciation of modern gizmos, achievements, etc. Do you REALLY think some modern dope with a telescope and a book on intelligent design can grasp the idea of God's omnipotence better than one of His greatest Saints? If so, you have a pathetic idea of what it is to be holy.
It is a fact of history that Saint Thomas was heavily influenced by Aristotle. Even though Aristotle was not in possession of Divine Revelation, he was a master of logic, and Saint Thomas explained Catholic Revelation using the tools of Aristotelian logic. That was Thomas' great accomplishment. Both, of course (logic and Catholic Revelation), come from the same source, the One and Triune God. Modern science has also provided insights into Revelation, one of which is the sheer size and complexity of the Universe in which we live, far grander than William Paley's Watch and Watchmaker. That is also the product of the One and Triune God.
Theology can develop, in an authentic manner. It did not stop developing with the birth or death of Saint Thomas.
-
It is nothing personal, but life is short and I see no point spending any more time going around in circles within a very small, poorly-ventilated box constructed almost entirely by laymen of the 20th C.
It didn't start with laymen. Whatever you think of Father Feeney, he was an ordained priest and an educated theologian. As a layperson, I have found his arguments and those of his followers convincing.
Let's say that you are interested in getting Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., into Paradise. Short of converting to Catholicism, there are, as far as I can tell, only two ways:
1) Baptism in Infancy. Not impossible, as "anyone whatsoever" can baptize. Once this happens, the "Jew," "Muslim," etc., is adopted as a Child of God. Salvation is now theirs to lose, not gain. If they live their lives without mortal sin, when they die, they will go to Heaven, eventually.
2) Implicit faith with Perfect Charity. In this scenario, the Jew, Muslim, etc., lives his or her life in a state of damnation for at least the first seven years of life. Only after that, having come to faith in a Creator God, could such an individual enter into a "state of grace," and provided that he or she perseveres in that state of grace, attain everlasting life.
It should be clear that Option 1 is the far safer and far "easier" option.
-
Here is what belief in BOD has lead to...
John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (#10), Dec. 7, 1990: “The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church.”29
This is why I left the Novus Ordo. If BOD allows what your soon to be newest Saint said here, then what difference is there between the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Catholic Movement?
-
I am not entirely sure what your fixation with St. Alphonsus is in regards to BOB/BOD.
There is no "fixation" -- I just brought him up a few posts ago and have repeated my questions for the simple reason that no one has actually answered them.
...since he was made a saint, instead of believing that he retracted his BOB/BOD belief before he died, you choose to believe his word trumps the Church's clear, infallible teaching.
I never said, nor will ever say, such a thing. Mere repetition of a twisted version of what I said will not make it so.
You should try to avoid doing that from now on - just imho.
You should try to read and comprehend what people are actually saying.
I only read about 10 pages of this thread so I will guess that you are trying to prove that Fr. Feeney called St. Alphonsus (one of my personal top 3 favorites btw) heretical because he taught bob/bod - again, this is unjustifiable by any stretch of whatever imagination one chooses to apply.
You should not presume -- imho. In this case, you are completely wrong. I honestly do not give a damn what Feeney thought about St. Alphonsus or anything else -- I am asking men like you to explain something that you apparently cannot explain.
Fr. Feeney was a family friend of ours for about the last 8 or 10 years of his life - personally, I believe he was rewarded and today is a very powerful saint in heaven for the sufferings he endured at the hands of his own.
While you are welcome to your opinion, this could be taken as a good sign that you are unduly influenced by emotion.
FWIW, I do not care if you had weenie roasts with him every Sunday evening and all of your nephews are named Leonard.
-
Whatever you think of Father Feeney, he was an ordained priest and an educated theologian. As a layperson, I have found his arguments and those of his followers convincing.
It doesn't matter what anybody thinks of Fr. Feeney.
He is simply not an important figure in the resistance to Vatican II.
-
Whatever you think of Father Feeney, he was an ordained priest and an educated theologian. As a layperson, I have found his arguments and those of his followers convincing.
It doesn't matter what anybody thinks of Fr. Feeney.
He is simply not an important figure in the resistance to Vatican II.
Well, that's your opinion. Since at least 1976, Father Feeney's followers have been celebrating the Tridentine Mass:
http://www.saintbenedict.com/monastery/masstimes.html
Archbishop Lefebvre founded the SSPX in 1970. For awhile, he was celebrating the NO Mass.
-
It didn't start with laymen. Whatever you think of Father Feeney, he was an ordained priest and an educated theologian. As a layperson, I have found his arguments and those of his followers convincing.
While I am happy for you, I would like you to note I did not say Feeney was a layman, nor that this all started with laymen. I said the box in which so many are presently suffering from theological asphyxiation was constructed mostly by laymen.
FORGET about Feeney, if you can, as I have made it clear I do not even care what he did or did not teach.
Let's say that you are interested in getting Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., into Paradise. Short of converting to Catholicism, there are, as far as I can tell, only two ways:
1) Baptism in Infancy. Not impossible, as "anyone whatsoever" can baptize. Once this happens, the "Jew," "Muslim," etc., is adopted as a Child of God. Salvation is now theirs to lose, not gain. If they live their lives without mortal sin, when they die, they will go to Heaven, eventually.
2) Implicit faith with Perfect Charity. In this scenario, the Jew, Muslim, etc., lives his or her life in a state of damnation for at least the first seven years of life. Only after that, having come to faith in a Creator God, could such an individual enter into a "state of grace," and provided that he or she perseveres in that state of grace, attain everlasting life.
It should be clear that Option 1 is the far safer and far "easier" option.
It should also be clear that option two is the very thing considered absolutely impossible by Feeneyites. The whole point is:
Some think you CAN enter a state of grace without receiving water baptism; others think that believing such an idea makes a man a HERETIC.
-
You should try to read and comprehend what people are actually saying.
Well by all means, please, in charity, enlighten me - - what exactly are people actually saying?
-
Whatever you think of Father Feeney, he was an ordained priest and an educated theologian. As a layperson, I have found his arguments and those of his followers convincing.
It doesn't matter what anybody thinks of Fr. Feeney.
He is simply not an important figure in the resistance to Vatican II.
Well, that's your opinion. Since at least 1976, Father Feeney's followers have been celebrating the Tridentine Mass:
http://www.saintbenedict.com/monastery/masstimes.html
Archbishop Lefebvre founded the SSPX in 1970. For awhile, he was celebrating the NO Mass.
Fr. Feeney is simply not a figure in the resistance to Vatican II and the New Mass. He was part of the NO establishment and died that way. This is just stated as a fact with nothing else implied.
-
If BOD allows what your soon to be newest Saint said here, then what difference is there between the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Catholic Movement?
The easy answer is...BOD doesn't allow for what JP2 said in the words you quoted.
-
Some think you CAN enter a state of grace without receiving water baptism; others think that believing such an idea makes a man a HERETIC.
No question about it - one can absolutely enter the state of grace without baptism. The Church teaches us so.
-
Round and round in ever-smaler circles, trapped in a box of our own making? No thanks. I have seen this nonsense too many times before.
-
Round and round in ever-smaler circles, trapped in a box of our own making? No thanks. I have seen this nonsense too many times before.
Exactly what is it that you are trying to do I wonder?
Ahhhhhhhhhh lunch time!
Later :dancing-banana:
-
No question about it - one can absolutely enter the state of grace without baptism. The Church teaches us so.
Thank you for this simple statement, with which I agree completely. I have nothing more to say at this time.
-
It didn't start with laymen. Whatever you think of Father Feeney, he was an ordained priest and an educated theologian. As a layperson, I have found his arguments and those of his followers convincing.
While I am happy for you, I would like you to note I did not say Feeney was a layman, nor that this all started with laymen. I said the box in which so many are presently suffering from theological asphyxiation was constructed mostly by laymen.
FORGET about Feeney, if you can, as I have made it clear I do not even care what he did or did not teach.
Let's say that you are interested in getting Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., into Paradise. Short of converting to Catholicism, there are, as far as I can tell, only two ways:
1) Baptism in Infancy. Not impossible, as "anyone whatsoever" can baptize. Once this happens, the "Jew," "Muslim," etc., is adopted as a Child of God. Salvation is now theirs to lose, not gain. If they live their lives without mortal sin, when they die, they will go to Heaven, eventually.
2) Implicit faith with Perfect Charity. In this scenario, the Jew, Muslim, etc., lives his or her life in a state of damnation for at least the first seven years of life. Only after that, having come to faith in a Creator God, could such an individual enter into a "state of grace," and provided that he or she perseveres in that state of grace, attain everlasting life.
It should be clear that Option 1 is the far safer and far "easier" option.
It should also be clear that option two is the very thing considered absolutely impossible by Feeneyites. The whole point is:
Some think you CAN enter a state of grace without receiving water baptism; others think that believing such an idea makes a man a HERETIC.
Option 1 would be, for any individual that you could possibly assert as falling into the domain of Option 2, always at least a possibility. Since Option 2 is not open to infants and children, that gives the One and Triune God seven years to secure that person's Baptism. In other words, we do not need Option 2, do we?
-
Ahhhhhhhhhh lunch time!
Later :dancing-banana:
Where are you?
-
Whatever you think of Father Feeney, he was an ordained priest and an educated theologian. As a layperson, I have found his arguments and those of his followers convincing.
It doesn't matter what anybody thinks of Fr. Feeney.
He is simply not an important figure in the resistance to Vatican II.
Well, that's your opinion. Since at least 1976, Father Feeney's followers have been celebrating the Tridentine Mass:
http://www.saintbenedict.com/monastery/masstimes.html
Archbishop Lefebvre founded the SSPX in 1970. For awhile, he was celebrating the NO Mass.
Fr. Feeney is simply not a figure in the resistance to Vatican II and the New Mass. He was part of the NO establishment and died that way. This is just stated as a fact with nothing else implied.
All three of his monasteries celebrate the Tridentine Mass exclusively.
-
Some think you CAN enter a state of grace without receiving water baptism; others think that believing such an idea makes a man a HERETIC.
No question about it - one can absolutely enter the state of grace without baptism. The Church teaches us so.
Stubborn, can you let us know which cannon or ex cath statement says that? Because, a state of grace means eliminating original sin first. If this can be done without Sacramental Baptism, then Papacy is worthless and I'm going back to the Novus Ordo (just kidding, I'd rather have my eyes ripped out with a red hot poker).
Also, every BOD defender still keeps using the most perfect situation of a Catechumen who is on his way to Church to be Baptised and a piano drops on him. What about what almost ALL the sermons from trady Priests who say that Jews, Muslems, etc etc who have not heard of Christ can still find eternal salvation. Where the H#)) does that teaching come from and how does it differ from the Novus Ordo. I just listened to a show on the local "catholic" radio station and it could have been any SSPX, SSPV, CMRI or Independant Priest or Bishop giving the talk.
-
Some think you CAN enter a state of grace without receiving water baptism; others think that believing such an idea makes a man a HERETIC.
No question about it - one can absolutely enter the state of grace without baptism. The Church teaches us so.
Stubborn, can you let us know which cannon or ex cath statement says that? Because, a state of grace means eliminating original sin first. If this can be done without Sacramental Baptism, then Papacy is worthless and I'm going back to the Novus Ordo (just kidding, I'd rather have my eyes ripped out with a red hot poker).
Also, every BOD defender still keeps using the most perfect situation of a Catechumen who is on his way to Church to be Baptised and a piano drops on him. What about what almost ALL the sermons from trady Priests who say that Jews, Muslems, etc etc who have not heard of Christ can still find eternal salvation. Where the H#)) does that teaching come from and how does it differ from the Novus Ordo. I just listened to a show on the local "catholic" radio station and it could have been any SSPX, SSPV, CMRI or Independant Priest or Bishop giving the talk.
Jehanne, I'm in Michigan, about an hour north of Detroit.
Trent teaches us that a perfect act of contrition a.k.a. BOD can put us in a state of grace, but the reception of the sacrament is necessary for salvation.........................CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
This defines infallibly that the reception of the actual Sacrament is wholly necessary for Salvation. It also names BOD/BOD "superfluous"
Now, onto the next half............
and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
This second part flat out confirms that one can obtain grace without baptism - the "grace of Justification".
In summary - Baptism = salvation while Desire = Justification.
Justification, if achieved - can be lost same as Lucifer lost it, same as Adam lost it and as we all need confession because we lose it on a regular basis.
Salvation, once attained, is eternal - can never be lost.
Fr. Feeney taught extensively on the difference between justification and salvation.
One of the reasons one should never depend on their own "desire" aka, "perfect act of love" or "perfect act of contrition" is because only God can determine if the "perfect act" was acceptable TO HIM - we are absolutely incapable of that, and no one on earth can ever prove if it was acceptable to God OR NOT...............if anything, we should presume that we are incapable of performing a perfect act of contrition - IMHO which is why even Holy Mother the Church teaches, as Fr. Feeney puts it.............
But the very fact that the Church requires every
mortal sin committed to be confessed, whether one is perfectly sorry for it or not, shows the Church has a maternal suspicion of this perfect act of love of God obtaining forgiveness apart from the Sacrament of forgiveness instituted by Christ.
-
Baptism = salvation while Desire = Justification.
Well, this means ALL the baptized are already saved.
FWIW, you might want to send your 'theological decoder ring' back to the makers of Fruit Loops. It is clearly defective.
-
Baptism = salvation while Desire = Justification.
Well, this means ALL the baptized are already saved.
Maybe, but only according to you - not the Church.
I suggest you read up on the differences between Salvation and Justification - it should help you out quite a bit.
Good luck.
-
Baptism = salvation while Desire = Justification.
Well, this means ALL the baptized are already saved.
FWIW, you might want to send your 'theological decoder ring' back to the makers of Fruit Loops. It is clearly defective.
You need to read the Bread of Life before drawing your conclusions. It's not that long, under 100 pages, and is freely available online. Not matter what you think of Father Feeney, you will have no choice but to acknowledge Option 1 as the far superior option in getting the most people into Heaven. Considering that throughout history around half of all infants born died within the first year of life, Option 1 seems, by far, preferable to Option 2. And, if Option 2 exists, then Option 1 must also exist.
-
Baptism = salvation while Desire = Justification.
Well, this means ALL the baptized are already saved.
FWIW, you might want to send your 'theological decoder ring' back to the makers of Fruit Loops. It is clearly defective.
You need to read the Bread of Life before drawing your conclusions. It's not that long, under 100 pages, and is freely available online. Not matter what you think of Father Feeney, you will have no choice but to acknowledge Option 1 as the far superior option in getting the most people into Heaven. Considering that throughout history around half of all infants born died within the first year of life, Option 1 seems, by far, preferable to Option 2. And, if Option 2 exists, then Option 1 must also exist.
Totally agree.
Aside from that, gladius_veritatis has no other option but to pick and choose only certain 1/2 sentences to purposely distort the context. The poor fellow is in the exact pickle that he hoped I was in at one point...........must be very frustrating I guess.
Silly but true.
-
Baptism = salvation...Salvation, once attained, is eternal - can never be lost.
Ergo, Baptism gives you something that CANNOT be lost.
If you do not see how your words clearly state this idea, there is nothing to be done at this time. Good bye.
-
Baptism = salvation...Salvation, once attained, is eternal - can never be lost.
Ergo, Baptism gives you something that CANNOT be lost.
If you do not see how your words clearly state this idea, there is nothing to be done at this time. Good bye.
If you do not read the rest of the post then you must have readers block.
From now on, do whatever is in your power to read everything in the entire post best as you can.
-
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
From the "Canons on Baptism"
Notice how Hietanen had to ADD the words "the Sacrament" to make this canon fit his personal interpretation!
-
The poor fellow is in the exact pickle that he hoped I was in at one point...........must be very frustrating I guess.
I never "hoped" for such a thing -- it is/was simply a fact. I am not in any kind of pickle, as you are talking utter nonsense. I am experiencing the natural result of having an exchange with someone who is both stupid and bad-willed.
Ciao for now...
-
If you do not read the rest of the post then you must have readers block.
From now on, do whatever is in your power to read everything in the entire post best as you can.
I did read it. There is nothing else in the post that is worth a squirt of rat piss where this discussion is concerned.
-
The poor fellow is in the exact pickle that he hoped I was in at one point...........must be very frustrating I guess.
I never "hoped" for such a thing -- it is/was simply a fact. I am not in any kind of pickle, as you are talking utter nonsense. I am experiencing the natural result of having an exchange with someone who is both stupid and bad-willed.
Ciao for now...
I may well be the stupidest person you've ever come across, but I am not bad willed - do everything in your power from now on to try to resist saying things that are full of uneducated ignorance and you should be ok imo.
-
If you do not read the rest of the post then you must have readers block.
From now on, do whatever is in your power to read everything in the entire post best as you can.
I did read it. There is nothing else in the post that is worth a squirt of rat piss where this discussion is concerned.
You may well need to desire forgiveness after that slam - please let us know if you achieve complete or partial forgiveness - and for heaven's sake, try like all get out to avoid doing that from here on out!
-
Baptism = salvation...Salvation, once attained, is eternal - can never be lost.
Ergo, Baptism gives you something that CANNOT be lost.
If you do not see how your words clearly state this idea, there is nothing to be done at this time. Good bye.
No one is claiming that one cannot sin mortally. I have posted this before:
Baltimore Catechism -- Question 510:
Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
Answer: It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church provided that person (I) has been validly baptized; (2) firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and (3) dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.
-
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
From the "Canons on Baptism"
Notice how Hietanen had to ADD the words "the Sacrament" to make this canon fit his personal interpretation!
If this isn't "bad will" I don't know what is!
-
He did put it in brackets. That notation was not, I believe, even used during that time period.
-
He did put it in brackets. That notation was not, I believe, even used during that time period.
Perhaps I should not accuse one of "bad will" as easily as Hietanen does.
-
Baptism = salvation...Salvation, once attained, is eternal - can never be lost.
Ergo, Baptism gives you something that CANNOT be lost.
If you do not see how your words clearly state this idea, there is nothing to be done at this time. Good bye.
No one is claiming that one cannot sin mortally. I have posted this before:
Baltimore Catechism -- Question 510:
Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
Answer: It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church provided that person (I) has been validly baptized; (2) firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and (3) dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.
*121 Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would
attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.
I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.
-
Well stated. But, pagans, if they are baptized, could also be saved.
-
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
From the "Canons on Baptism"
Notice how Hietanen had to ADD the words "the Sacrament" to make this canon fit his personal interpretation!
If this isn't "bad will" I don't know what is!
The only one who is bad willed here is you.
Please visit the link and see how the Council is talking about a real sacrament and not an imaginative baptism of blood or desire (which most of you probably will admit is not even a sacrament. So this fact alone then exposes most of you.)
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html
-
Well stated. But, pagans, if they are baptized, could also be saved.
You can't understand why I posted it?
-
It's a great article. But, please, enlighten me.
-
Saints can be wrong on many issues, however, but because they where not obstinate in there position, they where not heretics as most of you are. They were material heretics, for they didn't deny what they didn't understand to be true. And if they had seen the infallible dogmas they would have accepted them.
Earth to Hietanen...
Are you seriously arguing that St. Alphonsus DID NOT KNOW about the dogmatic definitions pertaining to Baptism? If so, there is no point to discussing this further.
Yes, Council of Trent spoke of a desire for baptism and that a desire for baptism was necessary for salvation. Which such a definition, there will be misunderstandings. However, what the council defined what that a desire for baptism and to actually receive baptism, are both are necessary for salvation.
Saints can be wrong. You build your faith, however, on assumptions such as "how could they be wrong" "why should I believe you over them, etc. Well, this just show your bad will. I have showed you dogmas which proved them being wrong, and the dogmas are not my interpretations, but what the Church has defined. No theologians is needed to explain the easy words in the dogmatic definitions I have shown you. Those who deny that baptism, the sacrament, is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema... (Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5) But you just don't care.
even though Council of Trent could be misunderstood to teach that only a desire for baptism was necessary for salvation, this misunderstanding is blown away when one considers the rest of the words, namely: AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).” (Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4)
The reader should notice that, in this passage, the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est), which excludes any possibility of salvation without being born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire denies. The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written are mutually exclusive (they cannot both be true at the same time) – and every baptism of desire proponent will admit this. That is why all of them must – and do – opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.
But what does the passage in Trent that we just discussed say: It says infallibly, “AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD[/I].”
But what about the claim of the baptism of desire people: that the use of the word “or” (Latin: aut) in the above passage means that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. A careful look at the correct translation of this passage shows this claim to be false. Suppose I said, “This shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one.” Does this mean that a shower can take place by the desire to take a shower? No it doesn’t. It means that both (water and desire) are necessary.
Or suppose I said, “There cannot be a wedding without a bride or a groom.” Does this mean that you can have a wedding with a groom and not a bride? Of course not. It means that both are necessary for the wedding. One could give hundreds of other examples. Likewise, the passage above in Trent says that Justification CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT water or desire; in other words, both are necessary. It does not say that Justification does take place by either water or desire!
Shall we see whether or not you are a heretic? You know what exposes you people the most? It is the fact that you have nothing infallible to back up your claims of bod/bob with.
So, both St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were heretics, NOT Saints and Doctors. This is the logical conclusion of your line of thinking. Further, Holy Church is worthless because she puts forth men as examples of holiness and teachers of sound doctrine when they are, in fact, heretics.
No they where not heretics but material heretics.
The term “material heresy” is used to describe persons who believe in a heresy without knowing that they are contradicting the Catholic Church’s official and infallible teaching. There’s no such thing as a material heretic in the dogmatic teaching of the Church. There are heretics; there are schismatics; and there are Catholics. Material heretic is simply a name for a Catholic who is erring in good faith about a dogma. In other words, it’s another name for a mistaken Catholic. It’s a person who is holding a false position – one that is strictly incompatible with Catholic dogma. However, that person is not obstinate against that dogma. He would change his position immediately upon being informed of the true position. The “material heretic” is a Catholic. This is very important to understand. Many Catholic saints have been material heretics. St. Thomas, for example, did not believe that Mary was conceived immaculately (Summa Theologica, Part. III, Q. 14, Art. 3, Reply to Obj. 1) even though it is now a defined dogma that Mary was conceived immaculately, and no wonder that even Saints have erred in their teaching, for it is very hard to imagine that a human can know every Church teaching that exists.
Neither of them, in my view, were heretics (God forbid) or even in error; rather, they were both describing situations, which, while possible, we have reason to believe never occur.
You do realize this is NOT what Hietanen (or those like him) is claiming?
The only thing I realize is that you slander and put words in other peoples mouths and say they hold a position which they never actually held. That is the way of heretics and mortal sinners. I often make that mistake my self, attributing to others what they did not say or believe, and unless one is careful, these mistakes can easily happen. Hopefully, I will become better my self and never do it again.
I already told you many times over, they are not heretics, since they are not obstinate like you. You are a heretic, they where not. You are obstinate, they where not.
-
Well stated. But, pagans, if they are baptized, could also be saved.
Jehanne, by the above statement, did you mean that people can be saved without the belief in the Trinity and Incarnation?
Pagan children, if baptized, are Saved through baptism. For adult pagans, however, the requirements are different. All adults must believe in the Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord to be Saved, without this belief (for an adult), no one is saved, even if baptized.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
-
Well stated. But, pagans, if they are baptized, could also be saved.
You can't understand why I posted it?
If pagans are baptized, they become Christians.
-
Well stated. But, pagans, if they are baptized, could also be saved.
You can't understand why I posted it?
If pagans are baptized, they become Christians.
Yes, but from their perspective, they are still pagans.
-
Well stated. But, pagans, if they are baptized, could also be saved.
Jehanne, by the above statement, did you mean that people can be saved without the belief in the Trinity and Incarnation?
Pagan children, if baptized, are Saved through baptism. For adult pagans, however, the requirements are different. All adults must believe in the Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord to be Saved, without this belief (for an adult), no one is saved, even if baptized.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
They would be saved, for Saint Thomas taught:
"If we consider unbelief as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character of punishment, not of sin, because such ignorance is the result of the sin of our first parents. When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, not because of their sin of unbelief." (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.10, a.1.)
As with infants or the mentally impaired, they would not be damned for not knowing things that they could not possibly know, but since they were baptized in infancy, they would be without original sin, and, therefore, completely fit for Heaven. As long as they did not sin mortally, eternal life would be theirs to lose, not gain. As with young children, their faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation would be implicit.
-
Well stated. But, pagans, if they are baptized, could also be saved.
You can't understand why I posted it?
If pagans are baptized, they become Christians.
Yes, but from their perspective, they are still pagans.
Only if they are above the age of reason and have not accepted Christianity, in which case they are not Christians. But if an infant Pagan is proberly baptised, he/she becomes subject the the Roman Pontiff untill reaching that age when they can decide to accept or reject the faith.
-
Well stated. But, pagans, if they are baptized, could also be saved.
You can't understand why I posted it?
If pagans are baptized, they become Christians.
Yes, but from their perspective, they are still pagans.
Only if they are above the age of reason and have not accepted Christianity, in which case they are not Christians. But if an infant Pagan is proberly baptised, he/she becomes subject the the Roman Pontiff untill reaching that age when they can decide to accept or reject the faith.
Consider anyone in infancy who is validly baptized, but just prior to his or her seventh birthday, they get into an accident and end-up in a persistent vegetative state. Such an individual would have no opportunity to embrace the Gospel, except, perhaps, by a miracle of private revelation, which I most certainly do not discount. However, since that person is validly baptized, he or she is in a state of grace upon turning seven. Salvation is no longer something that person needs to gain, unlike those who have not been baptized. To lose salvation, that person would have to sin mortally, by obstinately denying a truth of the Catholic faith. Material heresy is not enough to send a baptized person to Hell. We all acknowledge that Saint Thomas held to at least some material heresies during his lifetime.
-
You may well need to desire forgiveness after that slam...
Why bother? I have been baptized and...
"Baptism = salvation" :cheers:
-
You may well need to desire forgiveness after that slam...
Why bother? I have been baptized and...
"Baptism = salvation" :cheers:
Because, until death, you still have free will. You, as an individual, did not choose to be conceived; your parents made that choice for you. They are the ones who gave you the gift of life. However, you have free will, which means that you can throw that gift away, by choosing to kill yourself.
The same is true of Baptism. As with conception and birth, Baptism is a gift, the second birth. With it, one receives the gift of eternal life, but as with the first gift, that of natural life, one is still free to throw away his/her own salvation, by sinning mortally. The One and Triune God is, however, merciful, which means that we will only have to remain in this struggling, "free will" state for so long. At death our fate is sealed, one way or the other.
-
The only thing I realize is that you slander and put words in other peoples mouths and say they hold a position which they never actually held.
Would you be so kind as to provide an example?
[FWIW, St. Thomas and the IC is not pertinent to this discussion, for reasons that should be obvious.]
-
Because, until death, you still have free will. You, as an individual, did not choose to be conceived; your parents made that choice for you. They are the ones who gave you the gift of life. However, you have free will, which means that you can throw that gift away, by choosing to kill yourself.
The same is true of Baptism. As with conception and birth, Baptism is a gift, the second birth. With it, one receives the gift of eternal life, but as with the first gift, that of natural life, one is still free to throw away his/her own salvation, by sinning mortally. The One and Triune God is, however, merciful, which means that we will only have to remain in this struggling, "free will" state for so long. At death our fate is sealed, one way or the other.
No offense, but this is all completely clear and obvious to me.
Still, it is a fact that Stubborn said "Baptism = salvation." End of story, apparently.
-
Well stated. But, pagans, if they are baptized, could also be saved.
You can't understand why I posted it?
If pagans are baptized, they become Christians.
No, that's not why.
-
No they where not heretics but material heretics.
Because they knew about NEITHER the dogmatic definitions NOR what Jesus said on the matter, as recorded in Holy Writ?
Gee, that sounds plausible :scratchchin:
-
Because, until death, you still have free will. You, as an individual, did not choose to be conceived; your parents made that choice for you. They are the ones who gave you the gift of life. However, you have free will, which means that you can throw that gift away, by choosing to kill yourself.
The same is true of Baptism. As with conception and birth, Baptism is a gift, the second birth. With it, one receives the gift of eternal life, but as with the first gift, that of natural life, one is still free to throw away his/her own salvation, by sinning mortally. The One and Triune God is, however, merciful, which means that we will only have to remain in this struggling, "free will" state for so long. At death our fate is sealed, one way or the other.
No offense, but this is all completely clear and obvious to me.
Still, it is a fact that Stubborn said "Baptism = salvation." End of story, apparently.
I do not think that he believes in "Once saved, always saved." That is a despicable heresy.
As Saint Augustine recognized, it all comes down to infant baptism, and what happens to those infants who die with it as opposed to those who die without it.
Having been baptized in infancy, a person's salvation is absolutely certain if he or she dies before the Age of Reason. Of course, as the current CCC recognizes, such a person's rewards in Paradise will be minimal. So, there is something to gain by living!
Infants who die without Baptism are lost forever, with absolutely no hope of salvation, barring a miracle to bring them back to life to receive sacramental Baptism. They are like the countless individuals who were never conceived, perhaps because Mom & Dad decided to use artificial contraception. While they experienced the first birth, they did not experience the second, so they have no hope of salvation, unless they survive into adulthood, and using their free will, hear the Gospel, believe, and are baptized.
-
No they where not heretics but material heretics.
Because they knew about NEITHER the dogmatic definitions NOR what Jesus said on the matter, as recorded in Holy Writ?
Gee, that sounds plausible :scratchchin:
They have baptism, which is the gift of everlasting life. It is by grace that we are saved, not through faith alone.
-
It is by grace that we are saved, not through faith alone.
That is plain to all (who are not Lutheran).
However, Hietanen's thesis, as culled from his own comments, is that two of the most eminent Doctors of the Church knew about neither the dogmatic definitions nor what Jesus said about Baptism in the Bible.
Does that seem plausible to you?
-
A Catholic may hold a material heresy in error. That does not make him a material heretic. A public heretic (material or otherwise) is outside the Church by definition.
-
Discussions like this make me wonder if the quake off Japan catapulted (at least some of) us into a perpendicular universe...
-
It is by grace that we are saved, not through faith alone.
That is plain to all (who are not Lutheran).
However, Hietanen's thesis, as culled from his own comments, is that two of the most eminent Doctors of the Church knew about neither the dogmatic definitions nor what Jesus said about Baptism in the Bible.
Does that seem plausible to you?
We've been through this before. Saying that something can happen is completely different than saying that it does happen. It is far, far better to be baptized in infancy. At least the first 7 years of your life are covered. If you die, you are at the lowest rung, but at least you are in Heaven and will get to experience the Beatific Vision.
On the other hand, not having Baptism means spending those first 7 years of life in a state of damnation. And, then, you have to hear the Gospel and believe it. Even if the "implicit faith" folks are right, most 7 year-old children are still going to have a difficult time comprehending a Creator God and getting their "implicit faith," which means that if they die in at least a state of original sin, they will go to Hell, at least to the Hell of Separation, which is called Limbo.
-
A Catholic may hold a material heresy in error. That does not make him a material heretic. A public heretic (material or otherwise) is outside the Church by definition.
And, a baptized pagan could (and, probably would) be a material heretic, unless some private revelation was given to that person, which I do not discount.
-
We've been through this before.
Yes, and no one just answered the question then, either. Look, there is no need to keep writing me paragraphs that tell me things I already know while failing to answer the actual question.
-
We've been through this before.
Yes, and no one just answered the question then, either. Look, there is no need to keep writing me paragraphs that tell me things I already know while failing to answer the actual question.
Yes, I am sure that they knew about the dogmatic definitions. But, as the Catechism of Trent (the Roman Catechism) states, Baptism of Desire could only happen in those situations where it was impossible for the person to receive sacramental Baptism. Perhaps they viewed Baptism of Desire as a pure speculation, albeit a dogmatic one. It can happen but it never does. I do not see any contradiction in that.
Good night.
-
Yes, I am sure that they knew about the dogmatic definitions.
Thank you.
Good night.
Sleep well :)
-
Well stated. But, pagans, if they are baptized, could also be saved.
Jehanne, by the above statement, did you mean that people can be saved without the belief in the Trinity and Incarnation?
Pagan children, if baptized, are Saved through baptism. For adult pagans, however, the requirements are different. All adults must believe in the Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord to be Saved, without this belief (for an adult), no one is saved, even if baptized.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
They would be saved, for Saint Thomas taught:
"If we consider unbelief as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character of punishment, not of sin, because such ignorance is the result of the sin of our first parents. When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, not because of their sin of unbelief." (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.10, a.1.)
As with infants or the mentally impaired, they would not be damned for not knowing things that they could not possibly know, but since they were baptized in infancy, they would be without original sin, and, therefore, completely fit for Heaven. As long as they did not sin mortally, eternal life would be theirs to lose, not gain. As with young children, their faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation would be implicit.
Why do you make up your Faith based on what a Saint taught? That is not how to do it. Besides, St. Thomas was not talking about what you say, you have no clue what you are saying.
Jahenna, did you quote that St. Thomas Aquinas passage to somehow prove that pagans who do not believe in Jesus Christ or the Trinity can be Saved? If I have understood you correctly, you are a heretic on this point as well.
What St. Thomas was talking about what that Pagans do not sin in their unbelief, that's all. But they cannot be Saved or have eternal life if they die in the state of unbelief.
It's really amazing and sad how almost everyone here seems to build there faith (not on infallible dogmas) but on the theories or speculations of Saints. Many times do these people not even understand what the saints was even saying, and so do these ignorant people twist and interpret what they said out of context in a heretical non-Catholic way.
I just previously showed you a dogma that everyone needs to believe in the Trinity and Incarnation to be Saved. You just seem to have ignored it, and instead followed the opinions of St. Thomas (Not that St. Thomas was talking about what you think he was). You thus put MAN (fallible) before GOD (infallible), you reject God and approve of men. This further proves to show the spiritual fog you are living in.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”[/b]
I don't think I have to quote more dogmas to prove my case. You are wrong, and a heretic on top of it, for you don't even believe Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. You have made faith in Jesus into something of no value and worthless.
St. Thomas Aquinas, as do all Saints, teach the same. That people who remain in unbelief, remains in unbelief because of their bad lives. They will not be judged for the sin of unbelief, but for their other sins, which kept them in belief.
St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”
As I have said before. The reason people fall into heresies is because they live a bad life. You need to read this article, and come out of your mortal and venial sins. For you might never come out of your heresies unless you first come out of your mortal and venial sins.
Spiritual Information You Must Know About to be Saved (http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/)
The Prophecies and Revelations of Saint Bridget (Birgitta) of Sweden - Book 1 (http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/st-bridget/st-bridget-of-sweden.php)
-
The only thing I realize is that you slander and put words in other peoples mouths and say they hold a position which they never actually held.
Would you be so kind as to provide an example?
[FWIW, St. Thomas and the IC is not pertinent to this discussion, for reasons that should be obvious.]
First. You didn't answer any of my other questions. Why?
You want an example? I can give you what you said instead, You said I believed St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus was heretics. You claimed this even after I pointed out that I did not believe this. Therefore, did you slander when you obstinately kept repeating a position which you knew I never held.
No they where not heretics but material heretics.
Because they knew about NEITHER the dogmatic definitions NOR what Jesus said on the matter, as recorded in Holy Writ?
Gee, that sounds plausible :scratchchin:
Yes, no one can knowingly reject a dogma and remain a Catholic, but I guess you know that, but you just don't care. Therefore, they cannot have rejected a dogma knowingly, for then they would have been heretics. Do you agree with this?
And that's also your main problem, really. You reject the dogmas which says one must be Baptized (even after I have shown them to you), you also reject the Bible which the dogmas says shall be interpret as it is written. You have thus no excuse. The Saints, however, would not have rejected the dogma if it would have been presented to them (that is why they are Saints, and not heretics).
Saints can misunderstand, as they have on many many issues (do I have to make examples, I guess even you, in all your bad will, know of many), but you just don't seem to care, for you are a mortal sinner and a heretic, and a liar on top of it.
Your only argument is that you cannot believe or accept that two doctors of the Church was wrong on an issue. That reveals your state of damnation, for you reject the dogmas on the basis that you cannot accept that the Saints were wrong. If you would accept that the Saints was wrong, you would consequently come to the only possible conclusion, namely, that you also are wrong; but you don't want to go there. That is why you resist the truth.
Besides, do you believe in baptism of desire and blood so that you may grant salvation for people who do not believe n Jesus Christ, such as pagans, Muslims, Jews or atheists, even though they either hate or reject Jesus? Could these, according to you, be Saved?
Depending on your answer, you will reject even what the Saints taught on baptism of blood/desire. For they ONLY applied it to people who where catechumens, and who already believed in Jesus Christ, and not to pagans, Muslims, or Jews (as sadly most people who believe in bod/bob today applies it to, that is, to everyone).
Let's see if you will reject a dogma again.
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."
Objection: 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?
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 threatenedand go to hell for calling or Lord and His Church a liar, or affirm it, refusing to believe or speak heresy.
"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
As I have said before. The reason people fall into heresies is because they live a bad life. You need to read this article, and come out of your mortal and venial sins. For you might never come out of your heresies unless you first come out of your mortal and venial sins.
Spiritual Information You Must Know About to be Saved (http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/)
The Prophecies and Revelations of Saint Bridget (Birgitta) of Sweden - Book 1 (http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/st-bridget/st-bridget-of-sweden.php)
-
Jahenna, did you quote that St. Thomas Aquinas passage to somehow prove that pagans who do not believe in Jesus Christ or the Trinity can be Saved? If I have understood you correctly, you are a heretic on this point as well.
What St. Thomas was talking about what that Pagans do not sin in their unbelief, that's all. But they cannot be Saved or have eternal life if they die in the state of unbelief.
If a pagan infant is validly baptized and dies before the age of reason, why do they go?
-
Your only argument is that you cannot believe or accept that two doctors of the Church was wrong on an issue.
No, it is not. In fact, it is not my argument at all. The above is merely your misrepresentation of it.
-
You didn't answer any of my other questions. Why?
You accused me of slander, so it seems only fitting that we clear the air on that point first.
Your example is not accurate, and therefore your accusation falls to pieces. I said that, given the situation as it is, you are logically bound to conclude that two Doctors of Holy Church are, in reality, heretics. That is where your own principles inexorably lead. Disagree if you will, but it is pointless.
-
No they where not heretics but material heretics.
Because they knew about NEITHER the dogmatic definitions NOR what Jesus said on the matter, as recorded in Holy Writ?
Gee, that sounds plausible :scratchchin:
Yes, no one can knowingly reject a dogma and remain a Catholic, but I guess you know that, but you just don't care. Therefore, they cannot have rejected a dogma knowingly, for then they would have been heretics.
Why do you lack the guts and simplicity to answer plainly?
You must conclude (and have indirectly admitted) that two of the most learned, pious men in history DID NOT EVEN KNOW the most basic dogmas of Holy Church. That is completely preposterous.
-
No they where not heretics but material heretics.
Because they knew about NEITHER the dogmatic definitions NOR what Jesus said on the matter, as recorded in Holy Writ?
Gee, that sounds plausible :scratchchin:
Yes, no one can knowingly reject a dogma and remain a Catholic, but I guess you know that, but you just don't care. Therefore, they cannot have rejected a dogma knowingly, for then they would have been heretics.
Why do you lack the guts and simplicity to answer plainly?
You must conclude (and have indirectly admitted) that two of the most learned, pious men in history DID NOT EVEN KNOW the most basic dogmas of Holy Church. That is completely preposterous.
I agree with this 100%; however, the "difference" between Father Feeney and these Saints is, IMHO, the difference between Aquinas and Augustine on the fate of infants who die without Baptism.
-
No they where not heretics but material heretics.
Because they knew about NEITHER the dogmatic definitions NOR what Jesus said on the matter, as recorded in Holy Writ?
Gee, that sounds plausible :scratchchin:
Yes, no one can knowingly reject a dogma and remain a Catholic, but I guess you know that, but you just don't care. Therefore, they cannot have rejected a dogma knowingly, for then they would have been heretics.
Why do you lack the guts and simplicity to answer plainly?
You must conclude (and have indirectly admitted) that two of the most learned, pious men in history DID NOT EVEN KNOW the most basic dogmas of Holy Church. That is completely preposterous.
The problem is that you reject dogmas yourself. Therefore, you seem to conclude that everyone as well rejects dogmas. Understand, please, a person cannot reject a dogma and still be a Catholic. They where simply unaware of these dogmas, St. Thomas Aquinas lived long before the Council of Trent, and it's possible he may not have understood this issue. Just because someone is a saint does not mean he haw full understanding of all issues. Only an idiot would say so.
And only an idiot, would deny infallible Catholic dogma, because of what some saint said. You will not be judged because of the errors the saints believed in, but you will be judged for what you know about or what you knowingly rejected. It's just that simple.
St Alphonsus interpreted the Council of Trent wrong since they said a desire for baptism for Adults was necessary for salvation. It is not hard to misunderstand such a statement to conclude that a desire then is all that is needed. But all the Council said was that both a desire and to actually receive the baptism was both needed.
You didn't answer any of my other questions. Why?
You accused me of slander, so it seems only fitting that we clear the air on that point first.
Your example is not accurate, and therefore your accusation falls to pieces. I said that, given the situation as it is, you are logically bound to conclude that two Doctors of Holy Church are, in reality, heretics. That is where your own principles inexorably lead. Disagree if you will, but it is pointless.
I didn't accuse you of slander. You did slander. And you still want to imply that I say they where heretics. You will not escape Hell if you continue with your mortal sin of slander. I have told you many times they are not heretics. But you just don't care. People can be in material heresy (then they are still a Catholic) and people can be wrong on many issues, until he knowingly reject a dogma or the Faith on purpose by obstinacy. You are obstinate, therefore, are you a heretic, for you have seen the dogmas and reject them. Yes you even avoid them entirely, even after being questioned about them.
So, you did not answer any of my questions or my arguments. Please go back to Page 41 and answer the questions.
-
Jahenna, did you quote that St. Thomas Aquinas passage to somehow prove that pagans who do not believe in Jesus Christ or the Trinity can be Saved? If I have understood you correctly, you are a heretic on this point as well.
What St. Thomas was talking about what that Pagans do not sin in their unbelief, that's all. But they cannot be Saved or have eternal life if they die in the state of unbelief.
If a pagan infant is validly baptized and dies before the age of reason, why do they go?
Infants receive the Faith through baptism. The same does not apply to adults. Please understand that. Stop reject dogmas. You have no excuse.
PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY NOW!
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”[/b]
WHY ARE ADULTS LEFT IN DARKNESS?
St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”
-
How comes it that ads for Scientology and Mormon 'church' are being displayed in this discussion?
-
And since many here seem to value the opinion of Saints more then the infallible opinion of the Popes, why then, not quote some saints who taught in favor of the absolute necessity of water Baptism for salvation?
You see, both cannot be right. Either one must be baptized, or one doesn't need to be baptized. Well, we already know what position is true, since only one position is backed up with infallible dogma! Anyone but a liar headed for Hell can deny this fact!
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
In 140 A.D., the early Church Father Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5, and writes:
“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.”
This statement is obviously a paraphrase of John 3:5, and thus it demonstrates that from the very beginning of the apostolic age it was held and taught by the fathers that no one enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit based specifically on Our Lord Jesus Christ’s declaration in John 3:5.
In 155 A.D., St. Justin the Martyr writes:
“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.”
Notice that St. Justin Martyr, like Hermas, also quotes the words of Jesus in John 3:5, and based on Christ’s words he teaches that it is from apostolic tradition that no one at all can enter Heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism.
In his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, also dated 155 A.D., St. Justin Martyr further writes:
“… hasten to learn in what way forgiveness of sins and a hope of the inheritance… may be yours. There is no other way than this: acknowledge Christ, be washed in the washing announced by Isaias [Baptism]…”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.:
“He says, ‘Unless a man be born again’ – and He adds the words ‘of water and the Spirit’ – he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God…..if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it.”
We see that St. Cyril continues the apostolic Tradition that no one enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit, based again on an absolute understanding Our Lord’s own words in John 3:5.
Pope St. Damasus, 382 A.D.:
“This, then, is the salvation of Christians: that believing in the Trinity, that is, in the Father, and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and baptized in it…”
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
St. John Chrysostom, 392 A.D.:
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ not a whit from them, those who go hence without illumination, without the seal! … They are outside the royal city…. with the condemned. ‘Amen, I tell you, if anyone is not born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
St Augustine, 395 A.D.:
“… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized[/b].”
Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.:
“But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic[/b].”
Pope St. Gregory the Great, c. 590 A.D[/u].:
“Forgiveness of sin is bestowed on us only by the baptism of Christ.”
Theophylactus, Patriarch of Bulgaria, c. 800 A.D.:
“He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. It does not suffice to believe; he who believes, and is not yet baptized, but is only a catechumen, has not yet fully acquired salvation.”
Many other passages could be quoted from the fathers, but it is a fact that the fathers of the Church are unanimous from the beginning of the apostolic age that no one at all can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, based on the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5. The eminent Patristic Scholar Fr. William Jurgens, who has literally read thousands of texts from the fathers, was forced to admit the following (even though he believes in baptism of desire) in his three volume set on the fathers of the Church.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”
The eminent scholar Fr. Jurgens is admitting here three important things:
1) The fathers are constant in their teaching that John 3:5 is absolute with no exceptions; that is, no one at all enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit;
2) The fathers are so constant on this point that it likely constitutes divine revelation, without even considering the infallible teaching of the popes;
3) The constant teaching of the fathers that all must receive water baptism for salvation in light of John 3:5 excludes exceptions for the “invincibly ignorant” or “physically impossible” cases.
And based on this truth, declared by Jesus in the Gospel (John 3:5), handed down by the Apostles and taught by the fathers, the Catholic Church has infallibly defined as a dogma (as we have seen already) that no one at all enters heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
-
... the infallible opinion of the Popes ...
You really are a simpleton.
-
... the infallible opinion of the Popes ...
You really are a simpleton.
Seriously SJB???.... you're going to pick one mistatement from a long post with a substantial point made and backed up?
The attacks on Hietanen are starting to look more and more familiar... let's see where have I seen them before... OH YEAH,,... they look like same bullying tactics used on CAF towards any Conservative/Trady leaning poster.
The point made by heitanen that I'd like to see answered.....
You want to take the opinions of (2) Two Saints over many Ex Cathedra statements. But then you want to ignore the laundry list of Saints and Church Fathers who did not accept anything less than water Baptism.
-
Anyone but a liar headed for Hell can deny this fact!
So, you are now implying that neither St. Thomas nor St. Alponsus knew about ANY of these quotes, either? They must have been the most ignorant men of their times!
As you think it is all clear as a bell, they must be liars buried in hell, yes?
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
In 140 A.D., the early Church Father Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5, and writes:
“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.”
This statement is obviously a paraphrase of John 3:5, and thus it demonstrates that from the very beginning of the apostolic age it was held and taught by the fathers that no one enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit based specifically on Our Lord Jesus Christ’s declaration in John 3:5.
In 155 A.D., St. Justin the Martyr writes:
“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.”
Notice that St. Justin Martyr, like Hermas, also quotes the words of Jesus in John 3:5, and based on Christ’s words he teaches that it is from apostolic tradition that no one at all can enter Heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism.
In his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, also dated 155 A.D., St. Justin Martyr further writes:
“… hasten to learn in what way forgiveness of sins and a hope of the inheritance… may be yours. There is no other way than this: acknowledge Christ, be washed in the washing announced by Isaias [Baptism]…”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.:
“He says, ‘Unless a man be born again’ – and He adds the words ‘of water and the Spirit’ – he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God…..if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it.”
We see that St. Cyril continues the apostolic Tradition that no one enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit, based again on an absolute understanding Our Lord’s own words in John 3:5.
Pope St. Damasus, 382 A.D.:
“This, then, is the salvation of Christians: that believing in the Trinity, that is, in the Father, and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and baptized in it…”
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
St. John Chrysostom, 392 A.D.:
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ not a whit from them, those who go hence without illumination, without the seal! … They are outside the royal city…. with the condemned. ‘Amen, I tell you, if anyone is not born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
St Augustine, 395 A.D.:
“… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized[/b].”
Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.:
“But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic[/b].”
Pope St. Gregory the Great, c. 590 A.D[/u].:
“Forgiveness of sin is bestowed on us only by the baptism of Christ.”
Theophylactus, Patriarch of Bulgaria, c. 800 A.D.:
“He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. It does not suffice to believe; he who believes, and is not yet baptized, but is only a catechumen, has not yet fully acquired salvation.”
Many other passages could be quoted from the fathers, but it is a fact that the fathers of the Church are unanimous from the beginning of the apostolic age that no one at all can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, based on the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5. The eminent Patristic Scholar Fr. William Jurgens, who has literally read thousands of texts from the fathers, was forced to admit the following (even though he believes in baptism of desire) in his three volume set on the fathers of the Church.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”
The eminent scholar Fr. Jurgens is admitting here three important things:
1) The fathers are constant in their teaching that John 3:5 is absolute with no exceptions; that is, no one at all enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit;
2) The fathers are so constant on this point that it likely constitutes divine revelation, without even considering the infallible teaching of the popes;
3) The constant teaching of the fathers that all must receive water baptism for salvation in light of John 3:5 excludes exceptions for the “invincibly ignorant” or “physically impossible” cases.
And based on this truth, declared by Jesus in the Gospel (John 3:5), handed down by the Apostles and taught by the fathers, the Catholic Church has infallibly defined as a dogma (as we have seen already) that no one at all enters heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
What is even stranger, St. Thomas -- who quoted numerous Fathers when composing the Catena Aurea -- said he remembered and clearly understood everything he ever read. I guess he must have not read enough, or just read ALL the wrong stuff. That is a damn shame...
Look, Hietanen, your ONLY excuse for them is ignorance, which, in their cases, is simply absurd.
Put them in hell, as your own principles demand, or give it up. You probably think you are doing well in this discussion; you are actually getting annihilated.
-
I didn't accuse you of slander. You did slander. And you still want to imply that I say they where heretics.
No, I am telling you that is what your own principles DEMAND. Do you understand the difference?
You will not escape Hell if you continue with your mortal sin of slander. I have told you many times they are not heretics. But you just don't care.
Sure I care. It is simply as plain as the summer sun that you are completely blind to the obvious conclusions of your own principles.
-
You want to take the opinions of (2) Two Saints over many Ex Cathedra statements. But then you want to ignore the laundry list of Saints and Church Fathers who did not accept anything less than water Baptism.
This assessment is both inaccurate and entirely misses the point of the present exchange. Hietanen's own principles DEMAND a certain conclusion that he does not want to accept. The rest can be dealt with in due course.
-
St Alphonsus interpreted the Council of Trent wrong since they said a desire for baptism for Adults was necessary for salvation. It is not hard to misunderstand such a statement to conclude that a desire then is all that is needed.
Yet, you readily class as obstinate heretics anyone and everyone who disagrees with you on this very point?
If a Saint -- who certainly knew about the dogmatic definitions, what Jesus taught about Baptism, etc -- can interpret it incorrectly, do you not think a modern layman might be excused for doing so? Yet, you seem to allow ZERO latitude for those with whom you disagree.
-
My point was the tactic used in that SJB post I quoted. Using an obvious mistake to try to divert the attention away from the point made by Hietanen, rather than addressing the quotes he has supplied is just lame.
I, like Hietanen who has asked the question at least a few times, would like to know this.... even if it is granted that the two BOD supporting Saints in question are correct in thier "interpretation" of the Dogmas, do you and others still hold that BOD applies to Jews, Muslems, etc. who do not accept Christ or are you going to be consistent and stick with the opinion of these (2) two Saints that it only applied to Catechumens?
-
I happen to believe the possibility/applicability of BOD/BOB is very strictly limited; however, it is possible. The exact limits are God's business, not mine.
That does not matter to Hietanen, however, as he thinks both ideas are, in se, completely heretical. He even sees into my soul, knowing that I am an obstinate heretic, mortal sinner, etc. Frankly, I think he is a hard-headed ass, but I do not pretend to see into his soul or claim that he is sinning, etc. He is probably young and hot-blooded, so being a hard-headed ass is somewhat excusable. His SPIRIT is clearly all wrong, however, even if much of what he presents is unquestionably excellent material (interpretations aside). This is true with the Dimonds, as well. They have enough really great quotes to choke a pig (or even 1000 pigs), but no one will ever listen to them because they carry their message with a spirit that is at odds with that of the Master.
-
...are you going to be consistent and stick with the opinion of these (2) two Saints that it only applied to Catechumens?
Does anyone of note give us any idea of a wider extension (excluding Modernists, of course)?
I know Pius IX wrote about it a bit, but I am no expert on the precise nature of what he wrote.
-
I happen to believe the possibility/applicability of BOD/BOB is very strictly limited; however, it is possible. The exact limits are God's business, not mine.
That does not matter to Hietanen, however, as he thinks both ideas are, in se, completely heretical. He even sees into my soul, knowing that I am an obstinate heretic, mortal sinner, etc. Frankly, I think he is a hard-headed ass, but I do not pretend to see into his soul or claim that he is sinning, etc. He is probably young and hot-blooded, so being a hard-headed ass is somewhat excusable. His SPIRIT is clearly all wrong, however, even if much of what he presents is unquestionably excellent material (interpretations aside). This is true with the Dimonds, as well. They have enough really great quotes to choke a pig (or even 1000 pigs), but no one will ever listen to them because they carry their message with a spirit that is at odds with that of the Master.
But I see the same sentiment in the sermons from elderly Trady Priests and Bishops who will declare anyone who doesn't agree with BOD as being "outside" the Church. There's judgement coming from both sides. Archbishop Levebre, Bishop Dolan, Fr. Stepanich and others have either said in sermons or written that BOD can extend to Jews, Muslems, pagans, etc.
-
...are you going to be consistent and stick with the opinion of these (2) two Saints that it only applied to Catechumens?
Does anyone of note give us any idea of a wider extension (excluding Modernists, of course)?
I know Pius IX wrote about it a bit, but I am no expert on the precise nature of what he wrote.
See my previous post, I was answering this question before I had seen it.
-
There's judgement coming from both sides.
This is not in dispute; not by me, anyway. Things are often handled very badly, to be sure.
-
Can someone please watch this video and show me where St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsis taught what is shown in the video.
http://www.youtube.com/user/mhfm1#p/u/197/J01vVszOObY
-
Jahenna, did you quote that St. Thomas Aquinas passage to somehow prove that pagans who do not believe in Jesus Christ or the Trinity can be Saved? If I have understood you correctly, you are a heretic on this point as well.
What St. Thomas was talking about what that Pagans do not sin in their unbelief, that's all. But they cannot be Saved or have eternal life if they die in the state of unbelief.
If a pagan infant is validly baptized and dies before the age of reason, why do they go?
Infants receive the Faith through baptism. The same does not apply to adults. Please understand that. Stop reject dogmas. You have no excuse.
PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY NOW!
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”[/b]
WHY ARE ADULTS LEFT IN DARKNESS?
St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”
You didn't answer my question. Where do those infants go??
-
I happen to believe the possibility/applicability of BOD/BOB is very strictly limited; however, it is possible. The exact limits are God's business, not mine.
This is a reasonable statement. While I personally do not think that BOD/BOB ever happen, I admit that I do not know for sure.
-
But I see the same sentiment in the sermons from elderly Trady Priests and Bishops who will declare anyone who doesn't agree with BOD as being "outside" the Church. There's judgement coming from both sides. Archbishop Levebre, Bishop Dolan, Fr. Stepanich and others have either said in sermons or written that BOD can extend to Jews, Muslems, pagans, etc.
This is pure novelty -- "To boldly go where no BOD advocate has gone before!!!"
-
But I see the same sentiment in the sermons from elderly Trady Priests and Bishops who will declare anyone who doesn't agree with BOD as being "outside" the Church. There's judgement coming from both sides. Archbishop Levebre, Bishop Dolan, Fr. Stepanich and others have either said in sermons or written that BOD can extend to Jews, Muslems, pagans, etc.
This is pure novelty -- "To boldly go where no BOD advocate has gone before!!!"
What is pure novelty Jehanne?
-
But I see the same sentiment in the sermons from elderly Trady Priests and Bishops who will declare anyone who doesn't agree with BOD as being "outside" the Church. There's judgement coming from both sides. Archbishop Levebre, Bishop Dolan, Fr. Stepanich and others have either said in sermons or written that BOD can extend to Jews, Muslems, pagans, etc.
This is pure novelty -- "To boldly go where no BOD advocate has gone before!!!"
What is pure novelty Jehanne?
To apply BOD to individuals who have no desire to receive it.
-
Can someone please watch this video and show me where St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsis taught what is shown in the video.
http://www.youtube.com/user/mhfm1#p/u/197/J01vVszOObY
I watched it (most of it, anyway). Naturally, no one will provide any citations, etc., because the two Doctors you mentioned did not teach what is mentioned in the video.
Oddly, those of the Dimonds' and Hietanen's persuasion will make truly absurd (as in, irrational and completely implausible) excuses on the part of St. Alphonsus, but grant ZERO latitude to modern men who, for all they know, are of good will. Tis just an observation. Do with it what you will...
-
Although the days is almost over where I am...
HAPPY ST. PATRICK'S DAY!!!! :cheers:
G'night, all :)
-
Yes, Happy Saint Pats Day and Goodnight to all. While I have seen men in kilts on TV, for the first time in my life have I seen them in person. It was quite a site! Now, I have nothing against men in kilts, which is very fashionable men's clothing outside of the United States. Still, people were looking, both men and women. Fortunately, there were no car accidents outside of the neighborhood Irish bar, but quite a bit of security for what is, usually, a very quiet residential neighborhood.
-
Hietanen is simply a hard headed imbicile. The care that he takes with his grammar is a clear reflection of his logic or lack of.
You cannot reason with an unreasonable person. It is clear that even if you were to perform miracles for him as Our Lord did, he like the Pharisees would still refuse to believe.
It is also clear that he hasn't any good will in his discussions as he spews forth his venom yelling "heretic" and "mortal sinner" at everything that moves.
Why do you need to do an examination of conscience when you have him around to "read" the state of your soul.
-
Jehanne said:
While I have seen men in kilts on TV, for the first time in my life have I seen them in person.
I thought they were Scottish, but I did a search and some Irish do wear them here. They must be having an identity crisis.
Irish men are supposed to be bare-knuckled boxers who aren't afraid of anything, dirt-poor with a gift of the gab; Irish women have to be redheads who show affection for the men they love by attempting to scratch their eyes out or jab them with a pitchfork. I simply won't accept any deviation from this norm.
-
Hietanen, I read through the last two pages of posts and you never even came back to say that St. Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception in order to prove how fallible he was.
I am going to resist the temptation to get into this argument, since we all know the routine on both sides. But to the Feeneyites, I would like you to go back and look at your posts. Look at how you harp on the same subject over and over. Do you think this is what the Catholic religion is, just repeating that one must have WATER over and over? It's so stifling and sad and uninspiring, and as Eamon says, this is not the spirit of the Master.
-
Jehanne said:
While I have seen men in kilts on TV, for the first time in my life have I seen them in person.
I thought they were Scottish, but I did a search and some Irish do wear them here. They must be having an identity crisis.
Irish men are supposed to be bare-knuckled boxers who aren't afraid of anything, dirt-poor with a gift of the gab; Irish women have to be redheads who show affection for the men they love by attempting to scratch their eyes out or jab them with a pitchfork. I simply won't accept any deviation from this norm.
Reminds of that SNL parody with Liam Neeson, where he has the "Scottish makeover" on his home, and after 8 hours of deciding what to do, the "HGTV" specialists end-up moving a picture, which turns out to be that of his mother. And, he gives them, personally, a "Scottish makeover."
As for those "Irish" lads, I could not help but wonder what they were wearing under those kilts.
-
Hietanen, I read through the last two pages of posts and you never even came back to say that St. Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception in order to prove how fallible he was.
I am going to resist the temptation to get into this argument, since we all know the routine on both sides. But to the Feeneyites, I would like you to go back and look at your posts. Look at how you harp on the same subject over and over. Do you think this is what the Catholic religion is, just repeating that one must have WATER over and over? It's so stifling and sad and uninspiring, and as Eamon says, this is not the spirit of the Master.
Raoul, I posted this question earlier... can you give me your answer to it....
I, like Hietanen who has asked the question at least a few times, would like to know this.... even if it is granted that the two BOD supporting Saints in question are correct in thier "interpretation" of the Dogmas, do you and others still hold that BOD applies to Jews, Muslems, etc. who do not accept Christ or are you going to be consistent and stick with the opinion of these (2) two Saints that it only applied to Catechumens?
-
Hietanen is simply a hard headed imbicile. The care that he takes with his grammar is a clear reflection of his logic or lack of.
Zenith, I beleive this person is from Sweeden. English is at least a second language for him. I've seen much worse grammar from Americans. Perhaps you could learn his language and communicate with him fluently using ALL the rules of grammar in his language.
-
I am still waiting for the answer to my question regarding pagan infants who are validly baptized but die before reaching the age of reason.
Yes, Europeans speak English far, far better than does the typical American speaking German, French, Swedish, etc.
-
Hietanen, I read through the last two pages of posts and you never even came back to say that St. Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception in order to prove how fallible he was.
I am going to resist the temptation to get into this argument, since we all know the routine on both sides. But to the Feeneyites, I would like you to go back and look at your posts. Look at how you harp on the same subject over and over. Do you think this is what the Catholic religion is, just repeating that one must have WATER over and over? It's so stifling and sad and uninspiring, and as Eamon says, this is not the spirit of the Master.
Raoul, I posted this question earlier... can you give me your answer to it....
I, like Hietanen who has asked the question at least a few times, would like to know this.... even if it is granted that the two BOD supporting Saints in question are correct in thier "interpretation" of the Dogmas, do you and others still hold that BOD applies to Jews, Muslems, etc. who do not accept Christ or are you going to be consistent and stick with the opinion of these (2) two Saints that it only applied to Catechumens?
"Anyone?..... Anyone?.... Bueller?....... Bueller?...."
< crickets chirping in background >
-
There is no reason to be a smart ass, umblehay.
Raoul made it pretty clear he did not want to get involved in this discussion. He popped in and made a couple of quick posts. Who knows if he has even been back to read what has followed.
Further, you already asked me. Is everyone supposed to cater to your needs? Will you ask us all one by one, acting as if anyone/everyone is bound to respond? Will you act like this with each and every one? FWIW, you have not really touched my point about how Hietanen's own principles DEMAND that he put St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus in hell, but you don't see me egging you on like an ass, do you? << CHIRP, CHIRP or whatever... >>
Believe it or not, the vast majority of people do not think about the EENS debate during every waking hour.
-
I would first like to express my appreciation for throwing in the word "smart" ... where most people would have appropriately used "dumb".
But secondly.. .I didn't mean to be badgering Rauol. I just didn't want to retype the entire question.... therefore... "lazy" could also be substituted. I meant to address it to "anyone" who would give an answer.
And since my head is a spinning from a terrific head cold, I'm gonna get my "sick", "lazy", "smart (your word E not mine)" arse to bed.
-
Hietanen is simply a hard headed imbicile. The care that he takes with his grammar is a clear reflection of his logic or lack of.
Zenith, I beleive this person is from Sweeden. English is at least a second language for him. I've seen much worse grammar from Americans. Perhaps you could learn his language and communicate with him fluently using ALL the rules of grammar in his language.
Yes I too have seen worse grammar/spelling from Americans or whoever. Btw Sweden has one 'e'. :wink:
Being from Sweden may excuse bad grammar though it does not excuse willful ignorance and pharisaical hard headedness.
-
I didn't mean to be badgering Rauol. I just didn't want to retype the entire question....
No harm done, of course, and I know your intentions are good/harmless. However, this medium can be tricky and it is wise to keep that in mind. FWIW, I have learned this the same way as others -- by making mistakes.
Sleep well, amigo...
-
I am still waiting for the answer to my question regarding pagan infants who are validly baptized but die before reaching the age of reason.
Yes, Europeans speak English far, far better than does the typical American speaking German, French, Swedish, etc.
"pagan infants who are validly baptised"? :confused1:
Come again? That to me seems like the perfect example of an oxymoron.
If a child has been baptised and has not reached the age of reason, how can you call them pagan? Once an infant has been baptised they are a child of God.
-
I am still waiting for the answer to my question regarding pagan infants who are validly baptized but die before reaching the age of reason.
Yes, Europeans speak English far, far better than does the typical American speaking German, French, Swedish, etc.
"pagan infants who are validly baptised"? :confused1:
Come again? That to me seems like the perfect example of an oxymoron.
If a child has been baptised and has not reached the age of reason, how can you call them pagan? Once an infant has been baptised they are a child of God.
Absolutely. After their baptism, eternal life is theirs to lose, not gain. As Saint Thomas taught, it is not sinful to believe in things that one cannot possibly know. Certainly, it may be that such individuals receive "interior illumination" as to what they need to believe, but simply being raised in a false religion is not a mortal sin. In any case, if they are validly baptized, no mater what religion their parents profess, they will go to Heaven in they die before the age of reason. I find it impossible to believe that at "age 7" they will simply fall into a state of mortal sin.
-
I am still waiting for the answer to my question regarding pagan infants who are validly baptized but die before reaching the age of reason.
Yes, Europeans speak English far, far better than does the typical American speaking German, French, Swedish, etc.
"pagan infants who are validly baptised"? :confused1:
Come again? That to me seems like the perfect example of an oxymoron.
If a child has been baptised and has not reached the age of reason, how can you call them pagan? Once an infant has been baptised they are a child of God.
Absolutely. After their baptism, eternal life is theirs to lose, not gain. As Saint Thomas taught, it is not sinful to believe in things that one cannot possibly know. Certainly, it may be that such individuals receive "interior illumination" as to what they need to believe, but simply being raised in a false religion is not a mortal sin. In any case, if they are validly baptized, no mater what religion their parents profess, they will go to Heaven in they die before the age of reason. I find it impossible to believe that at "age 7" they will simply fall into a state of mortal sin.
You just have to accept that all adults who either reject the Faith, or don't have the faith, or die in mortal sin, will never see God. They are all lost. Whenever an infant reach the age of reason, that God knows.
You must also believe that God will not let anyone of good will be condemned. Only people, who are of bad will/faith, and who are enemies to God, will die in the state of damnation. This include validly baptized "pagan" infants also who have reached the age of reason in faithlessness or mortal sin. When they are baptized, they have become Catholic. But when they reach the age of reason, and remain pagan, and if they are without faith, or die in mortal sin, they will be lost.
You know, St John Bosco? saw a 5 year old evil child burning in Hell, that child was a blasphemer. He also saw his 7 year old student burning in Hell after his first mortal sin. You see, only people who are bad will go there. This is something you MUST believe.
-
-
So, you are now implying that neither St. Thomas nor St. Alponsus knew about ANY of these quotes, either? They must have been the most ignorant men of their times!
As you think it is all clear as a bell, they must be liars buried in hell, yes?
It is probable that St. Thomas knew about the different Church Fathers opinions on the absolute necessity of water baptism for Salvation, but it is also possible that he knew about the Saints/Church Father who believed in bod/bob.
You see, if we build are faith based on what Saints have said, then we can come to different conclusions, since many saints have different opinions on different theological subjects. This is why we build our Faith on infallible Catholic dogma. But the dogmas, sadly, you reject.
It's not hard to understand this fact, unless one suffers from a disease called bad will.
What is even stranger, St. Thomas -- who quoted numerous Fathers when composing the Catena Aurea -- said he remembered and clearly understood everything he ever read. I guess he must have not read enough, or just read ALL the wrong stuff. That is a damn shame...
If you didn't know, St. Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception of Mary. So, clearly, he did not know everything. Only an idiot would say so.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 27, Art. 2: "Therefore, before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin Mary was not sanctified."
I have also heard, that a study had been made by the Church on his works, and that it was found out that there where several errors in his writings. So, clearly, he is not infallible, and he didn't know everything, although he knew allot more then all other of the doctors and saints on theology.
Look, Hietanen, your ONLY excuse for them is ignorance, which, in their cases, is simply absurd.
No you are absurd and ridiculous, for you are idolizing the saints and value there opinions more then the infallible opinions of the Popes.
I can acknowledge that saints can err and be wrong, you do it reluctantly, and only where it fits you, it seems.
I already showed you a laundry list of Sts that thaught in favor of baptism for salvation. So, who are right? There were several doctors in that list as well, so, who are right? Both cannot be right...
This is the problem faced by those who obstinately cling to the saints before the infallible declarations of the Popes, they can't know who is right or who was wrong. But this wouldn't be hard or even a problem, if people just accepted the dogmas, and reject everything else that goes against it.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Put them in hell, as your own principles demand, or give it up. You probably think you are doing well in this discussion; you are actually getting annihilated.
No, you put yourself in Hell by your continual slander. I acknowledge that saints can err and be wrong without putting them in Hell. You, hold them for their (erroneous) words, and obstinately have as opinion, that they know and rejected dogmas; therefore, are you condemning them, not I. But you are probably to blind to even realize this fact.
Yet, you readily class as obstinate heretics anyone and everyone who disagrees with you on this very point?
If a Saint -- who certainly knew about the dogmatic definitions, what Jesus taught about Baptism, etc -- can interpret it incorrectly, do you not think a modern layman might be excused for doing so? Yet, you seem to allow ZERO latitude for those with whom you disagree.
You cannot be excused. For you have seen the evidence and rejected it. That's the difference. A person can be a mistaken Catholic (a material heretic) until the time he has had the true position, the dogmas, etc, presented to him, but he rejected it. At that very moment, when he rejected the true position, he is a heretic and already in hell (unless he converts and recant his errors).
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."
The above declaration clearly condemns you, it's just that simple.
I happen to believe the possibility/applicability of BOD/BOB is very strictly limited; however, it is possible. The exact limits are God's business, not mine.
God has already declared through the Popes His will. God's will and His justice, is that all must receive baptism to be Saved. You reject this, thus you reject God. You also call God a liar, for you say that His dogmas is not true and that what He declared is something else then what He actually said.
Again, do you deny God, or accept him?
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “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].”
That does not matter to Hietanen, however, as he thinks both ideas are, in se, completely heretical. He even sees into my soul, knowing that I am an obstinate heretic, mortal sinner, etc. Frankly, I think he is a hard-headed ass, but I do not pretend to see into his soul or claim that he is sinning, etc. He is probably young and hot-blooded, so being a hard-headed ass is somewhat excusable. His SPIRIT is clearly all wrong, however, even if much of what he presents is unquestionably excellent material (interpretations aside)...
You are an obstinate heretic. I don't know how many times you have rejected all the dogmas I have showed to you already. That is what heretics do, heretics deny the Faith, and that is what you do.
You also say my spirit is wrong because I uphold the Faith. But that statement from you, can we see and understand from what spirit you are: the spirit of lies and darkness.
John 3:20
"For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved."
John 8:42-45
"Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not."
-
I am still waiting for the answer to my question regarding pagan infants who are validly baptized but die before reaching the age of reason.
Yes, Europeans speak English far, far better than does the typical American speaking German, French, Swedish, etc.
"pagan infants who are validly baptised"? :confused1:
Come again? That to me seems like the perfect example of an oxymoron.
If a child has been baptised and has not reached the age of reason, how can you call them pagan? Once an infant has been baptised they are a child of God.
Absolutely. After their baptism, eternal life is theirs to lose, not gain. As Saint Thomas taught, it is not sinful to believe in things that one cannot possibly know. Certainly, it may be that such individuals receive "interior illumination" as to what they need to believe, but simply being raised in a false religion is not a mortal sin. In any case, if they are validly baptized, no mater what religion their parents profess, they will go to Heaven in they die before the age of reason. I find it impossible to believe that at "age 7" they will simply fall into a state of mortal sin.
You just have to accept that all adults who either reject the Faith, or don't have the faith, or die in mortal sin, will never see God. They are all lost. Whenever an infant reach the age of reason, that God knows.
You must also believe that God will not let anyone of good will be condemned. Only people, who are of bad will/faith, and who are enemies to God, will die in the state of damnation. This include validly baptized "pagan" infants also who have reached the age of reason in faithlessness or mortal sin. When they are baptized, they have become Catholic. But when they reach the age of reason, and remain pagan, and if they are without faith, or die in mortal sin, they will be lost.
You know, St John Bosco? saw a 5 year old evil child burning in Hell, that child was a blasphemer. He also saw his 7 year old student burning in Hell after his first mortal sin. You see, only people who are bad will go there. This is something you MUST believe.
I do not disagree with you what you said. However, salvation is a gift of the One and Triune God, and if a pagan, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. receives that gift in his/her infancy (in which, of course, that person would no longer be pagan, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.), then it is not a trivial matter for that individual to lose that gift. It is absurd, not to mention blasphemous, to say that an individual who has been validly and fruitfully baptized would, at age 6 years, 11 months, 30 days, be in a state of grace, yet when that person turns seven years-old, they immediately fall into mortal sin.
-
You also say my spirit is wrong because I uphold the Faith.
I say your spirit is wrong because you are thick as a brick and a complete jackass. No biggie, but let's keep things as accurate as possible.
Goodbye :)
-
It is absurd, not to mention blasphemous, to say that an individual who has been validly and fruitfully baptized would, at age 6 years, 11 months, 30 days, be in a state of grace, yet when that person turns seven years-old, they immediately fall into mortal sin.
No, your are a blasphemer if you say so, for you are denying what God has declared, that all who die either in mortal sin, or faithlessness, will not be saved.
Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra ( infallible statement from the chair of Peter): “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 Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Realize, that if a person dies on the day he reached the age of reason, then it was in God's foreknowledge, and that child was not Saved, for he was not of God nor had good will/faith. In contrast, it might be a mercy from God to take such people away from life as soon as possible, for then will their eternal punishment be very small in comparison with others who have lived longer.
You also seem to deny that God could keep his friends alive or lead all of good will to salvation. If you really believed in this, you would not utter blasphemies as you did above.
By the way, most of your questions/wonderings regarding this subject, will be answered by Jesus Christ in the revelation below.
St. Bridget's Revelations (http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/st-bridget/st-bridget-of-sweden.php)
The Son's instruction to the bride about the devil; the Son's answer to the bride about why he does not remove evildoers before they fall into sin; and about how the kingdom of heaven is given to baptized persons who die before reaching the age of discretion.
Book 2 - Chapter 1
The Son spoke to the bride, saying: ”When the devil tempts you, tell him these three things: 'The words of God cannot be anything but true.' Second: 'Nothing is impossible for God, because he can do all things.' Third: 'You, devil, could not give me so great a fervor of love as that which God gives me.' ” Again the Lord spoke to the bride, saying: ”I look at people in three ways: first, their outer body and what condition it is in; second, their inner conscience, what it tends toward and in what way; third, their heart and what it desires. Like a bird that sees a fish in the sea and assesses the depth of the water and also takes note of storm winds, I, too, know and assess the ways of each person and take note of what is due to each, for I am keener of sight and can assess the human situation better than a person knows his own self.
Therefore, because I see and know all things, you might ask me why I do not take evildoers away before they fall into the depths of sin. I myself asked the question and I myself will answer it for you: I am the Creator of all things, and all things are foreknown to me. I know and see all that has been and all that will be. But, although I know and can do all things, still, for reasons of justice, I no more interfere with the natural constitution of the body than I do with the inclination of the soul. Each human being continues in existence according to the natural constitution of the body such as it is and was from all eternity in my foreknowledge. The fact that one person has a longer life and another a shorter has to do with natural strength or weakness and is related to a person's physical constitution. It is not due to my foreknowledge that one person loses his sight or another becomes lame or something like that, since my foreknowledge of all things is such that no one is the worse for it, nor is it harmful to anyone.
Moreover, these things do not occur because of the course and position of the heavenly elements, but due to some hidden principle of justice in the constitution and conservation of nature. For sin and natural disorder bring about the deformity of the body in many ways. This does not happen because I will it directly, but because I permit it to happen for the sake of justice. Even though I can do all things, still I do not obstruct justice. Accordingly, the length or brevity of a person's life is related to the weakness or strength of his physical constitution such as it was in my foreknowledge that no one can contravene.
You can understand this by way of a simile. Imagine that there were two roads with one road leading up to them. There were a great many graves in both roads, crossing and overlapping one another. The end of one of the two roads dropped directly downward; the end of the other tended upward. At the crossroads was written: 'Whoever travels this road begins it in physical pleasure and delight and ends it in great wretchedness and shame. Whoever takes the other road begins it in moderate and endurable exertion but reaches the end in great joy and consolation.' A person walking along on the single road was completely blind. However, when he reached the crossroads, his eyes were opened, and he saw what was written about how the two roads ended.
While he was studying the sign and thinking it over to himself, there suddenly appeared next to him two men who were entrusted with guarding the two roads. As they observed the wayfarer at the crossroads, they said to each other: 'Let us carefully observe which road he chooses to take and then he will belong to that one of us whose road he selects.' The wayfarer, however, was considering to himself the ends and advantages of each road. He made the prudent decision of selecting the road whose beginning involved some pain but had joy at the end, rather than the road that began in joy but ended in pain. He decided that it was more sensible and endurable to get tired from a little exertion at the start but rest in safety at the end.
Do you understand what all this means? I shall tell you. These two roads are the good and the evil within human reach. It lies within a person's power and free will to choose whatever he or she likes upon reaching the age of discretion. A single road leads up to the two roads of the choice between good and evil; in other words, the time of childhood leads up to the age of discretion. The man walking on this first road is like a blind man because he is, as it were, blind from his childhood up until he reaches the age of discretion, not knowing how to distinguish between good and evil, between sin and virtue, between what is commanded and what is forbidden.
The man walking on this first road, that is, in the age of boyhood, is like a blind man. However, when he reaches the crossroads, that is, the age of discretion, the eyes of his understanding are opened. He then knows how to decide whether it is better to experience a little pain but eternal joy or a little joy and eternal pain. Whichever road he chooses, he will not lack those who carefully count his steps. There are many graves on these roads, one after the other, one over against the other, because, both in youth and in old age, one person may die earlier, another later, one in youth, another in old age. The end of this life is fittingly symbolized by graves: it will come to everyone, one in this way, another in that, according to each one's natural constitution and exactly as I have foreknown it.
If I took anyone away against the body's natural constitution, the devil would have grounds of accusation against me. Accordingly, in order that the devil might not find anything in me that goes against justice in the least, I no more interfere with the natural constitution of the body than I do with the constitution of the soul. But consider my goodness and mercy! For, as the teacher says, I give virtue to those who do not have any virtue. By reason of my great love I give the kingdom of heaven to all of the baptized who die before reaching the age of discretion. As it is written: It has pleased my Father to give the kingdom of heaven to such as these. By reason of my tender love, I even show mercy to the infants of pagans.
If any of them die before reaching the age of discretion, given that they cannot come to know me face to face, they go instead to a place that it is not permitted for you to know but where they will live without suffering. Those who have advanced from the one road reach those two roads, that is, the age of discretion between good and evil. It is then in their power to choose what pleases them most. Their reward will follow the inclination of their will, since by that time they know how to read the sign written at the crossroads telling them that it is better to experience a little pain at the start and joy ready and waiting for them than experience joy at the start and pain at the end. Sometimes it does happen that people are taken away earlier than their natural physical constitution would normally allow, for example, through homicide, drunkenness, and things of that kind.
This is because the devil's wickedness is such that the sinner in this case would receive an extremely long-lasting punishment if he were to continue in the world for any great length of time. Therefore, some people are taken away earlier than their natural physical condition would allow due to the demands of justice and because of their sins. Their removal has been foreknown to me from all eternity, and it is impossible for anyone to contravene my foreknowledge. Sometimes good people are also taken away earlier than their natural physical constitution would allow. Because of the great love I have toward them, and because of their burning love and their efforts to discipline the body for my sake, justice sometimes requires that they be taken away, as foreknown to me from all eternity. Thus, I no more interfere with the natural constitution of the body than I do with the constitution of the soul.”
http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/st-bridget/st-bridget-of-sweden.php
-
Hietanen is simply a hard headed imbicile. The care that he takes with his grammar is a clear reflection of his logic or lack of.
Zenith, I beleive this person is from Sweeden. English is at least a second language for him. I've seen much worse grammar from Americans. Perhaps you could learn his language and communicate with him fluently using ALL the rules of grammar in his language.
Yes I too have seen worse grammar/spelling from Americans or whoever. Btw Sweden has one 'e'. :wink:
Being from Sweden may excuse bad grammar though it does not excuse willful ignorance and pharisaical hard headedness.
Btw it should be "imbecile"...
Personally I don't really care, but since we're playing the "I'm right and your wrong because you can't spell and use proper grammar" game, I just thought I'd let you know. :wink:
-
It is absurd, not to mention blasphemous, to say that an individual who has been validly and fruitfully baptized would, at age 6 years, 11 months, 30 days, be in a state of grace, yet when that person turns seven years-old, they immediately fall into mortal sin.
No, your are a blasphemer if you say so, for you are denying what God has declared, that all who die either in mortal sin, or faithlessness, will not be saved.
I have never claimed that.
-
I have never claimed that.
I never rejected any dogmas, either. Apparently the facts have nothing to do with the accusations Hietanen makes.
-
It is absurd, not to mention blasphemous, to say that an individual who has been validly and fruitfully baptized would, at age 6 years, 11 months, 30 days, be in a state of grace, yet when that person turns seven years-old, they immediately fall into mortal sin.
No, your are a blasphemer if you say so, for you are denying what God has declared, that all who die either in mortal sin, or faithlessness, will not be saved.
I have never claimed that.
You have never said what? Did you are did you not say this:
"It is absurd, not to mention blasphemous, to say that an individual who has been validly and fruitfully baptized would, at age 6 years, 11 months, 30 days, be in a state of grace, yet when that person turns seven years-old, they immediately fall into mortal sin."
It could be, again, that I have misunderstood what you are saying, this sometimes happens with me unless I am very careful. If that is the case, I peg your pardon.
If you meant that the pagan child don't commit a mortal sin of unbelief because he didn't believe/understand the Trinity and Incarnation when he reach the age of reason, that's true. For a person will not be judged for what he did not know or understand to be true. However, if the Child is an atheist, and even rejects the existence of God, then he is a mortal sinner and will be judged for the mortal sin of unbelief, for everyone understand that at least one God exists. What every person do not understand however, is that this one only true God is the Christian God, God incarnate, and The Holy Trinity. Therefore, all those who have never heard of the Christian God, but accepts the existence of God, will not be judged for the mortal sin of unbelief (unless they reject the existence of God entirely)
However, if the child worship a stone as God, he will be condemned for the mortal sin of idolatry, for that Child understands that the stone is not God.
All people who die as heretics, schismatics, pagans, infidels, Jews or Muslims, etc. dies in this state because of their sins, as St Augustine clearly teaches.
"Heresies are only embraced by those who had they persevered in the faith, would be lost by the irregularity of their lives."
-St. Augustine
So, their sins of unbelief, is not first and foremost what condemned pagans, infidels, etc, because it is their other sins that keeps them in the unbelief in the first place. If they where not idolaters, adulterers, murderers, slanderers, etc, even to begin with, they would never be in mortal sin and unbelief, if they where good, God would bring them to the true Faith.
St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”
Pope Benedict XIV, cuм Religiosi (# 4), June 26, 1754:
“See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”
2 Corinthians 4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”
-
I have never claimed that.
I never rejected any dogmas, either. Apparently the facts have nothing to do with the accusations Hietanen makes.
That's a lie. I have shown you many dogmas that you have rejected. If you want to play this game, we can do so. Please, tell me, do you accept these dogmas or not? I have asked you this question many times already, you have so far refused to answer:
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “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.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 : “Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration.”
And another question (which you so far (as far as I am aware of)), you have not yet answered: do you believe that Jews, pagans, infidels, Muslims, etc, can be Saved (without belief in Jesus Christ) through a baptism of desire or by some other means?
-
It is absurd, not to mention blasphemous, to say that an individual who has been validly and fruitfully baptized would, at age 6 years, 11 months, 30 days, be in a state of grace, yet when that person turns seven years-old, they immediately fall into mortal sin.
No, your are a blasphemer if you say so, for you are denying what God has declared, that all who die either in mortal sin, or faithlessness, will not be saved.
I have never claimed that.
You have never said what? Did you are did you not say this:
"It is absurd, not to mention blasphemous, to say that an individual who has been validly and fruitfully baptized would, at age 6 years, 11 months, 30 days, be in a state of grace, yet when that person turns seven years-old, they immediately fall into mortal sin."
It could be, again, that I have misunderstood what you are saying, this sometimes happens with me unless I am very careful. If that is the case, I peg your pardon.
If you meant that the pagan child don't commit a mortal sin of unbelief because he didn't believe/understand the Trinity and Incarnation when he reach the age of reason, that's true. For a person will not be judged for what he did not know or understand to be true. However, if the Child is an atheist, and even rejects the existence of God, then he is a mortal sinner and will be judged for the mortal sin of unbelief, for everyone understand that at least one God exists. What every person do not understand however, is that this one only true God is the Christian God, God incarnate, and The Holy Trinity. Therefore, all those who have never heard of the Christian God, but accepts the existence of God, will not be judged for the mortal sin of unbelief (unless they reject the existence of God entirely)
I doubt very much, in the extreme, that many, if any, children are positive atheists, that is, atheists who claim to "know" that a Creator God does not exist. Most atheists in the world today are negative atheists, which means that they are basically agnostics who are "withholding belief" that does not consist of a positive denial of God's existence.
-
I have never claimed that.
I never rejected any dogmas, either. Apparently the facts have nothing to do with the accusations Hietanen makes.
Yes, there is such a thing as theological opinion.
-
Jehanne
I just want to make clear that pagans who don't believe in Jesus Christ or the Trinity will not be Saved, they are all damned, but not primarily for the sin of unbelief.
I also seemed to contradict my self, for I said that they are not in the mortal sin of unbelief, and that they are in mortal sin of unbelief. Well, both are true, since so long as they remain in unbelief, they are in mortal sin (for their other sins keep them in the mortal sin of unbelief).
I cannot explain this as well as do the Saints and theologians, so I will quote them for you:
St. Augustine, Tractate 89, on John 15:22-23- “What, then, does He [Jesus] mean by the words, If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin? [John 15:22] Was it that the Jews were without sin before Christ came to them in the flesh? Who, though he were the greatest fool, would say so?... But when He went on to say, But now they have no excuse for their sin, some may be moved to inquire whether those to whom Christ neither came nor spoke, have an excuse for their sin. For if they have not, why is it said here that these had none, on the very ground that He did come and speak to them? And if they have, have they it to the extent of thereby being barred from punishment, or of receiving it in a milder degree? To these inquiries, with the Lord's help and to the best of my capacity, I reply, that such have an excuse, not for every one of their sins, but for this sin of not believing on Christ, inasmuch as He came not and spoke not to them.”
Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., a famous 16th century Dominican theologian, summed up the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on this topic very well. Here is how he put it:
“When we postulate invincible ignorance on the subject of baptism or of the Christian faith, it does not follow that a person can be saved without baptism or the Christian faith. For the aborigines to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come will be damned for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of unbelief. As St. Thomas says, however, if they do what in them lies [in their power], accompanied by a good life according to the law of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence that he will illuminate them regarding the name of Christ.”
-
That's a lie. I have shown you many dogmas that you have rejected.
Genius,
You showed me one dogma (in 87 forms, to be sure); I never rejected it. Search every word I have ever posted, here and elsewhere, but you will never find anything like a rejection of a dogma.
Please, tell me, do you accept these dogmas or not?
You are not talking about dogmaS, but ONE dogma -- EENS. I accept it, although I understand it as the Holy Church teaches it, not as some Swedish layman attempts to teach it.
-
That's a lie. I have shown you many dogmas that you have rejected.
Genius,
You showed me one dogma (in 87 forms, to be sure); I never rejected it. Search every word I have ever posted, here and elsewhere, but you will never find anything like a rejection of a dogma.
Please, tell me, do you accept these dogmas or not?
You are not talking about dogmaS, but ONE dogma -- EENS. I accept it, although I understand it as the Holy Church teaches it, not as some Swedish layman attempts to teach it.
1). I have quoted many dogmas regarding the absolute necessity for water baptism to be Saved, all of which you have avoided to answer or even acknowledge, even though I have asked you many times about it. So, that was your first lie, that I have only posted 1 such dogma.
2). You didn't answer my above questions again even after being asked to do so, clearly, so you must be lying, I don't see any other words to use.
3). Answer now (and by your answer) will we see if you deny the dogmas I have posted which says clearly, one must receive baptism with water to be saved (infants) - and for adults, to receive baptism with water AND believe in the Trinity and Incarnation to be Saved.
FIRST QUESTION: do you firmly believe that no one at all can be Saved without first receiving the sacrament of water baptism, adults and infants alike?
SECOND QUESTION: do you believe that Jews, pagans, infidels, Muslims, etc, can be Saved (without belief in Jesus Christ) through a baptism of desire or by some other means?
-
You showed me one dogma (in 87 forms, to be sure); I never rejected it.
1). I have quoted many dogmas regarding the absolute necessity for water baptism to be Saved, all of which you have avoided to answer or even acknowledge, even though I have asked you many times about it. So, that was your first lie, that I have only posted 1 such dogma.
You were saying??? Many quotes; one dogma. How STUPID are you?
Further discussion is pointless. Goodbye.
-
And another question (which you so far (as far as I am aware of)), you have not yet answered: do you believe that Jews, pagans, infidels, Muslims, etc, can be Saved (without belief in Jesus Christ) through a baptism of desire or by some other means?
Let's say that they were validly baptized as infants, but at age 6, they got into a car accident and were in a persistent, vegetative state. Are you saying that explicit faith is still necessary for them?
-
You showed me one dogma (in 87 forms, to be sure); I never rejected it.
1). I have quoted many dogmas regarding the absolute necessity for water baptism to be Saved, all of which you have avoided to answer or even acknowledge, even though I have asked you many times about it. So, that was your first lie, that I have only posted 1 such dogma.
You were saying??? Many quotes; one dogma. How STUPID are you?
Further discussion is pointless. Goodbye.
Yes, you are still avoiding my questions. This would be easy if you just answered my questions. But tell me, are you afraid of answering my questions because your answers will go against infallible dogmas?
I will repeat my self.
FIRST QUESTION: do you firmly believe that no one at all can be Saved without first receiving the sacrament of water baptism, adults and infants alike?
SECOND QUESTION: do you believe that Jews, pagans, infidels, Muslims, etc, can be Saved (without belief in Jesus Christ) through a baptism of desire or by some other means?
-
Jehanne
I just want to make clear that pagans who don't believe in Jesus Christ or the Trinity will not be Saved, they are all damned, but not primarily for the sin of unbelief.
I also seemed to contradict my self, for I said that they are not in the mortal sin of unbelief, and that they are in mortal sin of unbelief. Well, both are true, since so long as they remain in unbelief, they are in mortal sin (for their other sins keep them in the mortal sin of unbelief).
I cannot explain this as well as do the Saints and theologians, so I will quote them for you:
St. Augustine, Tractate 89, on John 15:22-23- “What, then, does He [Jesus] mean by the words, If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin? [John 15:22] Was it that the Jews were without sin before Christ came to them in the flesh? Who, though he were the greatest fool, would say so?... But when He went on to say, But now they have no excuse for their sin, some may be moved to inquire whether those to whom Christ neither came nor spoke, have an excuse for their sin. For if they have not, why is it said here that these had none, on the very ground that He did come and speak to them? And if they have, have they it to the extent of thereby being barred from punishment, or of receiving it in a milder degree? To these inquiries, with the Lord's help and to the best of my capacity, I reply, that such have an excuse, not for every one of their sins, but for this sin of not believing on Christ, inasmuch as He came not and spoke not to them.”
Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., a famous 16th century Dominican theologian, summed up the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on this topic very well. Here is how he put it:
“When we postulate invincible ignorance on the subject of baptism or of the Christian faith, it does not follow that a person can be saved without baptism or the Christian faith. For the aborigines to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come will be damned for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of unbelief. As St. Thomas says, however, if they do what in them lies [in their power], accompanied by a good life according to the law of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence that he will illuminate them regarding the name of Christ.”
I am solely talking about the ones, who, through the grace of the One and Triune God, were validly baptized in their infancy.
-
And another question (which you so far (as far as I am aware of)), you have not yet answered: do you believe that Jews, pagans, infidels, Muslims, etc, can be Saved (without belief in Jesus Christ) through a baptism of desire or by some other means?
Let's say that they were validly baptized as infants, but at age 6, they got into a car accident and were in a persistent, vegetative state. Are you saying that explicit faith is still necessary for them?
No, Jehanne, mentally retarded are accounted as infants. Adults (or infants reaching age of reason), however, when they have the capacity to know good and evil, licit from forbidden, when any person reach this age, they have reached the age of reason and will be judged accordingly.
Tell me, Jehanne, did you read chapter 1, book 2, from the Revelations of St. Bridget that explained your questions? The questions you ask me seem to indicate for me that you did not read?, for you are asking things which Jesus already answered.
If you did not read, please do so here,
http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/st-bridget/saint-bridgets-of-sweden-book2.php
-
Who appointed you the Grand Inquisitor? I nailed you PAGES AGO about how your own princples DEMAND that you place two Doctors of Holy Church in hell fire, yet you have not even begun to respond in a cogent, rational manner to that unassailable argument.
As for your recent questions, I don't care what some block-headed jackass asks, even if he asks it 1000 times. What does that have to do with the price of crack in Sweden?
For all of your quotes you have only asked about ONE dogma, sh*t for brains -- ONE! I didn't LIE when I said that; you are just BLIND and DEAF and STUPID, and cannot admit that I just ANNIHILATED you and your nonsense.
-
Who appointed you the Grand Inquisitor? I nailed you PAGES AGO about how your own princples DEMAND that you place two Doctors of Holy Church in hell fire, yet you have not even begun to respond in a cogent, rational manner to that unassailable argument.
As for your recent questions, I don't care what some block-headed jackass asks, even if he asks it 1000 times. What does that have to do with the price of crack in Sweden?
For all of your quotes you have only asked about ONE dogma, sh*t for brains -- ONE! I didn't LIE when I said that; you are just BLIND and DEAF and STUPID, and cannot admit that I just ANNIHILATED you and your nonsense.
They are not in Hell; that's silly. Once again, saying that something can happen is completely different than saying that it does happen.
-
Who appointed you the Grand Inquisitor? I nailed you PAGES AGO about how your own princples DEMAND that you place two Doctors of Holy Church in hell fire, yet you have not even begun to respond in a cogent, rational manner to that unassailable argument.
As for your recent questions, I don't care what some block-headed jackass asks, even if he asks it 1000 times. What does that have to do with the price of crack in Sweden?
For all of your quotes you have only asked about ONE dogma, sh*t for brains -- ONE! I didn't LIE when I said that; you are just BLIND and DEAF and STUPID, and cannot admit that I just ANNIHILATED you and your nonsense.
Anyone who does not suffer from bad will, will agree with me and see through your dishonesty. I have already answered all of your questions/arguments, you didn't even respond to any of my arguments/questions after I answered all your arguments. Please go back to page 46, you liar, and you will see how wrong you are.
Neither do you answer my question, and that fact alone exposes you. Why don't you answer my questions?
FIRST QUESTION: do you firmly believe that no one at all can be Saved without first receiving the sacrament of water baptism, adults and infants alike?
SECOND QUESTION: do you believe that Jews, pagans, infidels, Muslims, etc, can be Saved (without belief in Jesus Christ) through a baptism of desire or by some other means?
-
And another question (which you so far (as far as I am aware of)), you have not yet answered: do you believe that Jews, pagans, infidels, Muslims, etc, can be Saved (without belief in Jesus Christ) through a baptism of desire or by some other means?
Let's say that they were validly baptized as infants, but at age 6, they got into a car accident and were in a persistent, vegetative state. Are you saying that explicit faith is still necessary for them?
No, Jehanne, mentally retarded are accounted as infants. Adults (or infants reaching age of reason), however, when they have the capacity to know good and evil, licit from forbidden, when any person reach this age, they have reached the age of reason and will be judged accordingly.
Tell me, Jehanne, did you read chapter 1, book 2, from the Revelations of St. Bridget that explained your questions? The questions you ask me seem to indicate for me that you did not read?, for you are asking things which Jesus already answered.
If you did not read, please do so here,
http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/st-bridget/saint-bridgets-of-sweden-book2.php
Those private revelations are not Magisteral docuмents.
-
Who appointed you the Grand Inquisitor? I nailed you PAGES AGO about how your own princples DEMAND that you place two Doctors of Holy Church in hell fire, yet you have not even begun to respond in a cogent, rational manner to that unassailable argument.
As for your recent questions, I don't care what some block-headed jackass asks, even if he asks it 1000 times. What does that have to do with the price of crack in Sweden?
For all of your quotes you have only asked about ONE dogma, sh*t for brains -- ONE! I didn't LIE when I said that; you are just BLIND and DEAF and STUPID, and cannot admit that I just ANNIHILATED you and your nonsense.
Anyone who does not suffer from bad will, will agree with me and see through your dishonesty. I have already answered all of your questions/arguments, you didn't even respond to any of my arguments/questions after I answered all your arguments. Please go back to page 46, you liar, and you will see how wrong you are.
Neither do you answer my question, and that fact alone exposes you. Why don't you answer my questions?
FIRST QUESTION: do you firmly believe that no one at all can be Saved without first receiving the sacrament of water baptism, adults and infants alike?
SECOND QUESTION: do you believe that Jews, pagans, infidels, Muslims, etc, can be Saved (without belief in Jesus Christ) through a baptism of desire or by some other means?
As I have pointed out already, the SECOND QUESTION is irrelevant. Even if "baptism of desire" exists, if would not help those individuals out who die without sacramental Baptism prior to the age of reason, which, outside of the Western World, is a large portion of individuals. (Indeed, historically, the majority of people born alive died before reaching the age of reason.) A far, far better option would be to say that the One and Triune God, who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and especially, omniscient would see to it that as many people of "good will" were baptized in their infancy. This is nothing so grandiose as Joseph Smith's claim that Jesus came to pre-Columbian America to preach the Gospel. Per the Fourth Lateran Council, "anyone whatsoever" can validly baptized, so we should place our hope in that. No miraculous solution is even required for this to take place, even on a large scale.
-
Hietanen is simply a hard headed imbicile. The care that he takes with his grammar is a clear reflection of his logic or lack of.
Zenith, I beleive this person is from Sweeden. English is at least a second language for him. I've seen much worse grammar from Americans. Perhaps you could learn his language and communicate with him fluently using ALL the rules of grammar in his language.
Yes I too have seen worse grammar/spelling from Americans or whoever. Btw Sweden has one 'e'. :wink:
Being from Sweden may excuse bad grammar though it does not excuse willful ignorance and pharisaical hard headedness.
Btw it should be "imbecile"...
Personally I don't really care, but since we're playing the "I'm right and your wrong because you can't spell and use proper grammar" game, I just thought I'd let you know. :wink:
Point taken! I'll get back in my box regarding spelling and grammar though I had a bone to pick with Hietanen not you. :wink:
-
Who appointed you the Grand Inquisitor? I nailed you PAGES AGO about how your own princples DEMAND that you place two Doctors of Holy Church in hell fire, yet you have not even begun to respond in a cogent, rational manner to that unassailable argument.
As for your recent questions, I don't care what some block-headed jackass asks, even if he asks it 1000 times. What does that have to do with the price of crack in Sweden?
For all of your quotes you have only asked about ONE dogma, sh*t for brains -- ONE! I didn't LIE when I said that; you are just BLIND and DEAF and STUPID, and cannot admit that I just ANNIHILATED you and your nonsense.
Gladius you may as well go and talk to your door post as you will most certainly get more sense out of it than a certain Swede.
-
They are not in Hell; that's silly.
To be sure, a sane man can see it is silly. Hietanen has that singular, tunnel vision that is an indicator of those who have lost all balance where perspective is concerned. A child can see he has been beaten like a drum, repeatedly, yet he cannot see it.
-
I don't think that he is even remotely claiming that they are in Hell. As I have said ad nauseam, the teachings of Father Feeney (and not some of his "followers," such as the Dimonds) can be fully reconciled with that of Saint Thomas. It is ironic that groups like the SSPX quote Saint Thomas against Father Feeney when they themselves have abandoned one of Thomas' central tenets, that of the absolute necessity of explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation; or, sacramental Baptism, for those who are incapable of such faith, such as infants. These are the only two paths to everlasting life that Thomas taught were available.
-
I don't think that he is even remotely claiming that they are in Hell.
This is as plain as the sun :)
The problem is that his own principles DEMAND that he:
1. place them in hell, which is repugnant to faith, OR
2. claim two of the most learned men in history were, despite all appearances, two of the most ignorant -- i.e., that they DID NOT EVEN KNOW about the dogmatic definitions, what Jesus said in Holy Writ, etc. -- which is repugnant to reason and all the evidence.
His own principles leave him no other choice.
-
I don't think that he is even remotely claiming that they are in Hell.
This is as plain as the sun :)
The problem is that his own principles DEMAND that he:
1. place them in hell, which is repugnant to faith, OR
2. claim two of the most learned men in history were, despite all appearances, two of the most ignorant -- i.e., that they DID NOT EVEN KNOW about the dogmatic definitions, what Jesus said in Holy Writ, etc. -- which is repugnant to reason and all the evidence.
His own principles leave him no other choice.
A third alternative is that they were in error. All "Fenneyites" agree that BoD/BoB were widely taught, but just because a doctrine is widely taught, does that mean that such a doctrine is de fide? Take the issue of the fate of infants who die without Baptism. Prior to Peter Abelard in the 12th-century, the view of Saint Augustine was dominate, that is, that infants who die without Baptism went to the Hell of Suffering, albeit at the "mildest" level. Pope Innocent III liked Abelard's view and embraced it. Was he a heretic for doing so? In embracing Abelard's view, was Innocent III overturning the view of Saint Augustine?
The same is true of Baptism of Desire. While such a view has been widely held during the second millennium of the Church, it was not universally held during the first millennium, Saint Augustine being the notable "dissenter." While Baptism of Desire is, without a doubt, a perfectly valid theological opinion, it is not the only opinion on the question of catechumens who die without sacramental Baptism.
-
A third alternative is that they were in error.
Even if you repeat it until the cows come home, that is not an option in this instance.
The same is true of Baptism of Desire. While such a view has been widely held during the second millennium of the Church...
Hietanen's position is that it is a no-brainer that BOD contradicts the thrice-defined dogma, which well-known dogma the two Doctors in question certainly knew. EENS already owned the field, as it were, so if BOD actually contradicts it, that makes BOB/BOD-ers eyes-wide-open, willful heretics. This is crystal clear and indisputable.
-
Holding an erroneous theological opinion centuries AFTER the issue has been settled is NOT an option.
What would you say if I said the IC is nonsense? I have NO FREEDOM to say so, as the dogma has been defined. If I DID say the IC is nonsense, I would be a heretic -- end of story.
EENS had been thrice-defined by the time St. Alphonsus was born. Honestly, it is THE best-known dogma inside AND outside Holy Church! To posit that St. Alphonsus (or St. Thomas) just DID NOT KNOW about it is ludicrous. They KNEW and understood the dogma, yet they taught something Hietanen is claiming CONTRADICTS it. If Hietanen's position is right, then the two Doctors are heretics -- end of story.
-
Yes, absolutely, they did know it, but you are claiming for them more than what they claimed for themselves. They never stated that individuals are saved apart from sacramental water Baptism; they only claimed that such was a possibility. I agree 100%; however, I am also of the opinion that such never happens, ever. Hietanen's position is not mine.
-
EENS had been thrice-defined by the time St. Alphonsus was born. Honestly, it is THE best-known dogma inside AND outside Holy Church! To posit that St. Alphonsus (or St. Thomas) just DID NOT KNOW about it is ludicrous. They KNEW and understood the dogma, yet they taught something Hietanen is claiming CONTRADICTS it. If Hietanen's position is right, then the two Doctors are heretics -- end of story.
FIRST OF. ALL THE SAINTS HAVE ONLY APPLIED BOB/BOD FOR CATECHUMENS, AND FOR PEOPLE WHO ALREADY BELIEVED IN JESUS CHRIST. SO DON'T TRY TO CLAIM OTHERWISE; YOU LIAR. NO SAINT HAVE EVER DENIED THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO IMPLY.
WHAT MANY SAINTS HAVE ERRED ON, IS THE DOGMA ON THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY OF WATER BAPTISM. BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION, SINCE THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE COULD BE SAVED WITHOUT THE CATHOLIC FAITH OR WITHOUT BELIEF IN JESUS CHRIST OR THE TRINITY!
So, with that said: No, you put yourself in Hell by your continual slander. I acknowledge that saints can err and be wrong without putting them in Hell. You, hold them for their (erroneous) words, and obstinately have as opinion, that they know and rejected dogmas; therefore, are you condemning them, not I. But you are probably to blind to even realize this fact.
I can acknowledge that saints can err and be wrong, you do it reluctantly, and only where it fits you, it seems.
I also showed you a laundry list of Sts that taught in favor of water-baptism for salvation. So, who are right? There were several doctors in that list as well, so, who are right? Both cannot be right...
This is the problem faced by those who obstinately cling to the saints before the infallible declarations of the Popes, they can't know who is right or who was wrong if they build their faith based on saints.
But this wouldn't be hard or even a problem, if people just accepted the dogmas, and reject everything else that goes against it.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Anyone that denies the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation knowingly, is anathematized and condemned!
It is also probable that St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus knew about the different Church Fathers opinions on the absolute necessity of water baptism for Salvation, but it is also possible that he knew about the Saints/Church Father who believed in bod/bob.
You see, if we build are faith based on what Saints have said, then we can come to different conclusions, since many saints have different opinions on different theological subjects. This is why we build our Faith on infallible Catholic dogma. But the dogmas, sadly, you reject.
It's not hard to understand this fact, unless one suffers from a disease called bad will.
I have also explained to you that St. Alphonsus interpreted the Council of Trent wrongly, in that he thought the Council said a desire was all that was needed for salvation, when it in fact said that both a desire and to actually receive the baptism was both necessary for salvation. But you just don't care. St. Thomas also lived long before Council of Trent, so he was probably not so familiar with the dogmas regarding the absolute necessity of water baptism.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
The Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est), which excludes any possibility of salvation without being born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism.[/B] There is no way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire denies. The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written are mutually exclusive (they cannot both be true at the same time) – and every baptism of desire proponent will admit this.
So, you are like a little child. You have absolutely nothing at all to back up or prove your position with. All you really have to say is that you cannot accept that two Doctors of the Church was wrong. You are a sad person, it's just that simple. You deny the Faith because of what two doctors said or thought, even though it can be proved they contradict dogma. Why do you want to condemn yourself so much?
What is even stranger, St. Thomas -- who quoted numerous Fathers when composing the Catena Aurea -- said he remembered and clearly understood everything he ever read. I guess he must have not read enough, or just read ALL the wrong stuff. That is a damn shame...
If you didn't know, St. Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception of Mary. So, clearly, he did not know everything.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 27, Art. 2: "Therefore, before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin Mary was not sanctified."
I have also heard, that a study had been made by the Church on his works, and that it was found out that there where several errors in his writings. So, clearly, he is not infallible, and he didn't know everything, although he knew allot more then all other of the doctors and saints on theology.
Yet, you readily class as obstinate heretics anyone and everyone who disagrees with you on this very point?
If a Saint -- who certainly knew about the dogmatic definitions, what Jesus taught about Baptism, etc -- can interpret it incorrectly, do you not think a modern layman might be excused for doing so? Yet, you seem to allow ZERO latitude for those with whom you disagree.
You cannot be excused. For you have seen the evidence and rejected it. That's the difference. A person can be a mistaken Catholic (a material heretic) until the time he has had the true position, the dogmas, etc, presented to him, but he rejected it. At that very moment, when he rejected the true position, he is a heretic and already in hell (unless he converts and recant his errors).
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."
The above declaration clearly condemns you, it's just that simple.
I happen to believe the possibility/applicability of BOD/BOB is very strictly limited; however, it is possible. The exact limits are God's business, not mine.
God has already declared through the Popes His will. God's will and His justice, is that all must receive baptism to be Saved. You reject this, thus you reject God. You also call God a liar, for you say that His dogmas is not true and that what He declared is something else then what He actually said.
Again, do you deny God, or accept him?
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “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].”
And until time have you still have refused to answer my simple questions. But, let's try again shall we, I will expose you, it's just that simple!
FIRST QUESTION: do you firmly believe that no one at all can be Saved without first receiving the sacrament of water baptism, adults and infants alike?
SECOND QUESTION: do you believe that Jews, pagans, infidels, Muslims, etc, can be Saved (without belief in Jesus Christ) through a baptism of desire or by some other means?
-
Hietanen,
You have to accept BoD/BoB as a possibility, because if someone died without Water Baptism who sincerely desired it, the One and Triune God could always raise that person back to life to receive sacramental Baptism. This is the whole idea behind conditional Baptism.
-
Hietanen,
You have to accept BoD/BoB as a possibility, because if someone died without Water Baptism, the One and Triune God could always raise that person back to life to receive sacramental Baptism.
If God raised someone from the dead to receive baptism (which actually have happened), then he ACTUALLY received the baptism, so, this has nothing to do with BOD/BOB, since bob/bod denies the concept of even receiving the baptism for salvation in the first place.
You have to stop mixing the two, and hold to the baptism in the strict sense. You either believe in receive baptism for salvation, and thus refuse to believe in BOD/BOB - which is the true position - or you believe that people can be saved without ever receiving the water baptism, and thus believe in BOD/BOB - which is the false and heretical position (if one applies it to people who do not believe in Jesus Christ, etc. Many saints believed in bod/bob, but only applied it to people who believed in Jesus Christ, that is then a material heresy. It would also be heretical to believe in bod/bob, when one have seen the evidence disproving this theory, but rejected that proof, the dogmas, etc. than is one likewise a heretic).
-
That's my point. It is impossible to prove that someone was not Baptized, so these arguments are somewhat pointless. Anyway you slice it, Baptism of Desire does confer grace; indeed, it is an individual's response to grace, even if that grace is not yet completely salvific for the person in question. From there, we can trust that the One and Triune God will complete that person's salvation.
-
That's my point. It is impossible to prove that someone was not Baptized, so these arguments are somewhat pointless. Anyway you slice it, Baptism of Desire does confer grace; indeed, it is an individual's response to grace, even if that grace is not yet completely salvific for the person in question. From there, we can trust that the One and Triune God will complete that person's salvation.
To avoid confusion, you should say something like: "I believe in a baptism of desire with actually receiving the baptism of water for salvation."
There is a baptism of desire, yes, adults must desire a baptism and actually be baptized to be Saved along with believing in Jesus Christ and the Trinity. Yes, but that was not what we where talking about there, I thought. I was refuting the false position of baptism of desire all along, the concept of being saved without actually receiving the baptism for salvation.
Many people here (I presume), believe that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc, through no fault of there own, can be saved through a baptism of desire (even though they don't even desire baptism or even believes in Jesus Christ). This is an abominable heresy, to say the least. It's good to hear you do not believe in it, Jehanne.
-
Another thing I want to make clear, since bad willed people like to twist and misunderstand certain issues, is the following:
I never said that Saints have erred or can err on the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation, for to do that would be to deny the Faith, and would make one a heretic automatically. No Saint has ever believed that a person could be saved without belief in Jesus Christ or the Catholic Faith. This is not a dogma one could be a material heretic about, and that is not what I said the saints where material heretics about.
What saints have been material heretics about, is the dogma on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation (so long as bod/bob is ONLY applied to people who already believe in Jesus Christ and have the Christian Faith). There are other things one could be material heretic about also, but not one those things which would either deny the Faith or the Natural Law, one can never err on those things without either loosing the Faith or becoming a heretic.
However, to be a material heretic about the dogma on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation, has nothing to do with the dogma on outside the Church there is no salvation, as it seems another person here want to imply?
For the saints never applied bod/bob to pagans, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hinduists, etc. To say so is just an abominable lie, and can easily be disproved.
Name one saint that believed a person could be saved without belief in Jesus Christ? You can't find any!, and neither are there any dogmas saying so. Only a Faithless heretic would claim people could be Saved without even believing in Jesus! And Catholic dogma condemns anyone who would dare to confess such a teaching:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved[/u].”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, The Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” (Decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553; Denzinger 39-40.)
-
That's my point. It is impossible to prove that someone was not Baptized, so these arguments are somewhat pointless. Anyway you slice it, Baptism of Desire does confer grace; indeed, it is an individual's response to grace, even if that grace is not yet completely salvific for the person in question. From there, we can trust that the One and Triune God will complete that person's salvation.
To avoid confusion, you should say something like: "I believe in a baptism of desire with actually receiving the baptism of water for salvation."
There is a baptism of desire, yes, adults must desire a baptism and actually be baptized to be Saved along with believing in Jesus Christ and the Trinity. Yes, but that was not what we where talking about there, I thought. I was refuting the false position of baptism of desire all along, the concept of being saved without actually receiving the baptism for salvation.
Many people here (I presume), believe that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc, through no fault of there own, can be saved through a baptism of desire (even though they don't even desire baptism or even believes in Jesus Christ). This is an abominable heresy, to say the least. It's good to hear you do not believe in it, Jehanne.
I don't; however, I do believe that if any of those individuals in question were validly baptized in their infancy, that they would be in a state of grace. Salvation would be theirs to lose, not gain.
-
Hietanen: Many people here (I presume), believe that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc, through no fault of there own, can be saved through a baptism of desire (even though they don't even desire baptism or even believes in Jesus Christ). This is an abominable heresy, to say the least. It's good to hear you do not believe in it, Jehanne.
You presume or you know? Yes you are a presumptuous ignoramus. One day you will hurt yourself jumping to conclusions. :heretic:
-
Hietanen: Many people here (I presume), believe that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc, through no fault of there own, can be saved through a baptism of desire (even though they don't even desire baptism or even believes in Jesus Christ). This is an abominable heresy, to say the least. It's good to hear you do not believe in it, Jehanne.
You presume or you know? Yes you are a presumptuous ignoramus. One day you will hurt yourself jumping to conclusions. :heretic:
It's the prevailing view these days. In my first RCIA program (which I quit), the instructor was going on and on about Karl Rahner and his "anonymous Christian."
-
Hietanen: Many people here (I presume), believe that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc, through no fault of there own, can be saved through a baptism of desire (even though they don't even desire baptism or even believes in Jesus Christ). This is an abominable heresy, to say the least. It's good to hear you do not believe in it, Jehanne.
You presume or you know? Yes you are a presumptuous ignoramus. One day you will hurt yourself jumping to conclusions. :heretic:
It's the prevailing view these days. In my first RCIA program (which I quit), the instructor was going on and on about Karl Rahner and his "anonymous Christian."
Yes I am well aware of what goes on in novus world as I grew up with it. Though this is not the RCIA or Rahner's back yard. This is a Traditional Catholic Forum. Hietanen is so thick that he never listens to anyone and instead jumps to conclusions and he even admits it himself! Poor thing! :heretic:
-
Hietanen: Many people here (I presume), believe that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc, through no fault of there own, can be saved through a baptism of desire (even though they don't even desire baptism or even believes in Jesus Christ). This is an abominable heresy, to say the least. It's good to hear you do not believe in it, Jehanne.
You presume or you know? Yes you are a presumptuous ignoramus. One day you will hurt yourself jumping to conclusions. :heretic:
Well, I presume, and I ask questions. This is a SSPX forum for starter, and so far as I am aware of, SSPX believe in BOD/BOB and grants salvation to people who do not even believe in Jesus Christ, etc. This is flat out stated in their public teachings, magazines, "Bishops" and "Priests" etc...
Zenith. I must ask you, do you believe that Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc, who do not believe in Jesus Christ, or who reject Jesus Christ, and that have not been baptized, can be saved somehow though a baptism of desire?
I asked this question to another person here, he have to this day still refused to answer...
-
Hietanen: Many people here (I presume), believe that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc, through no fault of there own, can be saved through a baptism of desire (even though they don't even desire baptism or even believes in Jesus Christ). This is an abominable heresy, to say the least. It's good to hear you do not believe in it, Jehanne.
You presume or you know? Yes you are a presumptuous ignoramus. One day you will hurt yourself jumping to conclusions. :heretic:
It's the prevailing view these days. In my first RCIA program (which I quit), the instructor was going on and on about Karl Rahner and his "anonymous Christian."
Yes I am well aware of what goes on in novus world as I grew up with it. Though this is not the RCIA or Rahner's back yard. This is a Traditional Catholic Forum. Hietanen is so thick that he never listens to anyone and instead jumps to conclusions and he even admits it himself! Poor thing! :heretic:
Zenith, do you deny that the SSPX (starting with Ab Levebre), the CMRI, SSPV, Bishop Dolan, Fr. Stepanich and on and on are all in public record saying that Jews, Muslems, Pagans, etc. can all have BOD? To deny that this is the overwhelmingly accepted view of all Traditionalist clergy is understandable because it makes no sense, but it is the truth.
-
Well, I presume, and I ask questions. This is a SSPX forum for starter, and so far as I am aware of, SSPX believe in BOD/BOB and grants salvation to people who do not even believe in Jesus Christ, etc. This is flat out stated in their public teachings, magazines, "Bishops" and "Priests" etc...
Zenith. I must ask you, do you believe that Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc, who do not believe in Jesus Christ, or who reject Jesus Christ, and that have not been baptized, can be saved somehow though a baptism of desire?
I asked this question to another person here, he have to this day still refused to answer...
You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to what the SSPX teaches about Jews and heretics and I have followed discussion thus far and I have seen that every person who has engaged you has not been able to get sense out of you and clearly you don't listen to their arguments and you jump to conclusions about what they believe.
I have no desire to engage you in this discussion as I can see it would be futile and until you can garantee that you will listen to people, stop jump to conclusions, stop making misinformed statements, refrain from judging the state of people's souls, cut out the condemning to hell, and stop declaring them heretics, I will not discuss with you.
In admitting that you jump to conclusions based on misinformation you have lost all credibility, not that you ever had any to start with.
Good bye
-
Well, I presume, and I ask questions. This is a SSPX forum for starter, and so far as I am aware of, SSPX believe in BOD/BOB and grants salvation to people who do not even believe in Jesus Christ, etc. This is flat out stated in their public teachings, magazines, "Bishops" and "Priests" etc...
Zenith. I must ask you, do you believe that Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc, who do not believe in Jesus Christ, or who reject Jesus Christ, and that have not been baptized, can be saved somehow though a baptism of desire?
I asked this question to another person here, he have to this day still refused to answer...
You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to what the SSPX teaches about Jews and heretics and I have followed discussion thus far and I have seen that every person who has engaged you has not been able to get sense out of you and clearly you don't listen to their arguments and you jump to conclusions about what they believe.
I have no desire to engage you in this discussion as I can see it would be futile and until you can garantee that you will listen to people, stop jump to conclusions, stop making misinformed statements, refrain from judging the state of people's souls, cut out the condemning to hell, and stop declaring them heretics, I will not discuss with you.
In admitting that you jump to conclusions based on misinformation you have lost all credibility, not that you ever had any to start with.
Good bye
Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”[dclxix]
2. Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”[dclxx]
3. Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”[dclxxi]
-
Bishop Lefebvre, Sermon at first Mass of a newly ordained priest (Geneva: 1976): “We are Catholics; we affirm our faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; we affirm our faith in the divinity of the Holy Catholic Church; we think that Jesus Christ is the sole way, the sole truth, the sole life, and that one cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently outside His Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church. No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church, but those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church, are saved by the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not know it, even if they are unaware of it...”[dclxxiii]
Here Lefebvre denies the dogma word for word.
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”[dclxxiv]
Notice again, in fact, how Bishop Lefebvre stated that men can be saved by the practice of false religions.
-
Well, I presume, and I ask questions. This is a SSPX forum for starter, and so far as I am aware of, SSPX believe in BOD/BOB and grants salvation to people who do not even believe in Jesus Christ, etc. This is flat out stated in their public teachings, magazines, "Bishops" and "Priests" etc...
Zenith. I must ask you, do you believe that Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc, who do not believe in Jesus Christ, or who reject Jesus Christ, and that have not been baptized, can be saved somehow though a baptism of desire?
I asked this question to another person here, he have to this day still refused to answer...
You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to what the SSPX teaches about Jews and heretics and I have followed discussion thus far and I have seen that every person who has engaged you has not been able to get sense out of you and clearly you don't listen to their arguments and you jump to conclusions about what they believe.
I have no desire to engage you in this discussion as I can see it would be futile and until you can garantee that you will listen to people, stop jump to conclusions, stop making misinformed statements, refrain from judging the state of people's souls, cut out the condemning to hell, and stop declaring them heretics, I will not discuss with you.
In admitting that you jump to conclusions based on misinformation you have lost all credibility, not that you ever had any to start with.
Good bye
Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”[dclxix]
2. Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”[dclxx]
3. Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”[dclxxi]
The logic that the Archbishop uses is queer and makes the One and Triune God into a monster. For if adult Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. can be saved without Water Baptism, what about a Jєωιѕн infant or a Jєωιѕн child who is profoundly retarded? It seems cruel of God to send Jєωιѕн retarded people to Hell, yet allow "normal" Jews into Heaven.
-
Well, I presume, and I ask questions. This is a SSPX forum for starter, and so far as I am aware of, SSPX believe in BOD/BOB and grants salvation to people who do not even believe in Jesus Christ, etc. This is flat out stated in their public teachings, magazines, "Bishops" and "Priests" etc...
Zenith. I must ask you, do you believe that Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc, who do not believe in Jesus Christ, or who reject Jesus Christ, and that have not been baptized, can be saved somehow though a baptism of desire?
I asked this question to another person here, he have to this day still refused to answer...
You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to what the SSPX teaches about Jews and heretics and I have followed discussion thus far and I have seen that every person who has engaged you has not been able to get sense out of you and clearly you don't listen to their arguments and you jump to conclusions about what they believe.
I have no desire to engage you in this discussion as I can see it would be futile and until you can garantee that you will listen to people, stop jump to conclusions, stop making misinformed statements, refrain from judging the state of people's souls, cut out the condemning to hell, and stop declaring them heretics, I will not discuss with you.
In admitting that you jump to conclusions based on misinformation you have lost all credibility, not that you ever had any to start with.
Good bye
Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”[dclxix]
2. Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”[dclxx]
3. Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”[dclxxi]
The logic that the Archbishop uses is queer and makes the One and Triune God into a monster. For if adult Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. can be saved without Water Baptism, what about a Jєωιѕн infant or a Jєωιѕн child who is profoundly retarded? It seems cruel of God to send Jєωιѕн retarded people to Hell, yet allow "normal" Jews into Heaven.
Jehanne, do you believe that all unbaptized children will not see God (that they all are excluded from salvation), which includes unbaptized infants, adults and retarded alike?
-
Well, I presume, and I ask questions. This is a SSPX forum for starter, and so far as I am aware of, SSPX believe in BOD/BOB and grants salvation to people who do not even believe in Jesus Christ, etc. This is flat out stated in their public teachings, magazines, "Bishops" and "Priests" etc...
Zenith. I must ask you, do you believe that Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc, who do not believe in Jesus Christ, or who reject Jesus Christ, and that have not been baptized, can be saved somehow though a baptism of desire?
I asked this question to another person here, he have to this day still refused to answer...
You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to what the SSPX teaches about Jews and heretics and I have followed discussion thus far and I have seen that every person who has engaged you has not been able to get sense out of you and clearly you don't listen to their arguments and you jump to conclusions about what they believe.
I have no desire to engage you in this discussion as I can see it would be futile and until you can garantee that you will listen to people, stop jump to conclusions, stop making misinformed statements, refrain from judging the state of people's souls, cut out the condemning to hell, and stop declaring them heretics, I will not discuss with you.
In admitting that you jump to conclusions based on misinformation you have lost all credibility, not that you ever had any to start with.
Good bye
As umblehay anmay already proved with numerous quotes, I do know what I am talking about regarding SSPX, in that they grants salvation to people who either reject Jesus Christ or don't even believe in him.
Neither did you answer my questions either.
Sometimes I do make false conclusions, and for that I am sorry. But more times then not are my conclusions right on this forum, since they are based on infallible Catholic dogma. When a person rejects a dogma, there can only be one conclusion. That person is a heretic, a liar, and dishonest.
Truth is hard, but truth must be told. The Jews didn't like Jesus either, and they crucified Him because He reproved them. This is how it always have been. Truth has always been repressed, persecute or denied by bad will liars who want to continue living in their sins and in their heresies. Most if not all all saints have met with opposition, so has it always been, and so will it always be, since most people are not of God, most are sadly damned.
Catholics must understand that few are saved. Our Lord Jesus Christ revealed that the road to Heaven is straight and narrow and few find it, while the road to Hell is wide and taken by most (Mt. 7:13).
-
Well, I presume, and I ask questions. This is a SSPX forum for starter, and so far as I am aware of, SSPX believe in BOD/BOB and grants salvation to people who do not even believe in Jesus Christ, etc. This is flat out stated in their public teachings, magazines, "Bishops" and "Priests" etc...
Zenith. I must ask you, do you believe that Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc, who do not believe in Jesus Christ, or who reject Jesus Christ, and that have not been baptized, can be saved somehow though a baptism of desire?
I asked this question to another person here, he have to this day still refused to answer...
You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to what the SSPX teaches about Jews and heretics and I have followed discussion thus far and I have seen that every person who has engaged you has not been able to get sense out of you and clearly you don't listen to their arguments and you jump to conclusions about what they believe.
I have no desire to engage you in this discussion as I can see it would be futile and until you can garantee that you will listen to people, stop jump to conclusions, stop making misinformed statements, refrain from judging the state of people's souls, cut out the condemning to hell, and stop declaring them heretics, I will not discuss with you.
In admitting that you jump to conclusions based on misinformation you have lost all credibility, not that you ever had any to start with.
Good bye
As umblehay anmay already proved with numerous quotes, I do know what I am talking about regarding SSPX, in that they grants salvation to people who either reject Jesus Christ or don't even believe in him.
Neither did you answer my questions either.
Sometimes I do make false conclusions, and for that I am sorry. But more times then not are my conclusions right on this forum, since they are based on infallible Catholic dogma. When a person rejects a dogma, there can only be one conclusion. That person is a heretic, a liar, and dishonest.
Truth is hard, but truth must be told. The Jews didn't like Jesus either, and they crucified Him because He reproved them. This is how it always have been. Truth has always been repressed, persecute or denied by bad will liars who want to continue living in their sins and in their heresies. Most if not all all saints have met with opposition, so has it always been, and so will it always be, since most people are not of God, most are sadly damned.
Catholics must understand that few are saved. Our Lord Jesus Christ revealed that the road to Heaven is straight and narrow and few find it, while the road to Hell is wide and taken by most (Mt. 7:13).
You are WAY incorrect here. The SSPX does not grant salvation to people who reject Jesus Christ. Do some research.
-
Jehanne, do you believe that all unbaptized children will not see God (that they all are excluded from salvation), which includes unbaptized infants, adults and retarded alike?
Yes, of course, I do, absolutely. Who do think I am, a heretic?? However, I also believe that "anyone whatsoever" can validly baptized, and since the One and Triune God is merciful, it is reasonable to suppose that He can and will provide sacramental Baptism to profoundly retarded Jєωιѕн children, and if He can provide sacramental Baptism to them, he can do the same for their parents, whether they are "normal" or not.
The "Feeneyite" view will allow more people into Heaven, as compared to the implicit BoD view. So, I ask you and everyone else, "Which view is more in line with the salvific will of the Triune God?"
-
Well, I presume, and I ask questions. This is a SSPX forum for starter, and so far as I am aware of, SSPX believe in BOD/BOB and grants salvation to people who do not even believe in Jesus Christ, etc. This is flat out stated in their public teachings, magazines, "Bishops" and "Priests" etc...
Zenith. I must ask you, do you believe that Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc, who do not believe in Jesus Christ, or who reject Jesus Christ, and that have not been baptized, can be saved somehow though a baptism of desire?
I asked this question to another person here, he have to this day still refused to answer...
You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to what the SSPX teaches about Jews and heretics and I have followed discussion thus far and I have seen that every person who has engaged you has not been able to get sense out of you and clearly you don't listen to their arguments and you jump to conclusions about what they believe.
I have no desire to engage you in this discussion as I can see it would be futile and until you can garantee that you will listen to people, stop jump to conclusions, stop making misinformed statements, refrain from judging the state of people's souls, cut out the condemning to hell, and stop declaring them heretics, I will not discuss with you.
In admitting that you jump to conclusions based on misinformation you have lost all credibility, not that you ever had any to start with.
Good bye
As umblehay anmay already proved with numerous quotes, I do know what I am talking about regarding SSPX, in that they grants salvation to people who either reject Jesus Christ or don't even believe in him.
Neither did you answer my questions either.
Sometimes I do make false conclusions, and for that I am sorry. But more times then not are my conclusions right on this forum, since they are based on infallible Catholic dogma. When a person rejects a dogma, there can only be one conclusion. That person is a heretic, a liar, and dishonest.
Truth is hard, but truth must be told. The Jews didn't like Jesus either, and they crucified Him because He reproved them. This is how it always have been. Truth has always been repressed, persecute or denied by bad will liars who want to continue living in their sins and in their heresies. Most if not all all saints have met with opposition, so has it always been, and so will it always be, since most people are not of God, most are sadly damned.
Catholics must understand that few are saved. Our Lord Jesus Christ revealed that the road to Heaven is straight and narrow and few find it, while the road to Hell is wide and taken by most (Mt. 7:13).
You are WAY incorrect here. The SSPX does not grant salvation to people who reject Jesus Christ. Do some research.
Oh really?
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”[dclxxiv]
[dclxxiii] Brother Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, pp. 213-214.
-
When a person rejects a dogma, there can only be one conclusion. That person is a heretic, a liar, and dishonest.
Well, since St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus certainly knew about the best-known dogma in the world, yet taught something that you believe contradicts it, that means you have only ONE conclusion to draw where St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus are concerned -- they are heretics.
Too bad there isn't a merry-go-round emoticon...
-
When a person rejects a dogma, there can only be one conclusion. That person is a heretic, a liar, and dishonest.
Well, since St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus certainly knew about the best-known dogma in the world, yet taught something that you believe contradicts it, that means you have only ONE conclusion to draw where St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus are concerned -- they are heretics.
Too bad there isn't a merry-go-round emoticon...
They taught Baptism of Desire, but neither of them ever claimed that there were people who had attained the Beatific Vision who had died without Baptism. St. Alphonsus said that "it is de fide [dogmatic] that men are also saved by Baptism of desire." (from Traditio's website), but does he mean, with absolutely certainty, that such individuals were never sacramentally Baptized? I agree 100% that some individuals are saved by "Baptism of desire." After all, if you are baptized against your will and don't even believe in it, you are not saved, even though you had been validly baptized. So, in order to be saved, you must desire Baptism. In this sense, Baptism of Desire is absolutely de fide, as the Council of Trent taught. The question is, "Does it ever occur apart from sacramental Baptism?" I do not think that is what St. Alphonsus is claiming, or at least that is not what he was "explicit" about.
-
That all depends upon your definition of "is"...
-
E.... do you agree with this portion of what Jehanne said above?....
"....After all, if you are baptized against your will and don't even believe in it, you are not saved, even though you had been validly baptized. So, in order to be saved, you must desire Baptism....."
-
Of course I do, as any truly human act involves the will.
Now, let us leave aside all nonsense and twisting of what St. Alphonsus is obviously saying...
I believe we all know what "is" means, do we not?
-
That all depends upon your definition of "is"...
Mr. President Clinton???
-
Of course I do, as any truly human act involves the will.
Now, let us leave aside all nonsense and twisting of what St. Alphonsus is obviously saying...
I believe we all know what "is" means, do we not?
I'm not talking about St. Alphonsus. I want to discuss this...
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it
Now the pro-BOD argument says that the "or" in that line means that the effects of baptism CAN take place with only desire. But you just admited that by only administering water baptism without the desire does not bring about the effects of the sacrament.
If I set up a conditional statement where I say "A or B" in the conditions part of the statement, doesn't it mean that the same statement can be restated putting B or A in that portion and the word "or" makes them just as mutually exclusive? In other words if the word "or" makes desire stand alone in the necessity to fulfill the first part of the statment, why then would the physical action of Baptism require the condition that comes after the word "or"?
-
That all depends upon your definition of "is"...
Mr. President Clinton???
Yes -- but I am saying your explanation is more like his "defense" that something substantial.
-
I want to discuss this...
Of course you do :)
But you just admited that by only administering water baptism without the desire does not bring about the effects of the sacrament.
I answered hastily as I am busily going about more important business. As I was taking care of other things, I knew you (or someone else) would latch onto my brief comment, thinking it means more than it does. C'est la vie.
If am confirmed while in a state of sin, I will receive the sacrament, but not the grace of the sacrament. Similarly, if I make a spiritual communion, I can receive the grace of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. The sacrament and the grace of the sacrament are TWO things, as you know. Although we SHOULD always receive BOTH, we do not -- sometimes because of circuмstances beyond our control, sometimes because we are of bad will.
I honestly do not have time to deal with this further -- at least not today. Ciao
-
I want to discuss this...
Of course you do :)
But you just admited that by only administering water baptism without the desire does not bring about the effects of the sacrament.
I answered hastily as I am busily going about more important business. As I was taking care of other things, I knew you (or someone else) would latch onto my brief comment, thinking it means more than it does. C'est la vie.
If am confirmed while in a state of sin, I will receive the sacrament, but not the grace of the sacrament. Similarly, if I make a spiritual communion, I can receive the grace of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. The sacrament and the grace of the sacrament are TWO things, as you know. Although we SHOULD always receive BOTH, we do not -- sometimes because of circuмstances beyond our control, sometimes because we are of bad will.
I honestly do not have time to deal with this further -- at least not today. Ciao
Ok Fred, where is Ginger Rogers when you need her... :wink:
-
When a person rejects a dogma, there can only be one conclusion. That person is a heretic, a liar, and dishonest.
Well, since St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus certainly knew about the best-known dogma in the world, yet taught something that you believe contradicts it, that means you have only ONE conclusion to draw where St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus are concerned -- they are heretics.
Too bad there isn't a merry-go-round emoticon...
No, they are not heretics, for they didn't reject any dogmas. Get that through your head now. A person can be a material heretic on a subject which does not entail the rejection of the Faith.
The problem with you is that you mix the dogma on the absolute necessity of water baptism with the dogma on no salvation outside the Catholic Church. You argue, it seems, that since many saints believed in bod/bob for Catechumens, they somehow, by that fact alone, rejected the dogma on outside the Church there is no Salvation?
Since they only applied bob/bod to people who already believed in Jesus Christ, and who were catechumens (unbaptized "Catholics" who had not yet received the Faith through baptism), they were material heretics. It's not the most obvious teaching that it is the actual baptism which gives the person incorporation into the Church and the Catholic Faith. And it is not the most obvious to understand, that a person who profess the Catholic Faith, and who calls himself Catholic, and who are not a heretic, is not yet a Catholic, until he actually receives water baptism. Therefore, is this a material heresy to believe in it (until one has learned that it is incompatible with Catholic dogma to believe so). So no one here can excuse himself to believe in bod/bob by applying it to people who never actually received baptism, and by that fact "save them" through it, for that would then be a heresy, for you now know that it is incompatible with catholic dogma to believe so).
But if the saints would have believed in bod/bob and applied it to people who did not even believe in Jesus Christ or who were not Catholic, then it would have been a heresy, and no one can be a material heretic on that. This heresy, unfortunately, do many people believe in today, who call themselves "Catholic".
But what about the protestants, etc?
People who go into heretical Churches but are not themselves heretical, and if they believe in no heresy against the Catholic Faith and if they do not reject the Trinity and Incarnation, such a person is Catholic if he is validly baptized, even if he was baptized by heretics. So it's possible that a "protestant" child in a protestant Church actually are a Catholic, until the day he either embrace or believes in some heresy and becomes a protestant. For all protestants are heretics.
-
Jehanne, do you believe that all unbaptized children will not see God (that they all are excluded from salvation), which includes unbaptized infants, adults and retarded alike?
Yes, of course, I do, absolutely. Who do think I am, a heretic?? However, I also believe that "anyone whatsoever" can validly baptized, and since the One and Triune God is merciful, it is reasonable to suppose that He can and will provide sacramental Baptism to profoundly retarded Jєωιѕн children, and if He can provide sacramental Baptism to them, he can do the same for their parents, whether they are "normal" or not.
The "Feeneyite" view will allow more people into Heaven, as compared to the implicit BoD view. So, I ask you and everyone else, "Which view is more in line with the salvific will of the Triune God?"
I do not know if you are a heretic. I hope you are not. That is why I am asking questions.
I am also a but confused with what you believe. I think I asked you earlier in this thread, if you believed God could save a person without baptism. Correct me if I am wrong, and if I am remembering wrong.
Did you say something like that God is not bound by his own rules/laws, and so, he can change them and save someone without baptism?
Tell me, what is your position on this.
-
Did you say something like that God is not bound by his own rules/laws, and so, he can change them and save someone without baptism?
The fact that God is not bound by His laws does not require that the law be "changed." This is another example of why nobody should pay any attention to you.
:fryingpan:
-
Jehanne, do you believe that all unbaptized children will not see God (that they all are excluded from salvation), which includes unbaptized infants, adults and retarded alike?
Yes, of course, I do, absolutely. Who do think I am, a heretic?? However, I also believe that "anyone whatsoever" can validly baptized, and since the One and Triune God is merciful, it is reasonable to suppose that He can and will provide sacramental Baptism to profoundly retarded Jєωιѕн children, and if He can provide sacramental Baptism to them, he can do the same for their parents, whether they are "normal" or not.
The "Feeneyite" view will allow more people into Heaven, as compared to the implicit BoD view. So, I ask you and everyone else, "Which view is more in line with the salvific will of the Triune God?"
I do not know if you are a heretic. I hope you are not. That is why I am asking questions.
I am also a but confused with what you believe. I think I asked you earlier in this thread, if you believed God could save a person without baptism. Correct me if I am wrong, and if I am remembering wrong.
Did you say something like that God is not bound by his own rules/laws, and so, he can change them and save someone without baptism?
Tell me, what is your position on this.
I already explained my position. Yes, I believe that the One and Triune God could save someone without Baptism; however, he never does. Why He chose Water Baptism, I do not know, but that is the path that He chose. It is the second birth, and like the first birth, it is something that must happen before anyone can attain everlasting life. Just as "individuals" who are never conceived never born, so are individuals never baptized never able to enter eternal life.
-
Well, I presume, and I ask questions. This is a SSPX forum for starter, and so far as I am aware of, SSPX believe in BOD/BOB and grants salvation to people who do not even believe in Jesus Christ, etc. This is flat out stated in their public teachings, magazines, "Bishops" and "Priests" etc...
Zenith. I must ask you, do you believe that Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc, who do not believe in Jesus Christ, or who reject Jesus Christ, and that have not been baptized, can be saved somehow though a baptism of desire?
I asked this question to another person here, he have to this day still refused to answer...
You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to what the SSPX teaches about Jews and heretics and I have followed discussion thus far and I have seen that every person who has engaged you has not been able to get sense out of you and clearly you don't listen to their arguments and you jump to conclusions about what they believe.
I have no desire to engage you in this discussion as I can see it would be futile and until you can garantee that you will listen to people, stop jump to conclusions, stop making misinformed statements, refrain from judging the state of people's souls, cut out the condemning to hell, and stop declaring them heretics, I will not discuss with you.
In admitting that you jump to conclusions based on misinformation you have lost all credibility, not that you ever had any to start with.
Good bye
As umblehay anmay already proved with numerous quotes, I do know what I am talking about regarding SSPX, in that they grants salvation to people who either reject Jesus Christ or don't even believe in him.
Neither did you answer my questions either.
Sometimes I do make false conclusions, and for that I am sorry. But more times then not are my conclusions right on this forum, since they are based on infallible Catholic dogma. When a person rejects a dogma, there can only be one conclusion. That person is a heretic, a liar, and dishonest.
Truth is hard, but truth must be told. The Jews didn't like Jesus either, and they crucified Him because He reproved them. This is how it always have been. Truth has always been repressed, persecute or denied by bad will liars who want to continue living in their sins and in their heresies. Most if not all all saints have met with opposition, so has it always been, and so will it always be, since most people are not of God, most are sadly damned.
Catholics must understand that few are saved. Our Lord Jesus Christ revealed that the road to Heaven is straight and narrow and few find it, while the road to Hell is wide and taken by most (Mt. 7:13).
You are WAY incorrect here. The SSPX does not grant salvation to people who reject Jesus Christ. Do some research.
Oh really?
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”[dclxxiv]
[dclxxiii] Brother Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, pp. 213-214.
That's not what ABL meant. He did not mean that practicing their religion saved them. He apparently meant that through the practice of their religion they eventually are given the grace of Our Lord to know false religions are wrong. Do you really think a Traditional Catholic archbishop would think that people can be saved by practicing other religions? Seriously, think before you type.
-
Since they only applied bob/bod to people who already believed in Jesus Christ, and who were catechumens (unbaptized "Catholics" who had not yet received the Faith through baptism), they were material heretics.
So they just DID NOT KNOW, which is THE element involved in material heresy? That argument is complete bullsh*t, as we are talking about two of the most learned men in the history of the entire world.
-
Since they only applied bob/bod to people who already believed in Jesus Christ, and who were catechumens (unbaptized "Catholics" who had not yet received the Faith through baptism), they were material heretics.
So they just DID NOT KNOW, which is THE element involved in material heresy? That argument is complete bullsh*t, as we are talking about two of the most learned men in the history of the entire world.
Your ignorance is truly amazing. I don't know how I could explain the situation to you any better then what I have done already. You just don't want to get it.
But anyway, since we know all the saints only applied baptism of desire and blood to catechumens, we know that they believed that a person at least had to believe in the Catholic Faith, The Trinity, and Incarnation.
But may I ask you, do you even believe in this yourself, or do you grant salvation to pagans, infidels, muslims, jews, atheists, etc?
What is your definition of bob/bod? Please answer.
-
Well, I presume, and I ask questions. This is a SSPX forum for starter, and so far as I am aware of, SSPX believe in BOD/BOB and grants salvation to people who do not even believe in Jesus Christ, etc. This is flat out stated in their public teachings, magazines, "Bishops" and "Priests" etc...
Zenith. I must ask you, do you believe that Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc, who do not believe in Jesus Christ, or who reject Jesus Christ, and that have not been baptized, can be saved somehow though a baptism of desire?
I asked this question to another person here, he have to this day still refused to answer...
You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to what the SSPX teaches about Jews and heretics and I have followed discussion thus far and I have seen that every person who has engaged you has not been able to get sense out of you and clearly you don't listen to their arguments and you jump to conclusions about what they believe.
I have no desire to engage you in this discussion as I can see it would be futile and until you can garantee that you will listen to people, stop jump to conclusions, stop making misinformed statements, refrain from judging the state of people's souls, cut out the condemning to hell, and stop declaring them heretics, I will not discuss with you.
In admitting that you jump to conclusions based on misinformation you have lost all credibility, not that you ever had any to start with.
Good bye
As umblehay anmay already proved with numerous quotes, I do know what I am talking about regarding SSPX, in that they grants salvation to people who either reject Jesus Christ or don't even believe in him.
Neither did you answer my questions either.
Sometimes I do make false conclusions, and for that I am sorry. But more times then not are my conclusions right on this forum, since they are based on infallible Catholic dogma. When a person rejects a dogma, there can only be one conclusion. That person is a heretic, a liar, and dishonest.
Truth is hard, but truth must be told. The Jews didn't like Jesus either, and they crucified Him because He reproved them. This is how it always have been. Truth has always been repressed, persecute or denied by bad will liars who want to continue living in their sins and in their heresies. Most if not all all saints have met with opposition, so has it always been, and so will it always be, since most people are not of God, most are sadly damned.
Catholics must understand that few are saved. Our Lord Jesus Christ revealed that the road to Heaven is straight and narrow and few find it, while the road to Hell is wide and taken by most (Mt. 7:13).
You are WAY incorrect here. The SSPX does not grant salvation to people who reject Jesus Christ. Do some research.
Oh really?
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”[dclxxiv]
[dclxxiii] Brother Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, pp. 213-214.
That's not what ABL meant. He did not mean that practicing their religion saved them. He apparently meant that through the practice of their religion they eventually are given the grace of Our Lord to know false religions are wrong. Do you really think a Traditional Catholic archbishop would think that people can be saved by practicing other religions? Seriously, think before you type.
We are to judge him for what he said, not for what he did not say. He clearly said that Muslims can be Saved IN THEIR OWN RELIGION! That is heresy, plain an simple!
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”
HERESY!
St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”
Bishop Fellay of the SSPX rejects Catholic dogma by teaching that Hindus can be saved
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in Heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to Heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
IF SSPX REALLY DID NOT BELIEVE PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH COULD BE SAVED THEY WOULD EXCOMMUNICATE APOSTATES LIKE "Bishop" Bernard Fellay.
But they don't do that, for they all believe in the same heresy, that souls can be saved outside the Catholic Faith/Church. Tell me one SSPX priest who do not believe that Jews, Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, Hinduists, etc, can be saved without belief in Jesus Christ, tell me one who does not believe in the heresy of salvation outside the Church, and he is the first I've heard of within SSPX who don't believe in it... and that's a fact!
-
But anyway, since we know all the saints only applied baptism of desire and blood to catechumens, we know that they believed that a person at least had to believe in the Catholic Faith, The Trinity, and Incarnation.
So, you are admitting that there IS such a thing as BOD/BOB, even if only for catechumens?
-
Could the pro BOD crowd consider this and reply ....
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it
The pro-BOD argument says that the "or" in that line means that the effects of baptism CAN take place with only desire. But you just admited that by only administering water baptism without the desire does not bring about the effects of the sacrament.
If I set up a conditional statement where I say "A or B" in the conditions part of the statement, doesn't it mean that the same statement can be restated putting B or A in that portion and the word "or" makes them just as mutually exclusive? In other words if the word "or" makes desire stand alone in the necessity to fulfill the first part of the statment, why then would the physical action of Baptism require the condition that comes after the word "or"?
-
I already explained my position. Yes, I believe that the One and Triune God could save someone without Baptism; however, he never does. Why He chose Water Baptism, I do not know, but that is the path that He chose. It is the second birth, and like the first birth, it is something that must happen before anyone can attain everlasting life. Just as "individuals" who are never conceived never born, so are individuals never baptized never able to enter eternal life.
No, your position is incompatible with Catholic dogma, and you must not obstinately uphold such a position when you know it contradict what God has defined.
God does neither lie, but your position, unfortunately, turns God into a liar, since you claim His words are not true in the sense He has declared them.
Dogma is unchangeable. Dogma is God's eternal law, from his eternal justice. If God has declared that no one can be Saved without baptism (and you claim you believe in it), yet claim that He somehow could save someone without it, despite the fact that He has declared that it is impossible, is probably, unfortunately for you, a heresy.
What you are saying could be likened to say that God could save someone without the Catholic Faith, but that he never does it... Would it be right to have such a position, contradicting what he has infallibly defined through his Popes? Of course not, it would be heresy to claim so. Similarly, is the position you hold.
Take the following as an example of this.
God wishes everyone to be Saved. But even though he wishes everyone to be saved, he couldn't save everyone, even though he wished.
But you are saying just the opposite. For you are saying that He could save everyone, but that he does not do it. But Jehanne, if He could do it, but does not do it, would he then not be evil if he did not save everyone?
You see, Jehanne, God cannot save everyone, even though he wished too, because it is in mans will for him to save himself with the help of God's grace.
So, God cannot save anyone without baptism, just as much as he cannot save every person that has ever lived. For there is justice also that has it's part, and God can never go against his justice, just as God could never do any evil. If God cannot do evil, then can God not do everything, that is, he cannot do that wish does not belong to Him (injustice and evil). His justice demands all to be baptized, therefore, cannot He save someone without baptism, it's just that simple.
I hope I am not saying anything wrong here now, I am of course giving my self over to the correction of the Church if it turns out I have erred on my points somehow.
But I think I have made the points clear, Jehanne. You cannot keep holding to such a position as you do, when you know that His infallible dogmas tells you that it can never happen.
-
But anyway, since we know all the saints only applied baptism of desire and blood to catechumens, we know that they believed that a person at least had to believe in the Catholic Faith, The Trinity, and Incarnation.
So, you are admitting that there IS such a thing as BOD/BOB, even if only for catechumens?
No, bod/bob does not exist in the sense that it saves someone without actually receiving water baptism.
But that people have believed in it, is another thing, and a material heresy, so long as they only applied it to catechumens, or to people who believed in Jesus Christ and the Trinity.
-
Hietanen, ABL was not a heretic, if not for him most if not all of the TLM would not exist. As for his quote, there is some truth to it. A Protestant can be saved if they had every intention of pleasing God and did not know the Catholic faith was the true religion. They'd likely have to go to Purgatory first, but they aren't automatically condemned. As for hinduists, I feel that it is impossible for them to be in a state of grace. But this is Bishop Fellay, who does not think the exact way ABL did. I know that LeFebvre would never say a hinduist can be in a state of grace. But so far neither you nor umblehay anmay have presented any concrete evidence that ABL believed buddhists and hinduists could be saved without conversion.
-
I already explained my position. Yes, I believe that the One and Triune God could save someone without Baptism; however, he never does. Why He chose Water Baptism, I do not know, but that is the path that He chose. It is the second birth, and like the first birth, it is something that must happen before anyone can attain everlasting life. Just as "individuals" who are never conceived never born, so are individuals never baptized never able to enter eternal life.
No, your position is incompatible with Catholic dogma, and you must not obstinately uphold such a position when you know it contradict what God has defined.
God does neither lie, but your position, unfortunately, turns God into a liar, since you claim His words are not true in the sense He has declared them.
Dogma is unchangeable. Dogma is God's eternal law, from his eternal justice. If God has declared that no one can be Saved without baptism (and you claim you believe in it), yet claim that He somehow could save someone without it, despite the fact that He has declared that it is impossible, is probably, unfortunately for you, a heresy.
What you are saying could be likened to say that God could save someone without the Catholic Faith, but that he never does it... Would it be right to have such a position, contradicting what he has infallibly defined through his Popes? Of course not, it would be heresy to claim so. Similarly, is the position you hold.
Take the following as an example of this.
God wishes everyone to be Saved. But even though he wishes everyone to be saved, he couldn't save everyone, even though he wished.
But you are saying just the opposite. For you are saying that He could save everyone, but that he does not do it. But Jehanne, if He could do it, but does not do it, would he then not be evil if he did not save everyone?
You see, Jehanne, God cannot save everyone, even though he wished too, because it is in mans will for him to save himself with the help of God's grace.
So, God cannot save anyone without baptism, just as much as he cannot save every person that has ever lived. For there is justice also that has it's part, and God can never go against his justice, just as God could never do any evil. If God cannot do evil, then can God not do everything, that is, he cannot do that wish does not belong to Him (injustice and evil). His justice demands all to be baptized, therefore, cannot He save someone without baptism, it's just that simple.
I hope I am not saying anything wrong here now, I am of course giving my self over to the correction of the Church if it turns out I have erred on my points somehow.
But I think I have made the points clear, Jehanne. You cannot keep holding to such a position as you do, when you know that His infallible dogmas tells you that it can never happen.
I do not believe that the One and Triune God, from infinity past, was bound to chose sacramental Baptism in Water as the only means of salvation. He could have chosen another method had He wished to, but since He chose sacramental Baptism and since He has commanded everyone to be baptized and since He does not command the impossible, we, in my opinion, have no choice but to conclude that God will bring sacramental Baptism to whomever is worthy of it.
-
Hietanen, ABL was not a heretic, if not for him most if not all of the TLM would not exist. As for his quote, there is some truth to it. A Protestant can be saved if they had every intention of pleasing God and did not know the Catholic faith was the true religion. They'd likely have to go to Purgatory first, but they aren't automatically condemned. As for hinduists, I feel that it is impossible for them to be in a state of grace. But this is Bishop Fellay, who does not think the exact way ABL did. I know that LeFebvre would never say a hinduist can be in a state of grace. But so far neither you nor umblehay anmay have presented any concrete evidence that ABL believed buddhists and hinduists could be saved without conversion.
First. Just because Marcel Lefebvre did something good, does not exonerate him if he was a heretic. Just because a murderer did something good before murdering a child, does not make him good, etc. Marcel Lefebvre is murdering souls through teaching heresy which is far worse then murdering children. And this same heresy is embraced by all SSPX "Priests" and "Bishops". Honestly, do you know of any clergy in the sspx that does not believe this heresy?
A protestant could only be saved if he didn't believe in any of the protestant heresies, but then he wouldn't be a protestant at all, but a Catholic, in a protestant church building.
When an infant protestant Child is baptized, he is Catholic. This child remain Catholic until the day he either rejects the Catholic Faith or embrace some protestant heresy.
By the way. Marcel Lefebvre did not grant salvation to protestants only, but even to faiths that reject Jesus Christ. Therefore, your argument is not working. For the protestant believes in the Trinity and Incarnation, Muslims and Buddhists do not.
Therefore, what Marcel Lefebvre said was heretical
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”
WE MUST JUDGE HIM FOR WHAT HE SAID. NOT FOR WHAT HE DID NOT SAY! IT'S JUST THAT PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”
-
I already explained my position. Yes, I believe that the One and Triune God could save someone without Baptism; however, he never does. Why He chose Water Baptism, I do not know, but that is the path that He chose. It is the second birth, and like the first birth, it is something that must happen before anyone can attain everlasting life. Just as "individuals" who are never conceived never born, so are individuals never baptized never able to enter eternal life.
No, your position is incompatible with Catholic dogma, and you must not obstinately uphold such a position when you know it contradict what God has defined.
God does neither lie, but your position, unfortunately, turns God into a liar, since you claim His words are not true in the sense He has declared them.
Dogma is unchangeable. Dogma is God's eternal law, from his eternal justice. If God has declared that no one can be Saved without baptism (and you claim you believe in it), yet claim that He somehow could save someone without it, despite the fact that He has declared that it is impossible, is probably, unfortunately for you, a heresy.
What you are saying could be likened to say that God could save someone without the Catholic Faith, but that he never does it... Would it be right to have such a position, contradicting what he has infallibly defined through his Popes? Of course not, it would be heresy to claim so. Similarly, is the position you hold.
Take the following as an example of this.
God wishes everyone to be Saved. But even though he wishes everyone to be saved, he couldn't save everyone, even though he wished.
But you are saying just the opposite. For you are saying that He could save everyone, but that he does not do it. But Jehanne, if He could do it, but does not do it, would he then not be evil if he did not save everyone?
You see, Jehanne, God cannot save everyone, even though he wished too, because it is in mans will for him to save himself with the help of God's grace.
So, God cannot save anyone without baptism, just as much as he cannot save every person that has ever lived. For there is justice also that has it's part, and God can never go against his justice, just as God could never do any evil. If God cannot do evil, then can God not do everything, that is, he cannot do that wish does not belong to Him (injustice and evil). His justice demands all to be baptized, therefore, cannot He save someone without baptism, it's just that simple.
I hope I am not saying anything wrong here now, I am of course giving my self over to the correction of the Church if it turns out I have erred on my points somehow.
But I think I have made the points clear, Jehanne. You cannot keep holding to such a position as you do, when you know that His infallible dogmas tells you that it can never happen.
I do not believe that the One and Triune God, from infinity past, was bound to chose sacramental Baptism in Water as the only means of salvation. He could have chosen another method had He wished to, but since He chose sacramental Baptism and since He has commanded everyone to be baptized and since He does not command the impossible, we, in my opinion, have no choice but to conclude that God will bring sacramental Baptism to whomever is worthy of it.
You are unfortunately presuming things about God that you cannot possibly have any knowledge of.
How do you now he wasn't bound to choose the element of water? You know, God cursed everything except for the water after the fall of Adam and Eve. You shouldn't presume things which you cannot have any idea about.
Besides, the water mixed with the blood of Christ, when used the right wording, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and the Holy Spirit, cleanses the soul from original sin. So this was an eternal plan from God from the very beginning. To save souls through water. But you contradict this.
It would have been easier for you to just have accepted what I was telling you. But you go on to obstinately hold on to your erroneous position. This is what constitute heresy, sadly, OBSTINACY. So long as you remain obstinate, so long do you remain a heretic. For you have had the true position presented to you, and rejected it.
Yes, you value your own opinions and what you deem to be the truth, more then what God has declared through His Popes to be true. This is an abominable heresy of pride.
No one can be saved without baptism of water, and God cannot lie or contradict Himself regarding what He has said to be infallibly true. Therefore, God CANNOT save anyone in another way except through water baptism (by you deny this, by claiming He could do it, but that He never actually do it).
So until you admit that you are wrong, and retract your heresy, you will not be Saved.
-
I think that you are imposing your will upon the will of the One and Triune God. Are you saying that God had no other choice but to choose water? What is water, though? It is a molecule, composed of one atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen, which occurs in its liquid form under 1 bar of atmospheric pressure between 0 C to 100 C. Now, who created those physical laws and the matter and energy under which they operate? Are you saying that God had to create hydrogen with the atomic and physical properties that it possesses? Are you saying that He had to create this Universe and no other??
This is absurd.
-
I think that you are imposing your will upon the will of the One and Triune God.
Yes he is.
This is absurd.
Yes it is.
That is why I have been hammering him, although he is too blind to grasp what has happened.
-
But that people have believed in it, is another thing, and a material heresy, so long as they only applied it to catechumens, or to people who believed in Jesus Christ and the Trinity.
So, without explicit (or even implicit) proof that I do more, you have repeatedly declared me an obstinate heretic?
You are a bad-willed, block-headed son of a b*tch, and everyone here can see that is true.
FWIW, the ONLY excuse for a material heretic is IGNORANCE. Again, you MUST claim two of the most learned men in the history of the world were IGNORANT of the most BASIC teachings of Holy Church -- which is UTTER NONSENSE -- or they are now burning in hell.
-
You shouldn't presume things which you cannot have any idea about...
That is rich...supremely rich.
-
I think that you are imposing your will upon the will of the One and Triune God.
Yes he is.
This is absurd.
Yes it is.
That is why I have been hammering him, although he is too blind to grasp what has happened.
Unfortunately it's been a nerf hammer.
-
Could the pro BOD crowd consider this and reply ....
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it
The pro-BOD argument says that the "or" in that line means that the effects of baptism CAN take place with only desire. But you just admited that by only administering water baptism without the desire does not bring about the effects of the sacrament.
If I set up a conditional statement where I say "A or B" in the conditions part of the statement, doesn't it mean that the same statement can be restated putting B or A in that portion and the word "or" makes them just as mutually exclusive? In other words if the word "or" makes desire stand alone in the necessity to fulfill the first part of the statment, why then would the physical action of Baptism require the condition that comes after the word "or"?
I sure would like someone to address the actual point being made here or If I havent been clear enough about it, converse with me so I can explain it.
Hietanen can you please quit the constant lobbing of the heretic bomb? It's really NOT helping to get people to actually THINK about the points being made.
-
Hietanen, ABL was not a heretic, if not for him most if not all of the TLM would not exist. As for his quote, there is some truth to it. A Protestant can be saved if they had every intention of pleasing God and did not know the Catholic faith was the true religion. They'd likely have to go to Purgatory first, but they aren't automatically condemned. As for hinduists, I feel that it is impossible for them to be in a state of grace. But this is Bishop Fellay, who does not think the exact way ABL did. I know that LeFebvre would never say a hinduist can be in a state of grace. But so far neither you nor umblehay anmay have presented any concrete evidence that ABL believed buddhists and hinduists could be saved without conversion.
First. Just because Marcel Lefebvre did something good, does not exonerate him if he was a heretic. Just because a murderer did something good before murdering a child, does not make him good, etc. Marcel Lefebvre is murdering souls through teaching heresy which is far worse then murdering children. And this same heresy is embraced by all SSPX "Priests" and "Bishops". Honestly, do you know of any clergy in the sspx that does not believe this heresy?
A protestant could only be saved if he didn't believe in any of the protestant heresies, but then he wouldn't be a protestant at all, but a Catholic, in a protestant church building.
When an infant protestant Child is baptized, he is Catholic. This child remain Catholic until the day he either rejects the Catholic Faith or embrace some protestant heresy.
By the way. Marcel Lefebvre did not grant salvation to protestants only, but even to faiths that reject Jesus Christ. Therefore, your argument is not working. For the protestant believes in the Trinity and Incarnation, Muslims and Buddhists do not.
Therefore, what Marcel Lefebvre said was heretical
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”
WE MUST JUDGE HIM FOR WHAT HE SAID. NOT FOR WHAT HE DID NOT SAY! IT'S JUST THAT PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”
Why should I believe this post coming from a person who acts as if nearly everything is a mortal sin? To you, it's darn-near impossible for a person to go even one day without committing a mortal sin. You are also taking ABL's words out of context. And, how could ABL have murdered souls if he helped save the Mass of All-Times? I assume you go to a TLM, so the next time you go to Mass remember that if not for him you almost certainly would not be in those pews on Sunday.
-
But that people have believed in it, is another thing, and a material heresy, so long as they only applied it to catechumens, or to people who believed in Jesus Christ and the Trinity.
You are a bad-willed, block-headed son of a b*tch, and everyone here can see that is true.
Remember that cussing offends Our Lord and is unnecessary. I understand that it is easy to lose your temper when dealing with extremists like this, but don't let them get the best of you GV.
God Bless.
-
Unfortunately it's been a nerf hammer.
It is not my problem that some cannot properly ascertain the density of the hammer. It is a solid as a rock, which is why neither you nor he has touched it.
-
Remember that cussing offends Our Lord and is unnecessary. I understand that it is easy to lose your temper when dealing with extremists like this, but don't let them get the best of you GV.
Agreed. Thank you.
-
But you just admited that by only administering water baptism without the desire does not bring about the effects of the sacrament.
If I go through the physical act of being baptized, but expressly refuse to receive the grace of the sacrament, what do you think happens?
If I go through the physical act of receiving Holy Communion, but am in mortal sin and refuse to confess, what do you think happens?
You want to make more out of a quickly-offered remark than it really means. That is your problem, not mine. Good night.
-
E.... do you agree with this portion of what Jehanne said above?....
"....After all, if you are baptized against your will and don't even believe in it, you are not saved, even though you had been validly baptized. So, in order to be saved, you must desire Baptism....."
E, this was the original question posed by Jehanne. You will notice, it deals with baptizing someone against their will. Someone who has NO desire. According to the way pro BOD'ers interpret that line from Trent, the person who was Baptised is still saved. I'm asking a simple question; is that the way the Church views the baptism of someone who would not have wanted it or doesn't believe in Jesus Christ. Let's say it was a Jew who had fallen asleep and I secretly baptised him as he slept. And suppose he died from natural causes before waking up. Would that baptism have been enough to save him?
-
umblehay anmay said:
According to the way pro BOD'ers interpret that line from Trent, the person who was Baptised is still saved.
The line from Trent, I assume you mean the one that says we must have either the laver of regeneration or the desire for it?
You're saying that this means that, according to the BoD crowd -- i.e. the Catholic Church -- someone who has the laver of regeneration is automatically saved according to this passage, even if he's baptized against his will?
How about Christ saying "Call no man father." Does that mean, to you, that we shouldn't call priests "Father"? How about our own fathers? Since we're interpreting things with obstinate literal-mindedness, why don't we start calling them "Veronica." Otherwise we might run afoul of Jesus.
When you read something, you have to want to understand the sense of it. Trent only follows all the theologians who taught baptism of desire.
-
When you read something, you have to want to understand the sense of it. Trent only follows all the theologians who taught baptism of desire.
Yes, and that teaching is in the Roman Catechism:
Roman Catechism -- Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
"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.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation..."
Now, Father Feeney,
Bread of Life -- page 56
"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."
We must all at least acknowledge the possibility of Father Feeney being correct:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: "... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. 'FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES,' but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do."
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: "EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures."
-
umblehay anmay said:
According to the way pro BOD'ers interpret that line from Trent, the person who was Baptised is still saved.
The line from Trent, I assume you mean the one that says we must have either the laver of regeneration or the desire for it?
You're saying that this means that, according to the BoD crowd -- i.e. the Catholic Church -- someone who has the laver of regeneration is automatically saved according to this passage, even if he's baptized against his will?
How about Christ saying "Call no man father." Does that mean, to you, that we shouldn't call priests "Father"? How about our own fathers? Since we're interpreting things with obstinate literal-mindedness, why don't we start calling them "Veronica." Otherwise we might run afoul of Jesus.
When you read something, you have to want to understand the sense of it. Trent only follows all the theologians who taught baptism of desire.
Well there's a dose of honesty. You make it blatently clear that you think that an infallible Council "follows" the theologians. NO, it's the other way around. the Ex Cathedra statements from POPES... the Chair of St. Peter... the revealed faith and are to be followed by the Theologians and even the Doctors of the Church!
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”[xiii]
They are NOT subject to the "interpretations" of Theologians...
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”[xviii]
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned[xix]
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
“The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned[xx]
-
I think that you are imposing your will upon the will of the One and Triune God. Are you saying that God had no other choice but to choose water? What is water, though? It is a molecule, composed of one atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen, which occurs in its liquid form under 1 bar of atmospheric pressure between 0 C to 100 C. Now, who created those physical laws and the matter and energy under which they operate? Are you saying that God had to create hydrogen with the atomic and physical properties that it possesses? Are you saying that He had to create this Universe and no other??
This is absurd.
No Jehanne, I am following His dogmas, and take them literally for what it says. No one can be Saved without water, that is what He says, then am I obliged to believe that. For according to His infinite justice, can he not save anyone except through water, it is the water through the merit of Christ blood that cleanse of from original sin. You seem to deny this though, sadly. For you say he could save someone without water baptism applied to the merit of Christ blood - but that he does not do it.
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 by propagation, 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[/b]: 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."
You grant salvation outside of the sacramental baptism, for you say that it is possible, although that it never happens. Tell me, Jehanne, why do you obstinately want to contradict dogma? Obstinacy is what makes a person a heretic. Do you want to be a heretic and condemned? Do you not care about eternity?
-
Hietanen, ABL was not a heretic, if not for him most if not all of the TLM would not exist. As for his quote, there is some truth to it. A Protestant can be saved if they had every intention of pleasing God and did not know the Catholic faith was the true religion. They'd likely have to go to Purgatory first, but they aren't automatically condemned. As for hinduists, I feel that it is impossible for them to be in a state of grace. But this is Bishop Fellay, who does not think the exact way ABL did. I know that LeFebvre would never say a hinduist can be in a state of grace. But so far neither you nor umblehay anmay have presented any concrete evidence that ABL believed buddhists and hinduists could be saved without conversion.
First. Just because Marcel Lefebvre did something good, does not exonerate him if he was a heretic. Just because a murderer did something good before murdering a child, does not make him good, etc. Marcel Lefebvre is murdering souls through teaching heresy which is far worse then murdering children. And this same heresy is embraced by all SSPX "Priests" and "Bishops". Honestly, do you know of any clergy in the sspx that does not believe this heresy?
A protestant could only be saved if he didn't believe in any of the protestant heresies, but then he wouldn't be a protestant at all, but a Catholic, in a protestant church building.
When an infant protestant Child is baptized, he is Catholic. This child remain Catholic until the day he either rejects the Catholic Faith or embrace some protestant heresy.
By the way. Marcel Lefebvre did not grant salvation to protestants only, but even to faiths that reject Jesus Christ. Therefore, your argument is not working. For the protestant believes in the Trinity and Incarnation, Muslims and Buddhists do not.
Therefore, what Marcel Lefebvre said was heretical
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”
WE MUST JUDGE HIM FOR WHAT HE SAID. NOT FOR WHAT HE DID NOT SAY! IT'S JUST THAT PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”
Why should I believe this post coming from a person who acts as if nearly everything is a mortal sin? To you, it's darn-near impossible for a person to go even one day without committing a mortal sin. You are also taking ABL's words out of context. And, how could ABL have murdered souls if he helped save the Mass of All-Times? I assume you go to a TLM, so the next time you go to Mass remember that if not for him you almost certainly would not be in those pews on Sunday.
Many things today is a mortal sin, and that's a fact.
To you question, why I am acting as if almost everything is a mortal sin (which I don't hold by the way, only things which is sinful do I consider sinful) but anyway, I could reply by saying: Why do you act as if not FEW ARE SAVED? Most people are damned, most people are mortal sinners, most people will be condemned!
If you want to learn about mortal sin, read this file:
Spiritual Information You Must Know About to be Saved (http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/)
When I go to a traditional non-heretical Mass I will not thank a heretic for that, but God, who instituted the traditional Latin mass through his Popes.
A heretic is a heretic, however much good he still seems do to. Mother Theresa seems to have been "good", but in reality, she was just an evil apostate of the Vatican II sect that have murder countless of souls by her Christ rejecting heresies.
Without the real faith, no one can truly be good. It's just that simple. For God looks upon no heretic as good, but as evil and bad, which is why all heretics will be damned unless they convert.
-
I think that you are imposing your will upon the will of the One and Triune God. Are you saying that God had no other choice but to choose water? What is water, though? It is a molecule, composed of one atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen, which occurs in its liquid form under 1 bar of atmospheric pressure between 0 C to 100 C. Now, who created those physical laws and the matter and energy under which they operate? Are you saying that God had to create hydrogen with the atomic and physical properties that it possesses? Are you saying that He had to create this Universe and no other??
This is absurd.
No Jehanne, I am following His dogmas, and take them literally for what it says. No one can be Saved without water, that is what He says, then am I obliged to believe that. For according to His infinite justice, can he not save anyone except through water, it is the water through the merit of Christ blood that cleanse of from original sin. You seem to deny this though, sadly. For you say he could save someone without water baptism applied to the merit of Christ blood - but that he does not do it.
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 by propagation, 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[/b]: 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."
You grant salvation outside of the sacramental baptism, for you say that it is possible, although that it never happens. Tell me, Jehanne, why do you obstinately want to contradict dogma? Obstinacy is what makes a person a heretic. Do you want to be a heretic and condemned? Do you not care about eternity?
There is no reason to believe that the One and Triune God was bound to use liquid water. He could have used liquid hydrogen and simply have created life to exist under those circuмstances. After all, He can do anything, can't He? Of course, by "anything" I mean anything consistent with God's nature, and I do not believe that "liquid water" as opposed to "liquid oxygen" is somehow 'more special'. It's just what God chose to use.
-
umblehay anmay said:
According to the way pro BOD'ers interpret that line from Trent, the person who was Baptised is still saved.
The line from Trent, I assume you mean the one that says we must have either the laver of regeneration or the desire for it?
You're saying that this means that, according to the BoD crowd -- i.e. the Catholic Church -- someone who has the laver of regeneration is automatically saved according to this passage, even if he's baptized against his will?
How about Christ saying "Call no man father." Does that mean, to you, that we shouldn't call priests "Father"? How about our own fathers? Since we're interpreting things with obstinate literal-mindedness, why don't we start calling them "Veronica." Otherwise we might run afoul of Jesus.
When you read something, you have to want to understand the sense of it. Trent only follows all the theologians who taught baptism of desire.
No, Raul, the Council of Trent only said that both a desire for baptism and to actually receive the baptism of water both are necessary for adults for salvation.
Dogma cannot contradict dogma, and I have already proved by the way that the Council of Trent didn't teach a baptism of desire apart from water baptism for salvation.
I have also showed many dogmas condemning the idea of being saved without water baptism. So only someone who is a heretic and destined for Hell could deny these dogmas:
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “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.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 : “Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration.”
-
I think that you are imposing your will upon the will of the One and Triune God. Are you saying that God had no other choice but to choose water? What is water, though? It is a molecule, composed of one atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen, which occurs in its liquid form under 1 bar of atmospheric pressure between 0 C to 100 C. Now, who created those physical laws and the matter and energy under which they operate? Are you saying that God had to create hydrogen with the atomic and physical properties that it possesses? Are you saying that He had to create this Universe and no other??
This is absurd.
No Jehanne, I am following His dogmas, and take them literally for what it says. No one can be Saved without water, that is what He says, then am I obliged to believe that. For according to His infinite justice, can he not save anyone except through water, it is the water through the merit of Christ blood that cleanse of from original sin. You seem to deny this though, sadly. For you say he could save someone without water baptism applied to the merit of Christ blood - but that he does not do it.
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 by propagation, 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[/b]: 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."
You grant salvation outside of the sacramental baptism, for you say that it is possible, although that it never happens. Tell me, Jehanne, why do you obstinately want to contradict dogma? Obstinacy is what makes a person a heretic. Do you want to be a heretic and condemned? Do you not care about eternity?
There is no reason to believe that the One and Triune God was bound to use liquid water. He could have used liquid hydrogen and simply have created life to exist under those circuмstances. After all, He can do anything, can't He? Of course, by "anything" I mean anything consistent with God's nature, and I do not believe that "liquid water" as opposed to "liquid oxygen" is somehow 'more special'. It's just what God chose to use.
Maybe you could have a point on that. I don't know, and I wouldn't want to presume on what God could or could not to according to His justice. So, it's dangerous to presume as you do on what God could or could not do, when you don't know.
But the problem with what you are saying is not first and foremost that He could possibly have chosen another element for baptism, the problem is that you claim that He could save someone without baptism at all, even though he has declared that it cannot happen.
If he would have chosen another element than water, and if He then would have decreed through His Popes that no one could be Saved at all except through baptism by that Element, then would it be likewise true, that no one could be Saved at all except through baptism in that element.
For God does not lie, and when God declares that no one is Saved except through it, then it means what it says.
Therefore, it is heresy for you to say that He could do something, when He has already infallibly declared that it cannot happen. That is what you must understand, and realize, and accept. For what you are saying, is contradicting what God has infallibly defined.
-
E.... do you agree with this portion of what Jehanne said above?....
"....After all, if you are baptized against your will and don't even believe in it, you are not saved, even though you had been validly baptized. So, in order to be saved, you must desire Baptism....."
E, this was the original question posed by Jehanne. You will notice, it deals with baptizing someone against their will. Someone who has NO desire. According to the way pro BOD'ers interpret that line from Trent, the person who was Baptised is still saved. I'm asking a simple question; is that the way the Church views the baptism of someone who would not have wanted it or doesn't believe in Jesus Christ. Let's say it was a Jew who had fallen asleep and I secretly baptised him as he slept. And suppose he died from natural causes before waking up. Would that baptism have been enough to save him?
No it would not save him. For an adult also needs to express belief in the Trinity and Incarnation to be Saved.
For example. If a pagan or infidel is on his deathbed, and if that person at the moments before death received faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, and if he was baptized into the Church, and died afterwards, he would go immediately to Heaven since baptism removes all mortal and venial sins along with original sin.
-
Therefore, it is heresy for you to say that He could do something, when He has already infallibly declared that it cannot happen. That is what you must understand, and realize, and accept. For what you are saying, is contradicting what God has infallibly defined.
I have never claimed that. I believe and profess that when Baptism became obligatory at Pentecost that everyone is bound to receive that Sacrament, in Water, by the command of the One and Triune God, and since God does not command the impossible (and with Him, nothing is impossible), everyone who finds his or her way to Heaven will have ended his or her life having received, at some time in their life, sacramental Baptism, even if they are unaware of that fact.
-
Therefore, it is heresy for you to say that He could do something, when He has already infallibly declared that it cannot happen. That is what you must understand, and realize, and accept. For what you are saying, is contradicting what God has infallibly defined.
I have never claimed that.
I already explained my position. Yes, I believe that the One and Triune God could save someone without Baptism; however, he never does.
As we can see above, it seems you claimed exactly that. Maybe I have misunderstood something, or you have changes position? Or, how is it?
I believe and profess that when Baptism became obligatory at Pentecost that everyone is bound to receive that Sacrament, in Water, by the command of the One and Triune God, and since God does not command the impossible (and with Him, nothing is impossible), everyone who finds his or her way to Heaven will have ended his or her life having received, at some time in their life, sacramental Baptism, even if they are unaware of that fact.
I am glad to hear that.
-
Therefore, it is heresy for you to say that He could do something, when He has already infallibly declared that it cannot happen. That is what you must understand, and realize, and accept. For what you are saying, is contradicting what God has infallibly defined.
I have never claimed that.
I already explained my position. Yes, I believe that the One and Triune God could save someone without Baptism; however, he never does.
As we can see above, it seems you claimed exactly that. Maybe I have misunderstood something, or you have changes position? Or, how is it?
By that, I meant the One and Triune God, in infinity past, chose Baptism of Water. He could have chosen another method, or at least, certainly, another element. So, yes, He is not bounded by His Sacraments, but He is bounded by His Word and His Commandments, for God is not the author of lies. Since He has commanded us all to be Baptized in Water and since He does not command impossibilities, all must be baptized in water.
-
Two things, Heitanen.
1.- Can you prove Archbishop LeFebvre was a heretic? Um, no you can't, and neither can your back-up umblehay anmay. The man did in fact realize that few souls make it to Heaven. All he said was that it was not impossible for a Protestant to go to Heaven. You took his words out of context. And you say that he didn't have the real faith. He was against the Novus Ordo, wasn't he? He said the NO was a poison to other souls, and he would only say the Traditional Latin Mass. So your statement about him not having the real faith is incorrect.
2.- Do you believe a person ever goes a day without committing a mortal sin? Or better yet, do you believe that you EVER sin? You kind of remind me of the Diamond Brothers. You're quick to point out when anyone is in mortal sin (even if that person is not in mortal sin) yet at the same time act as if though you are the only one who is saved. And other than umblehay anmay, I have not seen you agree with any other users here on CatholicInfo. Having a "holier than thou" attitude isn't the best attitude to have. Take my word for it.
-
Two things, Heitanen.
1.- Can you prove Archbishop LeFebvre was a heretic? Um, no you can't, and neither can your back-up umblehay anmay. The man did in fact realize that few souls make it to Heaven. All he said was that it was not impossible for a Protestant to go to Heaven. You took his words out of context. And you say that he didn't have the real faith. He was against the Novus Ordo, wasn't he? He said the NO was a poison to other souls, and he would only say the Traditional Latin Mass. So your statement about him not having the real faith is incorrect.
You are simply not honest with what you are saying. Marcel Lefebvre did not only mention protestants, as you say, but Muslims and Buddhist aslo:
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”
Therefore, what he said was heretical, for Muslims and Buddhists does not even acknowledge or believe in Jesus Christ or the Trinity, and neither are they baptized.
Again, just because he did something good, can his heresies not be excused. You will in fact be condemned if you obstinately defend a heretic. It's just that simple.
2.- Do you believe a person ever goes a day without committing a mortal sin? Or better yet, do you believe that you EVER sin? You kind of remind me of the Diamond Brothers. You're quick to point out when anyone is in mortal sin (even if that person is not in mortal sin) yet at the same time act as if though you are the only one who is saved. And other than umblehay anmay, I have not seen you agree with any other users here on CatholicInfo. Having a "holier than thou" attitude isn't the best attitude to have. Take my word for it.
Yes I believe many people throughout history have gone days and even months or years without committing mortal sin. Some saints never even committed a mortal sin throughout their whole life!
But today, however, there are few who does not commit mortal sin daily. And that is the reason for us living in the last days and in the great apostasy. If people wouldn't be sinners, God wouldn't have abandoned us as we deserved.
You asked if I ever sin? If you knew the kind of sins I have committed throughout my life, you would be horrified. I have committed many mortal sins, and still now falls into other mortal sins, not too long ago, that of impurity. Other grave sins I have problem with is pride, presumption, judging others (falsely), and slandering people by granting to them words or opinions that they never had or thought, and, the sin of being of weak in Faith.
Just because I am condemning sin and defend dogma, does not mean I am saved, or that I am sinless.
Let me tell you from experience how people can come to such a false conclusion as you did. When I was in state of grave sin, and when I didn't want to stop with sin, then did I think (fooled as I was by the Devil) that everyone else also lived in deliberate mortal and venial sin, and that everyone wanted to live in sin. Because, if I did it, why would not everyone else? This is how sinners are deceived.
But when someone finally tells them to stop sin and condemns sin, then they might presume (since they themselves don't condemn sin), and because they believe everyone else also is a sinner, that the person then condemning them, must think of himself to be sinless.
No, that is far from the truth. The only reason I condemn sin, is because I don't excuse the sin. It has nothing to do with that I am sinless, or that I think I am saved. For God knows, how I think daily that I am deceived and maybe condemned.
-
Other grave sins I have problem with is pride, presumption, judging others (falsely), and slandering people by granting to them words or opinions that they never had or thought, and, the sin of being of weak in Faith.
So, why not take a more moderate (i.e., calm, gentle, etc.) approach when dealing with others?
You have much that is good to say and share, but your manner is that of a damn fool. Dial it down a notch or ten, and you might get somewhere...
-
I agree with GV. You are taking a rather aggressive approach. One thing I liked about Archbishop Lefebvre is that in spite of the overwhelming amount of persecution he received, he remained so gentle. Firm, yet gentle. I think if you had more of a firm yet gentle approach you'd be more convincing. Another bit of advice: Yes we have to be careful about mortal sin, but you've gone to a bit of an extreme over avoiding it. If we used your logic, practically all of us would be condemned, and there would be no point in living if we had a 0% chance of making it to Heaven unless we were a Padre Pio or a Pius X. Yes the chances of salvation are rather slim but they are not as low as you think. So as GV said, try toning it down a bit.
-
Wheew, I just finished reading this whole thread and want to say:
LOL to the bickering, insults and criticizing. A good comical read!
As for the whole EENS discussion, it's obvious that neither side is going to budge.
Seems we can understand why both sides choose to believe what they do, but until BOB/BOD get defined as dogma or error, this debate will never end. Perhaps EENS should be redefined once a year or something but for now, per defined dogma, the common interpretation of BOB/BOD is error - and obviously so.
-
Wheew, I just finished reading this whole thread and want to say:
LOL to the bickering, insults and criticizing. A good comical read!
As for the whole EENS discussion, it's obvious that neither side is going to budge.
Seems we can understand why both sides choose to believe what they do, but until BOB/BOD get defined as dogma or error, this debate will never end. Perhaps EENS should be redefined once a year or something but for now, per defined dogma, the common interpretation of BOB/BOD is error - and obviously so.
FYI, BOB and BOD have never been defined by the church. The church has always taught them since earliest times.
St Ementriana was martyered while a catechumen. She was declared a saint by the Church. There have been other martyr catechumens.
Guess she must have had BOD and she did shed her blood for the faith, while waiting for water baptism. Another mixed up uninformed kid on here!
In order to understand the faith, we must look at what the Church has always taught. Its called the Deposit of Faith. The Church teaches BOB and BOD. It was the Feeney and the Diamonds who have refuted the beliefs.
-
FYI, BOB and BOD have never been defined by the church. The church has always taught them since earliest times.
St Ementriana was martyered while a catechumen. She was declared a saint by the Church. There have been other martyr catechumens.
Guess she must have had BOD and she did shed her blood for the faith, while waiting for water baptism. Another mixed up uninformed kid on here!
In order to understand the faith, we must look at what the Church has always taught. Its called the Deposit of Faith. The Church teaches BOB and BOD. It was the Feeney and the Diamonds who have refuted the beliefs.
It's evident that you, Emerentiana, did not read this whole thread. For then you would have known already, that what you are saying is untrue. The Church has never taught baptism of desire authoritatively, but it has, however, condemning the idea of being saved without baptism authoritatively. So your wrong!
Also, baptism of desire/blood only become a widespread belief first until after the era of the Holy Fathers. Only two Fathers of the Church believed in bod, St. Augustine, and someone else, but they struggled with it and also contradicted themselves as we will see below.
Also, 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.”
NOW LET'S LOOK AT SOME CHURCH FATHERS AND DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH REFUTING YOUR ERRONEOUS POSITION, EMERENTIANA:
In 140 A.D., the early Church Father Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5, and writes:
“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.”
This statement is obviously a paraphrase of John 3:5, and thus it demonstrates that from the very beginning of the apostolic age it was held and taught by the fathers that no one enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit based specifically on Our Lord Jesus Christ’s declaration in John 3:5.
In 155 A.D., St. Justin the Martyr writes:
“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.”
Notice that St. Justin Martyr, like Hermas, also quotes the words of Jesus in John 3:5, and based on Christ’s words he teaches that it is from apostolic tradition that no one at all can enter Heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism.
In his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, also dated 155 A.D., St. Justin Martyr further writes:
“… hasten to learn in what way forgiveness of sins and a hope of the inheritance… may be yours. There is no other way than this: acknowledge Christ, be washed in the washing announced by Isaias [Baptism]…”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.:
“He says, ‘Unless a man be born again’ – and He adds the words ‘of water and the Spirit’ – he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God…..if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it.”
We see that St. Cyril continues the apostolic Tradition that no one enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit, based again on an absolute understanding Our Lord’s own words in John 3:5.
Pope St. Damasus, 382 A.D.:
“This, then, is the salvation of Christians: that believing in the Trinity, that is, in the Father, and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and baptized in it…”
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
St. John Chrysostom, 392 A.D.:
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ not a whit from them, those who go hence without illumination, without the seal! … They are outside the royal city…. with the condemned. ‘Amen, I tell you, if anyone is not born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
St Augustine, 395 A.D.:
“… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized[/b].”
Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.:
“But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic[/b].”
Pope St. Gregory the Great, c. 590 A.D[/u].:
“Forgiveness of sin is bestowed on us only by the baptism of Christ.”
Theophylactus, Patriarch of Bulgaria, c. 800 A.D.:
“He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. It does not suffice to believe; he who believes, and is not yet baptized, but is only a catechumen, has not yet fully acquired salvation.”
Many other passages could be quoted from the fathers, but it is a fact that the fathers of the Church are unanimous from the beginning of the apostolic age that no one at all can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, based on the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5. The eminent Patristic Scholar Fr. William Jurgens, who has literally read thousands of texts from the fathers, was forced to admit the following (even though he believes in baptism of desire) in his three volume set on the fathers of the Church.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”
The eminent scholar Fr. Jurgens is admitting here three important things:
1) The fathers are constant in their teaching that John 3:5 is absolute with no exceptions; that is, no one at all enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit;
2) The fathers are so constant on this point that it likely constitutes divine revelation, without even considering the infallible teaching of the popes;
3) The constant teaching of the fathers that all must receive water baptism for salvation in light of John 3:5 excludes exceptions for the “invincibly ignorant” or “physically impossible” cases.
And based on this truth, declared by Jesus in the Gospel (John 3:5), handed down by the Apostles and taught by the fathers, the Catholic Church has infallibly defined as a dogma (as we have seen already) that no one at all enters heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent8, Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
-
By that, I meant the One and Triune God, in infinity past, chose Baptism of Water. He could have chosen another method, or at least, certainly, another element. So, yes, He is not bounded by His Sacraments, but He is bounded by His Word and His Commandments, for God is not the author of lies. Since He has commanded us all to be Baptized in Water and since He does not command impossibilities, all must be baptized in water.
First, I am not sure if He could have chosen another element then water. I want to make that clear for my self. To speak as you do could be equivalent to say like: "God could have chosen another mother for himself then Mary. He was not bound by Mary or to chose Mary, He could have chosen whomever He wanted for this task." But to say so would to be a protestant. And I highly doubt He could have chosen someone else then Mary. For Mary was the only person that has ever lived that have been perfect, and God could only have been born by what is perfect. So, now maybe you realize the danger of your thinking.
Further. Since you claim to believe in the word of God, what then, is your position of NFP, or Standard Days, or whatever they call it. We had a long discussion about it before. Do you agree with the dogma condemning all forms of deliberate child avoidance? Since you practice Standard Days, you seem to contradict yourself when you claim to believe in his dogmas. So how is it? Please answer.
-
Heitan,
I cant quote councils like you can. Its good, because then I cant interpret erroneously like you do.
St Emerentiana is on the calender and is also in the Roman breviary.
It real simple: Dont have to be a lay theologian to get it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Emerentiana is a saint
She NEVER received water baptism.
The church has always believed in BOB and BOD since antiquity.
Its simple. The faith has always been simple. All we have to remember is to believe ALL the truths the Church teaches.
People espousing your beliefs have been banned from this forum.
I pray Matthew will ban you, since your erroneous beliefs can affect new converts or uninformed Catholics on this forum.
You have taken over this thread and just go on and on! I guess you will continue, until you are stopped.
b] :heretic: :heretic:
-
Heitan,
I cant quote councils like you can. Its good, because then I cant interpret erroneously like you do.
St Emerentiana is on the calender and is also in the Roman breviary.
It real simple: Dont have to be a lay theologian to get it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Emerentiana is a saint
She NEVER received water baptism.
The church has always believed in BOB and BOD since antiquity.
Its simple. The faith has always been simple. All we have to remember is to believe ALL the truths the Church teaches.
People espousing your beliefs have been banned from this forum.
I pray Matthew will ban you, since your erroneous beliefs can affect new converts or uninformed Catholics on this forum.
You have taken over this thread and just go on and on! I guess you will continue, until you are stopped.
b] :heretic: :heretic:
No, if she is a saint then it means she was baptized. Please, accept this as a dogmatic fact.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
but you seem sadly to put uncertain, dubious sources written by whomever knows, before the infallible declarations of the Church, which have declares, that none can be Saved or enter Heaven without water 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.”
To do what you do, is not the Catholic approach, but the approach of heretics.
-
if she is a saint then it means she was baptized. Please, accept this as a dogmatic fact.
PLEASE accept the fact that the Church does not teach this. The Martyrology states she was a catechumen!
Do you get it???????? The CHURCH teaches this about her and has taught it since antiquity. She was a Catechumen........get it? A Catechumen is a person studying to be a Catholic!
Please stop your erroneous postings! You are a heretic! :heretic: :heretic:
-
March 7: Memorial of Saints Perpetua and Felicitas
Mar 7
Posted by Teresa Berger in Saints / Mary | 4 Comments
Although many of us will already be looking forward, to the beginning of Lent, the sanctoral cycle today invites us to look back and to celebrate the witness of two early Christian women martyrs, Saints Perpetua and Felicitas.
The two women – a Roman matron and her slave – were catechumens [/size]who suffered martyrdom together in Carthage, North Africa, on this day in A.D. 203. Their memory lives on not least because their martyrdom was docuмented early on (The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas). Intriguingly, this story of the womens’ martyrdom includes a first-person account, written by Perpetua while imprisoned. The text is one of a handful of writings by early Christian women themselves.
The Roman Canon is a witness to the importance of these two martyrs: Saints Perpetua and Felicitas are among the seven women saints who are mentioned by name in the Roman Canon.
-
Catechumen Saturus
Saint Saturus was the brother of St Perpetua, and was arrested with her. Before their execution, Sts Perpetua and Saturus had visions from God, which strengthened their souls.
The martyrs were led from the prison into the amphitheatre. Saturus was bitten by a leopard, but did not die. The martyrs were then led to a certain spot to be put to death by the sword.
The amphitheatre where these saints perished is located a few miles from the city of Tunis. In 1881, a room was discovered opposite the modern entrance into the arena. Some say this was a cell where the victims waited to be brought into the arena.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catechumen Revocatus
Sts Revocatus, Felicitas, Saturninus and Secundulus were catechumens who were arrested with St Perpetua were her brother Saturus.
The martyrs were led from the prison into the amphitheatre. Saturninus and Revocatus had to face a leopard and a bear. The martyrs were then led to a certain spot to be put to death by the sword. They received the crown of martyrdom about the year 203.
The amphitheatre where these saints perished is located a few miles from the city of Tunis. In 1881, a room was discovered opposite the modern entrance into the arena. Some say this was a cell where the victims waited to be brought into the arena.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catechumen Saturninus
Saints Saturninus, Revocatus, Felicitas, and Secundulus were catechumens of Carthage who were arrested with St Perpetua and her brother Saturus.
The martyrs were led from the prison into the amphitheatre. Saturninus and Revocatus had to face a leopard and a bear. The martyrs were then led to a certain spot to be put to death by the sword, receiving the crown of martyrdom about the year 203.
The amphitheatre where these saints perished is located a few miles from the city of Tunis. In 1881, a room was discovered opposite the modern entrance into the arena. Some say this was a cell where the victims waited to be brought into the arena.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catechumen Secundulus
Saint Secundulus was a catechumen in Carthage, who was arrested with Sts Perpetua and Felicitas. He was killed by the sword in 203.
The amphitheatre where these saints perished is located a few miles from the city of Tunis. In 1881, a room was discovered opposite the modern entrance into the arena. Some say this was a cell where the victims waited to be brought into the arena.
-
if she is a saint then it means she was baptized. Please, accept this as a dogmatic fact.
PLEASE accept the fact that the Church does not teach this. The Martyrology states she was a catechumen!
Do you get it???????? The CHURCH teaches this about her and has taught it since antiquity. She was a Catechumen........get it? A Catechumen is a person studying to be a Catholic!
Please stop your erroneous postings! You are a heretic! :heretic: :heretic:
The Martyrology is not infallible. I know you don't care, but it's still true. Only someone without Faith would reject the infallible to chose the fallible.
Again, the Roman Martyrology is not infallible and contains historical errors.
Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, p. 310: “An historical statement in the ‘Martyrology’ as such has no authority… A number of entries in the Roman Martyrology are found to be unsatisfactory when so tested.”
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.”
I guess you will not care, and I suppose you will continue to obstinately claim that truth is false and false is true. I also guess you will continue claim St. Emerentiana was not baptized, even though we know from dogmatic fact that it cannot possibly be true. You are just a sad person who rejects the faith, nothing more, nothing less.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “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.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 : “Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration.”
-
I will quote verbatim from Brother Robert Mary, in Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation (pp. 173-175), who clears up some of the confusion which swirls around this topic:
“We will now examine the historical evidence put forth by those who claim that ‘baptism of blood’ is a substitute for, even superior to, the sacrament of baptism. This evidence is found in the many writings that have been handed down to us over the centuries as recorded in various martyrologies, acts of the martyrs, lives of the saints and similar sources. The most concise information on martyrs is found in martyrologies.
“The present Roman Martyrology is a catalogue of saints honored by the Church, not only those martyred for the Faith. It first appeared in 1584, and was derived from ancient martyrologies that existed in the fourth century, plus official and non-official records taken from acts of the martyrs that date back to the second century. It has been revised several times since its first compilation. When he was assigned to revise the ancient accounts, Saint Robert Bellarmine himself had to be restrained from overly skeptical editorial deletions.
“First, it was not the intent of those who first reported the circuмstances of the deaths of the martyrs to provide information from which ‘baptismal registers’ could later be compiled. If the chronicler makes no mention of the martyr’s Baptism, it does not necessarily mean that he was never baptized. A case in point is Saint Patrick. He was not a martyr, but his Baptism was never recorded. Yet, we know positively that he received the sacrament since he was a bishop.
“Next, even if a chronicler states positively that a martyr had not been baptized, it should be understood to mean that he was ‘not recorded’ as having been baptized. In those times especially, no person could hope to know with certainty that another had not been baptized.
“Third, if a chronicler says that a martyr was ‘baptized in his own blood’, this does not automatically preclude (rule out) prior reception of the sacrament by water. When Christ referred to His coming Passion as a ‘Baptism’, He had already been baptized by Saint John in the Jordan.
“Fourth, ‘baptism of blood’ should be understood as the greatest act of love of God that a man can make. God rewards it with direct entrance into heaven for those who are already baptized and in the Church: no purgatory --- it is a perfect confession. If it were capable of substituting for any sacrament, it would be the sacrament of Penance, because Penance does not oblige with a necessity of means, but precept only.
“In his book Church History, Father John Laux, M. A., writes:
‘If he [the Christian] was destined to lose his life, he had been taught that martyrdom was a second Baptism, which washed away every stain, and that the soul of the martyr was secure in immediate admission to the perfect happiness of heaven.’
“Fifth, when a martyr is referred to as a ‘catechumen,’ it does not always mean he was not yet baptized. A catechumen was a person learning the Faith, as a student in a class called a catechumenate, under a teacher called a catechist. That students continued in their class even after they were baptized is confirmed conclusively by these words of Saint Ambrose to his catechumens: “I know very well that many things still have to be explained. It may strike you as strange that you were not given a complete teaching on the sacraments before you were baptized. However, the ancient discipline of the Church forbids us to reveal the Christian mysteries to the uninitiated. For the full meaning of the sacraments cannot be grasped without the light which they themselves shed in your hearts.” (On the Mysteries and On the Sacraments, Saint Ambrose)
-
Ok, so we see you are a Feenyite! I will not read your posts and I pray that others will not either!
Feenyites have not been welcomed here on the forum. Im surprised that you have lasted so long here!
I will pray for you! :heretic: :heretic:
-
Ok, so we see you are a Feenyite! I will not read your posts and I pray that others will not either!
Feenyites have not been welcomed here on the forum. Im surprised that you have lasted so long here!
I will pray for you! :heretic: :heretic:
Talk about someone without a clue.
Is that seriously the best you could come up with?
-
Oh, we've been through this a million times. I am a follower of Father Feeney for the following reason:
"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)
All of you should accept "Feeneyism" for the following reason:
Feeneyism puts more people into Heaven, not fewer.
Just assume that Baptism of Desire & Blood exist independently of Sacramental Baptism in Water. Even if this were true (which, of course, it is not), it would not apply to anyone who has not yet reached the Age of Reason. That's right, if you are under age 7, no Baptism of Desire for you. If you die without Baptism, you go to the Hell of Separation (Limbo).
In Feeneyism, "anyone whatsoever" (Lateran IV, Canon 1) can validly baptize, and given the Middle Knowledge of the One and Triune God, it makes sense that He would want to get as many people into Paradise as possible, which means that, perhaps, there are a lot of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., who were baptized in their infancy, even if they did not know about it.
If true, the same could be said about all the martyrs who, alledgedly, died without sacramental Baptism. No miracles, by the way, are required for this -- for every living human being, the Triune God has seven years to bring this about. Not a difficult job, IMO, for someone who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Let's not sell Him short, shall we?
-
Jehanne
I asked you some question on page 57, if you missed them, I just wanted to notify you about it.
-
By that, I meant the One and Triune God, in infinity past, chose Baptism of Water. He could have chosen another method, or at least, certainly, another element. So, yes, He is not bounded by His Sacraments, but He is bounded by His Word and His Commandments, for God is not the author of lies. Since He has commanded us all to be Baptized in Water and since He does not command impossibilities, all must be baptized in water.
First, I am not sure if He could have chosen another element then water. I want to make that clear for my self. To speak as you do could be equivalent to say like: "God could have chosen another mother for himself then Mary. He was not bound by Mary or to chose Mary, He could have chosen whomever He wanted for this task." But to say so would to be a protestant. And I highly doubt He could have chosen someone else then Mary. For Mary was the only person that has ever lived that have been perfect, and God could only have been born by what is perfect. So, now maybe you realize the danger of your thinking.
Further. Since you claim to believe in the word of God, what then, is your position of NFP, or Standard Days, or whatever they call it. We had a long discussion about it before. Do you agree with the dogma condemning all forms of deliberate child avoidance? Since you practice Standard Days, you seem to contradict yourself when you claim to believe in his dogmas. So how is it? Please answer.
Last things first. I have already talked to you about Standard Days and NFP. They both can be sinful, especially NFP, if a couple makes it into an "exact" science. However, if a mother had a difficult pregnancy and was informed by her doctors that she would not survive another one, then I see no reason why that couple should remain completely abstinent. Indeed, the primary ends of marriage are the procreation and education of children, so if Mom is dead, that will impact not only the former but, especially, the latter. Given that there are secondary ends of marriage, Standard Days would certainly be appropriate in such circuмstances.
As for the One and Triune God being forced to choose Water over some other element, we have the example of the elements of the Eucharist. Between East and West, the matter is not the same (leavened versus unleavened bread), so I do not see why liquid water (as opposed to liquid hydrogen or liquid mercury or liquid ammonia) was necessary, so the comparison with the Blessed Virgin Mary is apples/oranges.
-
Oh, we've been through this a million times. I am a follower of Father Feeney for the following reason:
"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)
All of you should accept "Feeneyism" for the following reason:
Feeneyism puts more people into Heaven, not fewer.
Just assume that Baptism of Desire & Blood exist independently of Sacramental Baptism in Water. Even if this were true (which, of course, it is not), it would not apply to anyone who has not yet reached the Age of Reason. That's right, if you are under age 7, no Baptism of Desire for you. If you die without Baptism, you go to the Hell of Separation (Limbo).
In Feeneyism, "anyone whatsoever" (Lateran IV, Canon 1) can validly baptize, and given the Middle Knowledge of the One and Triune God, it makes sense that He would want to get as many people into Paradise as possible, which means that, perhaps, there are a lot of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., who were baptized in their infancy, even if they did not know about it.
If true, the same could be said about all the martyrs who, alledgedly, died without sacramental Baptism. No miracles, by the way, are required for this -- for every living human being, the Triune God has seven years to bring this about. Not a difficult job, IMO, for someone who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Let's not sell Him short, shall we?
Oh of course, Jehanne, not just Feenites, but anyone can baptize.
There is no baptism of desire under 7, but there is Baptism of Blood (the Holy Innocents and others).
Feeney was disciplined by the Holy office for his beliefs.
The church has believed and taught baptism of blood and desire since antiqiuity. I saw a catechism from the 1800s that had these teachings in it.
These are the facts and the teachings that true Catholics believe. Diamonds will have to answer to God for upsurping the authority of the priests and bishops, which teach the opposite of what they believe. They think that they were enlightened in the 21st century to preach another doctrine. Reminds me of the Protestant heretics that interpret the Bible to suit their ideas.
No, Feeney doesnt put more people into heaven. They believe that only a small minute group that stays "home alone" will be saved. They despise any authority in the church today.
Catholicism does not allow for private interpretations and conclusions on doctrines and traditions. Actually I think most people in this forum are tired of dialoging with Feenyites and followers of the Diamonds. Soon you two will be the only ones conversing, if Matthew doesnt ban Heitnan.
-
Oh, we've been through this a million times. I am a follower of Father Feeney for the following reason:
"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)
All of you should accept "Feeneyism" for the following reason:
Feeneyism puts more people into Heaven, not fewer.
Just assume that Baptism of Desire & Blood exist independently of Sacramental Baptism in Water. Even if this were true (which, of course, it is not), it would not apply to anyone who has not yet reached the Age of Reason. That's right, if you are under age 7, no Baptism of Desire for you. If you die without Baptism, you go to the Hell of Separation (Limbo).
In Feeneyism, "anyone whatsoever" (Lateran IV, Canon 1) can validly baptize, and given the Middle Knowledge of the One and Triune God, it makes sense that He would want to get as many people into Paradise as possible, which means that, perhaps, there are a lot of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., who were baptized in their infancy, even if they did not know about it.
If true, the same could be said about all the martyrs who, alledgedly, died without sacramental Baptism. No miracles, by the way, are required for this -- for every living human being, the Triune God has seven years to bring this about. Not a difficult job, IMO, for someone who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Let's not sell Him short, shall we?
Oh of course, Jehanne, not just Feenites, but anyone can baptize.
There is no baptism of desire under 7, but there is Baptism of Blood (the Holy Innocents and others).
Feeney was disciplined by the Holy office for his beliefs.
The church has believed and taught baptism of blood and desire since antiqiuity. I saw a catechism from the 1800s that had these teachings in it.
These are the facts and the teachings that true Catholics believe. Diamonds will have to answer to God for upsurping the authority of the priests and bishops, which teach the opposite of what they believe. They think that they were enlightened in the 21st century to preach another doctrine. Reminds me of the Protestant heretics that interpret the Bible to suit their ideas.
No, Feeney doesnt put more people into heaven. They believe that only a small minute group that stays "home alone" will be saved. They despise any authority in the church today.
Catholicism does not allow for private interpretations and conclusions on doctrines and traditions. Actually I think most people in this forum are tired of dialoging with Feenyites and followers of the Diamonds. Soon you two will be the only ones conversing, if Matthew doesnt ban Heitnan.
BoD/BoB has been taught in recent times to the same exact that the opinion of Saint Augustine regarding the fate of infants who die without Baptism was taught during the first millennium of Catholicism. As for being disciplined by the Holy Office for his beliefs, we all know that such was not the case. As for "despising" Church authority, the "Feeneyites" are not sedes:
http://catholicism.org/sedevacantism-and-schism.html
I consider what Father Feeney taught, in its essence, to be fully reconcilable with the teachings of Saint Thomas, the Council of Trent, and the Roman Catechism. I do not believe that any of those authorities would have disagreed with Father Feeney to the same extent that I do not believe that Saint Augustine would have disagreed with Saint Thomas.
-
By that, I meant the One and Triune God, in infinity past, chose Baptism of Water. He could have chosen another method, or at least, certainly, another element. So, yes, He is not bounded by His Sacraments, but He is bounded by His Word and His Commandments, for God is not the author of lies. Since He has commanded us all to be Baptized in Water and since He does not command impossibilities, all must be baptized in water.
First, I am not sure if He could have chosen another element then water. I want to make that clear for my self. To speak as you do could be equivalent to say like: "God could have chosen another mother for himself then Mary. He was not bound by Mary or to chose Mary, He could have chosen whomever He wanted for this task." But to say so would to be a protestant. And I highly doubt He could have chosen someone else then Mary. For Mary was the only person that has ever lived that have been perfect, and God could only have been born by what is perfect. So, now maybe you realize the danger of your thinking.
Further. Since you claim to believe in the word of God, what then, is your position of NFP, or Standard Days, or whatever they call it. We had a long discussion about it before. Do you agree with the dogma condemning all forms of deliberate child avoidance? Since you practice Standard Days, you seem to contradict yourself when you claim to believe in his dogmas. So how is it? Please answer.
Last things first. I have already talked to you about Standard Days and NFP. They both can be sinful, especially NFP, if a couple makes it into an "exact" science. However, if a mother had a difficult pregnancy and was informed by her doctors that she would not survive another one, then I see no reason why that couple should remain completely abstinent. Indeed, the primary ends of marriage are the procreation and education of children, so if Mom is dead, that will impact not only the former but, especially, the latter. Given that there are secondary ends of marriage, Standard Days would certainly be appropriate in such circuмstances.
As for the One and Triune God being forced to choose Water over some other element, we have the example of the elements of the Eucharist. Between East and West, the matter is not the same (leavened versus unleavened bread), so I do not see why liquid water (as opposed to liquid hydrogen or liquid mercury or liquid ammonia) was necessary, so the comparison with the Blessed Virgin Mary is apples/oranges.
So, you are self condemned. You are a heretic, pure and simple, so I will condemn you as a heretic. The Pope did explicitly mention the Medical excuse and refuted it. But you don't care. You are self condemned, Jehanne, you will go to Hell unless you convert.
It is more evil to avoid bringing into the world the children God would want you to have. The death of the mother is not the greatest evil. And that you cannot have your lust, that means nothing, and is of no important at all. The less people have sex, the more likely they will be saved. Chastity is a shortcut to Heaven, and that is just a fact.
No reason can come before the PRIMARY purpose of marriage. But you, are putting the secondary ends before the PRIMARY ends, you are thus thwarting the plan of God. You either remain chaste, or take the consequences of the death of the mother, as Pope Pius XI spoke about. Your own and your wife's eternal souls depends on your decision, for sadly, you are dragging her to Hell with you. I love your wife more then you love her, which is why I desire your conversion.
Also, Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of baptism with water. No one can change a sacrament instituted by our Lord, so therefore should we neither question if he ever could have chosen another element. Do do so is just stupid. God follows justice, he do not follow what we think: "now I want to do something". He knew from the beginning from end exactly what he would do, He cannot change His mind since He always knew from the beginning what would be and what would happen. Those instances when it seems as if he changed His mind (as with promises that he took back because of sin), was also in His foreknowledge, and no one could have done anything against it.
Jesus Christ never gave the exact formula or wording except for this is my body, this is my blood, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. The added words "mystery of faith" comes from Church tradition. So you cannot compare what Jesus specifically mentioned (water baptism), with what Jesus Christ infallibly have defined through Church tradition. The Church allows for those differences in the bread (leavened versus unleavened bread), Jesus never mentioned what specific bread it must be, so this is no argument. What the Church allows infallible, that Christ allows since it is His will. The Church could never allow baptism in another element than water, and you know it, so your argument fails there as well.
But either way, it's not strange that you obstinately will cling to your erroneous position. For you are clearly a heretic and a mortal sinner on top of it. No wonder the devil is holding your eyes and ears.
-
Well, it's good to know, Hietanen, that you and the Dimond Brothers are going to be the only ones in Paradise.
-
Feeney was disciplined by the Holy office for his beliefs.
The church has believed and taught baptism of blood and desire since antiqiuity. I saw a catechism from the 1800s that had these teachings in it.
These are the facts and the teachings that true Catholics believe. Diamonds will have to answer to God for upsurping the authority of the priests and bishops, which teach the opposite of what they believe. They think that they were enlightened in the 21st century to preach another doctrine. Reminds me of the Protestant heretics that interpret the Bible to suit their ideas.
No, Feeney doesnt put more people into heaven. They believe that only a small minute group that stays "home alone" will be saved. They despise any authority in the church today.
Catholicism does not allow for private interpretations and conclusions on doctrines and traditions. Actually I think most people in this forum are tired of dialoging with Feenyites and followers of the Diamonds. Soon you two will be the only ones conversing, if Matthew doesnt ban Heitnan. [/b]
The Church has not thaught baptism of desire until antiquity. The Church has never even thaught baptism of desire at all for salvation apart from actually receiving water baptism. That is why you cannot find a single infallible proclamation that teaches baptism of desire or blood apart from water baptism for salvation. If you could prove it, you would prove it, but you cannot.
So, since the Church teaching preliminary are the infallible proclamations from the Pope, it is where we should look for a definitive answer. We already know about all the dogmas on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation, so there is no questioning about that.
Therefore was your argument false. Since you cannot show anything infallible to back up your position with. Fallible docuмents made by cardinals, bishops or priests under the pope are liable to error, and are not church teaching of it contradicts infallible Catholic dogma. It's just that simple. So for you to keep obstinately asserting that baptism of desire/blood is Church teaching, sadly only reveals your heresy and schism and mortal sins of lying.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
You also talked about the alleged condemnation against Fr. Feeney. That docuмent was not signed by the Pope, and was written by heretical bishops under the Pope who denied the dogma on outside the Church there is no salvation. So, that docuмent is as worthless as any other docuмent which contradicts infallible Catholic dogma. But I woulden't be surprised if you also deny the dogma on outside the Church there is no salvation, why else would you bring up the supposed condemnation (Protocol 122/49 (Suprema haec sacra)) against Fr. Feeney?
The absence of Protocol 122/49 from the Acts of the Apostolic See proves that it has no binding character; that is to say, Protocol 122/49 is not an infallible or binding teaching of the Catholic Church. Protocol 122/49 was not signed by Pope Pius XII either, and has the authority of a correspondence of two Cardinals (Marchetti-Selvaggiani who wrote the letter, and Cardinal Ottaviani who also signed it) to one archbishop – which is none. The letter, in fact, and to put it simply, is fraught with heresy, deceit, ambiguity and betrayal. Immediately after the publication of Protocol 122/49, The Worcester Telegram ran a typical headline:
VATICAN RULES AGAINST HUB DISSIDENTS – [Vatican] Holds No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine To Be False
This was the impression given to almost the entire Catholic world by Protocol 122/49 – the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter. Protocol 122/49, as the above headline bluntly said, held the “No Salvation Outside the Church Doctrine” to be false. By this fateful letter, the enemies of the dogma and the Church appeared to have been vindicated and the defenders of the dogma seemed to have been vanquished. The problem for the apparent victors, however, was that this docuмent was nothing more than a letter from two heretical cardinals of the Holy Office, who had already embraced the heresy later adopted by Vatican II, to one apostate archbishop in Boston. Some may be surprised that I describe Cardinal Ottaviani as heretical, since he is considered by many to have been orthodox. If his signature on the Protocol isn’t enough proof for his heresy, consider that he signed all of the Vatican II docuмents and aligned himself with the post-Vatican II revolution.
-
Well, it's good to know, Hietanen, that you and the Dimond Brothers are going to be the only ones in Paradise.
Dimonds are heretics (link) (http://www.catholic-saints.net/heretics/most-holy-family-monastery-exposed.php) and must convert before they have any chance for salvation. You, Jehanne are sadly an obstinate mortal sinner and a heretic against the natural law and sadly headed for hell and needs to convert for having any chance of salvation. I must better my self very much before I have any chance of salvation. I don't think I am a heretic, but who knows. I don't think I am saved, I daily think I am condemned. To be confident in one's own salvation is truly and surely an infallible sign of damnation (unless you have had a revelation as the Fatima Children).
-
Okay, congrats on being the only one in Heaven, next to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Apostles.
-
Okay, congrats on being the only one in Heaven, next to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Apostles.
you couldn't have read what I wrote for giving such an answer. I hope though I will be saved and see you in Heaven, Jehanne, but so long as you remain obstinate in your mortal sins and as long as you deny God's infallible dogmas, you will not be saved.
-
Hietanen, did you ever just once stop and think that maybe there are people out there who are closer to obtaining salvation than you are? You act as if you are the only one on this earth right now that will be saved. Jehanne is not in mortal sin, nor do you have any place to say he is. You are not the Pope, or any other kind of religous authority. Several people here have told you that you need to have a more toned-down approach rather than an aggressive approach when posting, but so far I haven't seen you take our advice.
When Archbishop LeFebvre disagreed with someone he didn't tell them that they were in mortal sin, or that they were condemned, or that they were a heretic. But on these forums, it appears that anyone who disagrees with "Pope" Hietanen is in mortal sin and is condemned. You go to extremes when it comes to what is and is not a mortal sin. I have never even seen you say something is only a venial sin, everything is a mortal sin to you, it seems like.
May I kindly suggest you either tone it down a notch or two (or ten) when arguing? Otherwise nobody here will be even remotely interested in debating with you, and as of right now I am losing all interest in debating with you myself.
-
Hietanen, did you ever just once stop and think that maybe there are people out there who are closer to obtaining salvation than you are? You act as if you are the only one on this earth right now that will be saved.
Please read my immediate above posts and see that what you just said is not true.
Jehanne is not in mortal sin, nor do you have any place to say he is. You are not the Pope, or any other kind of religous authority.
To obstinately defend practices which has been infallibly condemned by the holy see is a mortal sin of heresy.
But I guess then, that you don't account NFP, or Standard Days, or whatever name they go under to be a mortal sin and a heresy against the natural law?
Then you go on to say that I have no religious authority. That is true, in my self I have no authority. But I am not coming with my own authority, but with what the Catholic Church dogmatically have taught. But then again, maybe dogma is worth nothing for you.
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."
Several people here have told you that you need to have a more toned-down approach rather than an aggressive approach when posting, but so far I haven't seen you take our advice.
That might be because I my self when doing wrong have a older brother correcting me sharply. And it works, even though I also dislike the harshness.
But still, when people deny dogma, what can there be said other than the truth? People who reject dogmas are self condemned and already in Hell...
When Archbishop LeFebvre disagreed with someone he didn't tell them that they were in mortal sin, or that they were condemned, or that they were a heretic.
LeFebvre was also a heretic and never had the Faith, so whats your point?
You know, Moses was very harsh on the Israelites, and so was Jesus Christ. Why do you think the obstinate prideful Jews hated him so? He didn't come to be friendly with them, but to convert them. Jesus didn't bring peace, but a sword.
But on these forums, it appears that anyone who disagrees with "Pope" Hietanen is in mortal sin and is condemned. You go to extremes when it comes to what is and is not a mortal sin. I have never even seen you say something is only a venial sin, everything is a mortal sin to you, it seems like.
Anyone that disagrees with Church dogma is a heretic. Maybe you deny this? If you don't deny this, then why object when I condemn people who are obstinately denying infallible dogma?
Everything is not mortal sin, and I have never said that. So, don't put words in my mouth.
-
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."
Exercising it = having sex.
Not exercising it = NOT having sex (i.e., abstinence.) I have already explained to you what he was condemning.
Pope Pius XI was NOT condemning periodic abstinence in this passage.
-
1.- Hietanen, dogma is very important to me, and not the so-called "dogma" that Vatican II created, but rather the dogma created by the true Catholic Church. If dogma meant nothing to me I wouldn't be on these forums.
2.- If LeFebvre never had the faith then why did he bother fighting to keep the TLM alive? Do you really think he just said "You know, I don't really care about any of this, I'm just going to keep the TLM alive to give people another option."? No, he saved it because without the Traditional Latin Mass this world would be in far worse shape than it is now. You keep saying that this does not change the "fact" that he is a heretic, but if we used your logic then nearly everyone on this earth would be labeled a heretic. Can you even name one person (aside from yourself, please) who is still alive that is NOT a heretic? If you can't, then that is not a good sign. By the way, this is an SSPX forum, and if you're going to post on an SSPX forum you'll need to learn to like Archbishop LeFebvre. Even sedes here who aren't fond of the current-day SSPX such as Raoul and Telesphorus have no problem with Archbishop LeFebvre. Why are you about the only exception?
3.- Jesus being "harsh" to the Jews is much different. Jesus is God, and if anything offends Him He will say something and does not worry about offending them. You, however, are only a person, oen who is capable of sin. You're supposed to be firm yet kind when defending the faith. That's not to say you should go about it like a wuss and say something like "Well, um, I kind of disagree with you." Obviously there is no room for that, but you don't have to be so dogmatic either. In other words, don't be overly-critical when correcting someone. You know you would not like it if someone acted like that towards you.
-
Pope Pius XI was NOT condemning periodic abstinence in this passage.
Stop call it abstinence when your intention is not to abstain but to avoid the "danger" of a child being born, you mortal sinner liar headed for Hell.
You are a mortal sinner, that is why you are blind to the truth.
You are avoiding children in your heart, therefore are you guilty of contraception in the same way as a person is guilty of adultery if he looks at a woman with lust in his heart. The crime and sin (the sinful intention) comes first from the heart.
Regarding Pius XI, you are clearly not understanding what he is saying either. Let me explain to you in steps.
"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward..."
Therefore, the medical excuse as you excuse yourself with is no excuse at all.
"Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children,"
You are avoiding Children entirely by your scheme. And if you are successful, no children at all will result.
"those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose"
You exercise a plan deliberately to avoid children, and you are also frustrating the power and purpose of the act, the begetting of children.
"sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."
You sin against nature by wanting to have relations while wishing and hoping for no children as a result. You are guilty of a crime intrinsically vicious.
While the above points alone refutes and condemns you entirely Jehanne, more is needed, since you are resisting the truth. But I fear, that whatever one may say to you, you will not be converted. For you are an obstinate mortal sinner headed for Hell. Sadly, in Hell will you first realize how deceived you where, unless you convert and repent first.
THE FOLLOWING POINTS IS WHAT CRUSHES YOU ENTIRELY, JEHANNE!
Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930:
“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.”
Besides this primary purpose, there are also secondary purposes for marriage, such as mutual aid, the quieting of concupiscence and the cultivating of mutual love. But these secondary purposes must always remain subordinate to the primary purpose of marriage (the procreation and education of children). This is the key point to remember in the discussion on NFP.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”
Therefore, even though NFP does not directly interfere with the marriage act itself, as its defenders love to stress, it makes no difference. NFP is condemned because it subordinates the primary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the procreation and education of children) to the secondary ends.
NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things, by deliberately attempting to avoid children[/u] (i.e., to avoid the primary end) while having marital relations. NFP therefore inverts the order established by God Himself. It does the very thing that Pope Pius XI solemnly teaches may not lawfully be done. And this point crushes all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP; because all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP focus on the marriage act itself, while they blindly ignore the fact that it makes no difference if a couple does not interfere with the act itself if they subordinate and thwart the primary PURPOSE of marriage.
To summarize, therefore, the only difference between artificial contraception and NFP is that artificial contraception frustrates the power of the marriage act itself, while NFP frustrates its primary purpose (by subordinating the procreation of children to other things).
-
Yes, the procreation and education of children. In my example above, if Mom is dead from having more children when her doctors told her that another pregnancy would kill her, how is she going to "educate" her children when she is dead??
-
You cannot commit an evil just to avoid another possible evil.
To justify committing mortal sin just because you fear the death of your wife is idiotic. If your wife died fulfilling her duties alloted her in life, she would go to Heaven. So she has nothing to lose. But if she dies in mortal sin or heresy (NFP!), she will be lost forever.
1 Timothy 2:15- “Yet she shall be saved through child-bearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.”
If you are not ready to take the consequences of the life of the mother, then you both have to agree upon mutual chastity from here on. There is no other way.
You either live chaste, or go on having normal marital relations without numbering days, and without deliberately avoiding children.
Committing mortal sins is never allowed, and never becomes right just because of certain circuмstances in life that you don't like. That is just a fact.
-
The Church has never taught what you are saying and neither did Pius XI. How can abstinence ever be "intrinsically vicious" let alone "shameful"??
-
Well, it's good to know, Hietanen, that you and the Dimond Brothers are going to be the only ones in Paradise.
Dimonds are heretics (link) (http://www.catholic-saints.net/heretics/most-holy-family-monastery-exposed.php) and must convert before they have any chance for salvation. You, Jehanne are sadly an obstinate mortal sinner and a heretic against the natural law and sadly headed for hell and needs to convert for having any chance of salvation. I must better my self very much before I have any chance of salvation. I don't think I am a heretic, but who knows. I don't think I am saved, I daily think I am condemned. To be confident in one's own salvation is truly and surely an infallible sign of damnation (unless you have had a revelation as the Fatima Children).
Spoken like a true Jansenist! Everyone is condemned to hell!
Go away! I guess if we dialogue with this guy, he will take over the forum with his heretical beliefs! :heretic: :heretic:
-
Just thought I'd check in and see what you Cushingites are up to today.....
-
The Church has never taught what you are saying and neither did Pius XI. How can abstinence ever be "intrinsically vicious" let alone "shameful"??
As I said, you will probably not care. I have already showed you Pope Pius XI condemning what you do, but you just don't care. And you will sadly go on fooling yourself saying: "Pope Pius XI did not condemn me, he did not say what Hietanen claimed..." You will sadly continue with your mortal sins of NFP, for you have already obstinately made up your mind to continue with the mortal sin of contraception in the heart. It does not matter how many times I have told you the truth, for you don't care about the Truth - and neither are you of God. All you care about is to go on sinning, and you are obstinate about your position. Only in Hell will you realize how fooled you where, but then is it too late for you. And you claim to follow dogmas?, what a pathetical joke you are. You only follow those dogmas with fits you, and rejects everything else. You are a protestant, pure and simple, and a heretic and mortal sinner and top of it!
-
And to think that I made you my buddy. :incense:
-
Without quoting Councils and Church docuмents, it seems to me that NFP is implicitly condemned in the Bible. For in the book of Tobit the archangel Raphael basically tells Tobias that he should not have sex with his wife except for the desire of children.
You can read it and prayerfully meditate on it (lectio divina):
Douay-Rheims: Tobit 6:16-22 and Tobit 8:9.
-
Although, I must add, that what I believe this passage implicitly condemns is the prolonged use of NFP throughout marriage, not NFP itself.
-
Without quoting Councils and Church docuмents, it seems to me that NFP is implicitly condemned in the Bible. For in the book of Tobit the archangel Raphael basically tells Tobias that he should not have sex with his wife except for the desire of children.
You can read it and prayerfully meditate on it (lectio divina):
Douay-Rheims: Tobit 6:16-22 and Tobit 8:9.
Here are the passages.
]
Tobit 6:
[16] Then the angel Raphael said to him: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. [17] For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power. [18] But thou when thou shalt take her, go into the chamber, and for three days keep thyself continent from her, and give thyself to nothing else but to prayers with her. [19] And on that night lay the liver of the fish on the fire, and the devil shall be driven away. [20] But the second night thou shalt be admitted into the society of the holy Patriarchs.
[21] And the third night thou shalt obtain a blessing that sound children may be born of you. [22] And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayst obtain a blessing in children.
Tobit 8:
[9] And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be blessed for ever and ever.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but he appears to be marrying his sister, which, of course, is something (incest) that is condemned by the Church.
Here's my source:
http://www.drbo.org/index.htm
-
Hietanen, please respond to this post I made a few days ago.
1.- Hietanen, dogma is very important to me, and not the so-called "dogma" that Vatican II created, but rather the dogma created by the true Catholic Church. If dogma meant nothing to me I wouldn't be on these forums.
2.- If LeFebvre never had the faith then why did he bother fighting to keep the TLM alive? Do you really think he just said "You know, I don't really care about any of this, I'm just going to keep the TLM alive to give people another option."? No, he saved it because without the Traditional Latin Mass this world would be in far worse shape than it is now. You keep saying that this does not change the "fact" that he is a heretic, but if we used your logic then nearly everyone on this earth would be labeled a heretic. Can you even name one person (aside from yourself, please) who is still alive that is NOT a heretic? If you can't, then that is not a good sign. By the way, this is an SSPX forum, and if you're going to post on an SSPX forum you'll need to learn to like Archbishop LeFebvre. Even sedes here who aren't fond of the current-day SSPX such as Raoul and Telesphorus have no problem with Archbishop LeFebvre. Why are you about the only exception?
3.- Jesus being "harsh" to the Jews is much different. Jesus is God, and if anything offends Him He will say something and does not worry about offending them. You, however, are only a person, oen who is capable of sin. You're supposed to be firm yet kind when defending the faith. That's not to say you should go about it like a wuss and say something like "Well, um, I kind of disagree with you." Obviously there is no room for that, but you don't have to be so dogmatic either. In other words, don't be overly-critical when correcting someone. You know you would not like it if someone acted like that towards you.
-
Hietanen, please respond to this post I made a few days ago.
I have already answered similar question from you before.
1.- Hietanen, dogma is very important to me, and not the so-called "dogma" that Vatican II created, but rather the dogma created by the true Catholic Church. If dogma meant nothing to me I wouldn't be on these forums.
If dogma is important for you, then don't dare to say that people are not heretics or mortal sinners when they obstinately deny or contradict by their actions infallible Catholic dogma.
For you to say that dogma is important means nothing. That is why you idolize people who have openly and manifestly contradicted the dogma on outside the Church there is no salvation.
For most people it's just a game, they don't really care about the faith or about the dogmas. When they are questioned about it, they profess with their mouth to care about and to uphold dogma, but by their mouth and by their deeds, they show the contrary. You for example have defended and excused a person from committing mortal sin even though that person by his own mouth admitted to contradict Pope Pius XI's infallible dogma condemning him and his NFP practices. You also defend a heretic who denied outside the Church there is no salvation - and yet you claim to believe in Jesus Christ and His dogmas? What a joke!
2.- If LeFebvre never had the faith then why did he bother fighting to keep the TLM alive? Do you really think he just said "You know, I don't really care about any of this, I'm just going to keep the TLM alive to give people another option."? No, he saved it because without the Traditional Latin Mass this world would be in far worse shape than it is now. You keep saying that this does not change the "fact" that he is a heretic, but if we used your logic then nearly everyone on this earth would be labeled a heretic. Can you even name one person (aside from yourself, please) who is still alive that is NOT a heretic? If you can't, then that is not a good sign. By the way, this is an SSPX forum, and if you're going to post on an SSPX forum you'll need to learn to like Archbishop LeFebvre. Even sedes here who aren't fond of the current-day SSPX such as Raoul and Telesphorus have no problem with Archbishop LeFebvre. Why are you about the only exception?
Marcel LeFebvre might have had faith at some point, but evidently lost it ever since he taught or believed in some heresy.
Arius also seemed pious and to care about the Faith. That is why he was so successful in deceiving people into believing that Jesus Christ was inferior to the Father and a created being that did not always exist.
Almost the entire "Christendom" become arians, and almost all "bishops" and "priests" embraced his heretical beliefs.
The problem with you is that you excuse heresy. I have already proved to you from his own words that Marcel LeFebvre believed that Muslims, Protestants and Hinduists can be saved.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”
But you just don't care, for you don't care about or Lord Jesus Christ any more then the arch heretic Arius did. If you really loved Jesus, you would abhor people who denied Him or who denied the necessity of believing in Him for salvation. But you don't stand up for Jesus, you don't stand up for God or defend God, but you stand up for a man, by defending man, a man by the name of Marcel LeFebvre, who denied the necessity of even believing in Jesus Christ for salvation. That should tell to all people here whose child you are and of what Faith you are, but then, I fear, most people here are the same as you. There is a reason for why most people are damned, and why the last days would be the worst of them all.
But why do you defend a man instead of defending the honor of our Lord? Because he gave you a traditional Latin mass? Was it Marcel LeFebvre who really gave it to you, or Jesus Christ? Either way, if you know heretics celebrate that mass and you receive the sacraments from known heretical priests that also denies Jesus Christ, then you also blasphemously receive the sacraments to your own damnation and commits a mortal sin and sacrilege. Also the priests who are heretics and who presume to consecrate the Eucharist while being heretics sins mortally. It's ironic how people who don't even believe in Jesus Christ or why denies the necessity of even believing in Jesus Christ can even outwardly seem to profess a devotion to Him. Just come out with it, believing in Jesus means nothing to you. Only externals is important for you and going to mass and having a Church. Everything is important, except for the Faith which saves you. Truly sad to behold!
3.- Jesus being "harsh" to the Jews is much different. Jesus is God, and if anything offends Him He will say something and does not worry about offending them. You, however, are only a person, oen who is capable of sin. You're supposed to be firm yet kind when defending the faith. That's not to say you should go about it like a wuss and say something like "Well, um, I kind of disagree with you." Obviously there is no room for that, but you don't have to be so dogmatic either. In other words, don't be overly-critical when correcting someone. You know you would not like it if someone acted like that towards you.
I will tell the truth and condemn sin and condemn heresy and stand up for Jesus Christ. I will not defend man or excuse man in their heresies or in their sin as you do. It's just that simple. You either love God or you love men. You either stand up for God or stand up for men.
Only people who have lost the fear of God and Hell entirely could have become such cowards that God means nothing to them but the honor and dignity of men. No wonder SSPX deems Vatican II and it's antipopes as the "Catholic Church", for they also believe in man and not in God. Everything with Vatican II is about man. Even though everyone know this, yet do you outwardly profess them as the "Catholic Church" and Benedict XVI as the "Pope". Truly pathetic and sad. Just admit it now, you don't care about the Faith or about Jesus Christ, you don't love God or Jesus Christ, you love men, and not God, you worship man, and not God, you honor man, and you do not honor God - it's just that simple and sad.
But you will probably not realize this fact until it's to late for you. I do hope and pray for your conversion, but as long as you remain obstinate and resisting God's grace of conversion, you cannot be saved.
-
That was one of the craziest posts I have ever seen. You are just like the Diamond Brothers, acting as if though everyone but yourself is a heretic. Heitanen, you remind me of another certain poster here who got banned because to him everyone but himself was a heretic, even good Popes such as Pius X (by the way, I hope you don't think Pius X was a heretic, too).
It's not a good idea to call lay people that you don't even know personally "heretics". If I were to use your logic, I could equally say that you are a heretic for condemning people just because they aren't perfect. No one is perfect, Heitanen. None of us are actually worthy of Heaven, and you are no exception.
You may as well stop quoting that post from ABL, you'll never convince me he is a heretic. He did not reject any dogma, he simply stated that it is not impossible for Protestants to be saved. And it isn't if they truely have every intention of pleasing God. And you say I don't care about pleasing God, but I think you should keep opinions like that to yourself. The fact is, pleasing God is my number one priority in life, and you can't tell me what my intentions are considering you don't even know me personally. In fact, you are judging people by their thoughts and motives instead of their actions. You are saying I have no intentions of pleasing God. So you are not paying attention to Jesus when He tells us to judge people by their actions, NOT their thoughts or motives. God means more to me than LeFebvre, obviously. You act as if though all SSPX supporters are worshippers of ABL.
Let me point something else out. I am being charitable to you by not losing my temper. I mean, here you are claiming I have no intention of pleasing God. I could easily chew you out for saying that. But I won't. Why? Because by doing so I am pleasing God. I am being as charitable as I possible can in this situation. But you are not being charitable. You have told me and several others they are condemned. God is the Judge, not you, Heitanen. And I know you've been here since 2009 apparently, but you clearly aren't as experienced as me or most other people here. I suggest waiting until you become more experienced before you start diving into such big debates. Otherwise, please don't even try to debate with us if you're going to be rude and over the top.
-
He did not reject any dogma, he simply stated that it is not impossible for Protestants to be saved.
We're doing hair-splitting (once again); Protestants cannot be saved as Protestants; they can be saved as Catholics, just not necessarily the "card carrying" kind. A valid Baptism of a "Protestant" infant comes to mind.
-
First you never addressed any of the points or issued raised, and that's because you're dishonest.
That was one of the craziest posts I have ever seen. You are just like the Diamond Brothers, acting as if though everyone but yourself is a heretic. Heitanen, you remind me of another certain poster here who got banned because to him everyone but himself was a heretic, even good Popes such as Pius X (by the way, I hope you don't think Pius X was a heretic, too).
I have never said that I think I am saved or that I am not a heretic. At least, if I am a heretic, it will not be because of an obvious heresy such as that I am denying the Catholic Faith by believing that people can be saved without Faith in Jesus Christ.
If you go to SSPX Churches, then are you in communion with people who rejects even believing in Jesus Christ and the Trinity for salvation. And my guess is that your priest as well believes this. Yet do you receive communion from him, you thus accepts his Christ rejecting heresies.
Tell me, does your priest believes that Muslims, Buddhists, Hinduists, atheists, Jews, etc.. can be saved without believing in Jesus Christ, and what are your beliefs on this? Please answer these questions!!!!!!!
I know you defend ABL for saying Muslims and Buddhists could be saved, so that alone makes you culpable.
By the way, he whom you are referring to was David Landry. He is a sad heretic, which even you know about. No Pope St. Pius X was not a heretic.
It's not a good idea to call lay people that you don't even know personally "heretics". If I were to use your logic, I could equally say that you are a heretic for condemning people just because they aren't perfect. No one is perfect, Heitanen. None of us are actually worthy of Heaven, and you are no exception.
Since you are in open communion with people who rejects believing in Jesus Christ and the Trinity, I have all the rights in the world to presume that you are a heretic, for if you did not agree with there abominable heresies, you would not be in religious communion with them! It's just that simple.
So, since you are in communion with people who rejects the Catholic Faith, you are entering the Churches of heretics:
Council of Laodicea during the 4th century, Canon 6: “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics… It is not permitted to heretics to enter the house of God while they continue in heresy.”
As well:
Council of Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman, let him be excommunicated.”
Too:
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2316: “A person who of his own accord and knowingly helps in any manner to propagate heresy, or who communicates in sacred rites [in divines] with heretics in violation of the prohibition of Canon 1258, incurs suspicion of heresy.”
In addition:
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2315: “A person who is suspected of heresy, and who after admonition has not removed the cause for suspicion, shall be forbidden to exercise legal ecclesiastical acts; if he is a cleric, and after repeated admonition has not removed the cause for suspicion, he shall be suspended a divines [from sacred rites]. If a person suspected of heresy has been punished with the penalties here stated, and does not amend within six months after their imposition, he shall be considered as a heretic and be liable to the penalties of heresy.”
And:
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 823: “Mass may not be said in churches of heretics or schismatics, even though they were in the past properly consecrated or blessed.”
You may as well stop quoting that post from ABL, you'll never convince me he is a heretic. He did not reject any dogma, he simply stated that it is not impossible for Protestants to be saved. And it isn't if they truely have every intention of pleasing God. And you say I don't care about pleasing God, but I think you should keep opinions like that to yourself. The fact is, pleasing God is my number one priority in life, and you can't tell me what my intentions are considering you don't even know me personally. In fact, you are judging people by their thoughts and motives instead of their actions. You are saying I have no intentions of pleasing God. So you are not paying attention to Jesus when He tells us to judge people by their actions, NOT their thoughts or motives. God means more to me than LeFebvre, obviously. You act as if though all SSPX supporters are worshippers of ABL.
Again did you lie about what you said. ABL did not only mention Protestants, but Muslims and Buddhists as well... You conveniently left that part out for the second time now. I caught you in the same dishonesty before. This is how I know you're a dishonest liar. You left that part out and refuse to even acknowledge that it exists, since it refutes you. You defend heresy, plain and simple, and therefore do I condemn you as a heretic!
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”
Since you defend heresy and defend heretics who rejects God, and because you are in communion with people and with a society who rejects God, you can't possibly care about God. It's just that simple. But you don't get that, for you are not of God and neither are you His Child. For if you where of God, you would feel abhorrence to be in communion with people who rejected and despised your Father. These people whom you are in communion with, crucify our Lord a new and spit Him in the face with their Christ rejecting heresies. Yet you do nothing, you do not care. You even defend their heresies and acknowledge them as your friends. Thus have you rejected God in order to please men, you worship man, not God.
Let me point something else out. I am being charitable to you by not losing my temper. I mean, here you are claiming I have no intention of pleasing God. I could easily chew you out for saying that. But I won't. Why? Because by doing so I am pleasing God. I am being as charitable as I possible can in this situation. But you are not being charitable. You have told me and several others they are condemned. God is the Judge, not you, Heitanen. And I know you've been here since 2009 apparently, but you clearly aren't as experienced as me or most other people here. I suggest waiting until you become more experienced before you start diving into such big debates. Otherwise, please don't even try to debate with us if you're going to be rude and over the top.
You are only pretending to be charitable since you have been refuted. I would be glad if you could rebuke me and point out to me if I where in some error or some heresy and if I believed wrong, but I guess you cannot do it - for the true Faith is not in you.
Neither can you be truly charitable so long as you defend heretics and defend heresies. If you had love, you would not be in communion with people who rejected love it self (God), it's just that simple.
St. Cyril of Alexandria: “It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite yourself to their communion.” (On Leviticus 17:3)
Besides, true charity is to admonish sinners and to warn them about their fall. True charity is to defend the Faith, and condemns heresies and heretics:
Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: "3. On Heretics - We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. …Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the Holy Land. Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics."
-
I'll respond to your post one bit at a time, Hietanen.
1.- Just because I go to an SSPX Mass does not mean I agree with Bishop Fellay that Buddhists and Muslims can be saved, nor does it make me a heretic. I do in fact disagree with Fellay on that. Although, I think Bishop Williamson is better anyway. Not that I don't like Fellay or anything, I just like Williamson better. Most people here also seem to. I do not know if my parish priest believes Buddhists, Muslims, Hinduists, etc. can be saved, but I highly doubt he believes they can. Just because Fellay thinks they can be saved, doesn't mean the whole Society thinks that.
2- Am I heretic no matter where I attend Mass in your opinion? It's the Traditional Latin Mass for crying out loud, it hardly matters who says it. Are you a home-aloner?
3.- I addressed what ABL said about other religions such as Buddhists and Muslims being saved several days ago. I do not think they can be saved, but I also doubt that ABL actually thought they could. It isn't always easy to determine exactly what a priest or bishop is trying to say.
4.- I don't appreciate you telling me what religion I am. I DO care about God, your problem is that you go to extremes over what is and is not a sin. Your logic is messed up. Not everything is a sin, Hietanen. Please stop telling me I am not a Christian and keep absurd accusations like that to yourself.
-
Please correct me if I am wrong, but he appears to be marrying his sister, which, of course, is something (incest) that is condemned by the Church.
I don't think so. If you read to whole story (not just those passages out of context), you will soon realize that she is not his sister, and that the word sister is being used as a more general term. A similar situation occurs during the Gospels when the evangelists Matthew and Mark refer to Jesus's brothers.
We all know that it is a mistake to hold that Jesus had any brothers. Same in this case.
-
St. Cyril of Alexandria: “It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite yourself to their communion.” (On Leviticus 17:3)
But, in a pinch, Holy Church canonizes them and exalts them to the level of Doctor, right?
You will never have an adequate reply for my points about St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas. Your ONLY argument is that they were IGNORANT of the most well-known dogma in history, which is patently absurd. Even one of my pagan friends, born and raised in 20th century America and modestly well-read, knows about EENS, but you want me to believe two of the most learned men in the entire history of the world DID NOT KNOW about it?
-
Please correct me if I am wrong, but he appears to be marrying his sister, which, of course, is something (incest) that is condemned by the Church.
I don't think so. If you read to whole story (not just those passages out of context), you will soon realize that she is not his sister, and that the word sister is being used as a more general term. A similar situation occurs during the Gospels when the evangelists Matthew and Mark refer to Jesus's brothers.
We all know that it is a mistake to hold that Jesus had any brothers. Same in this case.
Okay, thanks. But, at the time, his marriage to his "sister" appears to have not yet been consummated. True? I would agree 100% that it would be gravely sinful to use NFP or Standard Days when starting out in marriage, especially, when the newly married couple have no children. In my example, however, when Mom is older and perhaps in danger of death from another pregnancy (not at all uncommon), I do not believe that her children would want to see her die, just so that she he could risk her life in getting pregnant again. In these circuмstances, the secondary ends of marriage would still apply, and so would the primary ends of marriage, specifically, the education of her already existing children. In such cases, I do not believe that Pius XI's admonitions are even directed toward such couples.
-
St. Cyril of Alexandria: “It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite yourself to their communion.” (On Leviticus 17:3)
But, in a pinch, Holy Church canonizes them and exalts them to the level of Doctor, right?
You will never have an adequate reply for my points about St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas. Your ONLY argument is that they were IGNORANT of the most well-known dogma in history, which is patently absurd. Even one of my pagan friends, born and raised in 20th century America and modestly well-read, knows about EENS, but you want me to believe two of the most learned men in the entire history of the world DID NOT KNOW about it?
We're splitting hairs, again. Here is what Brother Andre Marie of the Saint Benedict Center said recently:
"I do not accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament), but I know how very common these theological opinions are." (See "Comments" section within http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/11/19/the-status-of-father-feeneys-doctrinal-position/)
Now, according to St. Alphonsus, was Baptism of Desire de fide? Apparently, he believed that it was. However, would he extend that belief to include the proposition without sacramental Baptism? He doesn't say. As I said before, Baptism of Desire (which is a desire for sacramental Baptism) does confer grace; indeed, it is a response to grace. But, does it ever occur in the absence, past or future, of sacramental Baptism? St. Alphonsus was not at all "explicit" on that question; neither was Saint Thomas. They simply said that it could occur, not that it did occur, and certainly not that sacramental Baptism never occurred.
"Feeneyism" does not deny Desire for Baptism (or Baptism of Desire); rather, we assert that faith in Christ and desire for sacramental Baptism are among the first steps a person takes in his or her quest for everlasting life, and the One and Triune God, in His Sovereignty over His Creation, will simply ensure that those who sincerely desire Baptism will receive it somehow, some way.
If you accept conception as a miracle of God, then you certainly must accept ensoulment as an additional miracle of God. They both occur simultaneously when a new human being begins to exist. Saying that God will provide sacramental Baptism to whomever sincerely desires it requires no miraculous intervention as "anyone whatsoever" can Baptize. It does not require "extraordinary faith" to believe that this occurs. Since ensoulment occurs on a large scale, it is certainly reasonable to believe that sacramental Baptism does, also. As I said before, "Baptism of Desire" would not help an individual during the first 7 years of that person's life; on the other hand, sacramental Baptism would.
-
You will never have an adequate reply for my points about St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas. Your ONLY argument is that they were IGNORANT of the most well-known dogma in history, which is patently absurd. Even one of my pagan friends, born and raised in 20th century America and modestly well-read, knows about EENS, but you want me to believe two of the most learned men in the entire history of the world DID NOT KNOW about it?
I have already answered your distorted argument. St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Alphonsus Liguori never denied the dogma on outside the church there is no salvation. They always taught that Jews, pagans Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, Hinduists, Protestants, etc. will be damned.
If you say they deny the dogma, then why don't you cite anything? You can't prove your point, that's why you have to distort the truth, dishonest as you are.
Just because they believed in baptism of desire/blood for Catechumens who accepted the Catholic Faith and who professed belief in Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Catholic Church and the Pontiff, does not mean that they rejected the dogma on outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. That you actually obstinately hold to this erroneous position even after being corrected, is just ridiculous and sad to behold.
For tell me, how easy is it to understand that a person who accepted the Catholic Faith, believed in Jesus Christ and the Trinity, who submitted himself under the Pope and who was obedient to the Catholic Church, that this person - if he died without baptism - was never a Catholic to begin with?
No, it's not at all obvious or easy to understand, and therefore can misconception arise on this delicate subject. But you are just dishonest, and of bad will. That's why you obstinately hold to your erroneous position even after I have proved you wrong, for you have nothing else to say or do then to slander and to lie about the saints and make false (but already refuted) arguments.
Your disease is called BAD WILL, BECAUSE OF YOUR MANY MORTAL SINS. NO PERSON CAN BE SO BLIND AS YOU ARE UNLESS HE IS A MORTAL SINNER!
You need to read these files and come out of your mortal and venial sins,
http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/
http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/st-bridget/st-bridget-of-sweden.php
-
Hietanen, you need to come out of your mindset that you're the Pope.
-
1.- Just because I go to an SSPX Mass does not mean I agree with Bishop Fellay that Buddhists and Muslims can be saved, nor does it make me a heretic. I do in fact disagree with Fellay on that. Although, I think Bishop Williamson is better anyway. Not that I don't like Fellay or anything, I just like Williamson better. Most people here also seem to. I do not know if my parish priest believes Buddhists, Muslims, Hinduists, etc. can be saved, but I highly doubt he believes they can. Just because Fellay thinks they can be saved, doesn't mean the whole Society thinks that.
If you don't agree with SSPX's and their dogma on 'outside the Catholic Church there is salvation', for Jews, Muslims, pagans, atheists, etc, then why do you go to them for religious communion? Just because they call themselves Catholic or celebrate the traditional liturgy, does not mean in anyway that we should profess outward communion with these apostates from the faith. In fact, you could as well be in communion with Arians, or the Eastern "Orthodox" schismatics, or the "Old Catholics", and excuse yourself with "but I don't share their beliefs, I just want the sacraments, etc." - But to do so would be a mortal sin against the Faith and heresy. Likewise, then, is it to be in religious communion with all other apostates from the Faith. whether they call themselves Catholic or not. We are to far gone in this great apostasy to any longer be in communion with heretics or apostates. It's just that simple.
Pope Pius IX, "Graves Ac Diuturnae," 1875, (# 4): "You should remind them to beware of these treacherous enemies of the flock of Christ and their poisoned foods. THEY SHOULD TOTALLY SHUN THEIR RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS, THEIR BUILDINGS, AND THEIR CHAIRS OF PESTILENCE WHICH THEY HAVE WITH IMPUNITY ESTABLISHED TO TRANSMIT THE SACRED TEACHINGS. THEY SHOULD SHUN THEIR WRITINGS AND ALL CONTACT WITH THEM. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS OR MEETINGS WITH USURPING PRIESTS AND APOSTATES FROM THE FAITH who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction. They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy. For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God, as well as action calculated to achieve the goal of faith, that is the salvation of their souls, by following the straight road of justice."
Can it be any clearer than that? We “SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS OR MEETINGS WITH USURPING PRIESTS AND APOSTATES FROM THE FAITH who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction…” we “should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy.” and “THEY SHOULD TOTALLY SHUN THEIR RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS, THEIR BUILDINGS, AND THEIR CHAIRS OF PESTILENCE WHICH THEY HAVE WITH IMPUNITY ESTABLISHED TO TRANSMIT THE SACRED TEACHINGS. THEY SHOULD SHUN THEIR WRITINGS AND ALL CONTACT WITH THEM”
This evidence should be enough for anyone who is not suffering from the mortal illness of bad will and pride. If you have fallen for this heresy, we pray with tears that God may lead you out of this outrageous and scandalous position which has forced you to profess external communion with the most abominable, apostate, heretical or schismatical priests and laymen that may ever have lived!
2- Am I heretic no matter where I attend Mass in your opinion? It's the Traditional Latin Mass for crying out loud, it hardly matters who says it. Are you a home-aloner?
No, you are either a heretic for believing in some heresy or by obstinately being in communion with heretics and apostates. If you do this, then yes, you are a heretic since you have no intention of breaking communion with those who are in opposition to the Church.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."
3.- I addressed what ABL said about other religions such as Buddhists and Muslims being saved several days ago. I do not think they can be saved, but I also doubt that ABL actually thought they could. It isn't always easy to determine exactly what a priest or bishop is trying to say.
We are to judge people according to what they said, we are not to judge people according what they did not say. What he said was heretical, therefore must we hold him to his heretical belief.
4.- I don't appreciate you telling me what religion I am. I DO care about God, your problem is that you go to extremes over what is and is not a sin. Your logic is messed up. Not everything is a sin, Hietanen. Please stop telling me I am not a Christian and keep absurd accusations like that to yourself.
I have never said everything is a sin. I have only said that was is sinful is a sin, I have also several times linked to a docuмent which deals with certain sins most people commit today - maybe are you doing all these things, is it why you constantly accuse me of saying everything is sinful? Only what is sinful is sinful, what is not sinful is not a sin. So please, don't put words in my mouth and attribute me me things which I have never said.
Find out if you are living in mortal or venial sin here (http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/).
-
1.- I actually don't always go to an SSPX Mass, sometimes I attend FSSP Masses. I have access to one SSPX chapel and one FSSP chapel. How am I in sin for going to Church when these are my only two options? And just because Bishop Fellay thinks Buddhists and Hinduists can be saved does not mean the Society as a whole thinks so. You used an analogy not long ago that it's not a sin to go to a store that sells dirty magazines because you can avoid them. Well, wouldn't the same thing apply here? If there are people with viewpoints that are incorrect can't I just avoid their views or avoid the person altogether if the person is a modernist or something?
2.- You didn't answer my question. I aksed you if you were a home-aloner. Please answer the question.
3.- What LeFebvre even meant is debatable. It doesn't make him a heretic.
4.- But you act as if though almost everything is sinful. So if I used your logic I wouldn't even be able to get out of bed in the morning without being gauranteed to commit a mortal sin.
-
If you say they deny the dogma, then why don't you cite anything?
Here is something from St. Thomas that clearly denies the dogma AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT...
Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Question 65, Article 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.
On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."
I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Question 60, Article 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: 'by water'," according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.
Article 12. Whether the Baptism of Blood is the most excellent of these?
Objection 1. It seems that the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent of these three. For the Baptism of Water impresses a character; which the Baptism of Blood cannot do. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not more excellent than the Baptism of Water.
Objection 2. Further, the Baptism of Blood is of no avail without the Baptism of the Spirit, which is by charity; for it is written (1 Corinthians 13:3): "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." But the Baptism of the Spirit avails without the Baptism of Blood; for not only the martyrs are saved. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.
Objection 3. Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which, as stated above (Article 11), the Baptism of Blood corresponds, so Christ's Passion derives its efficacy from the Holy Ghost, according to Hebrews 9:14: "The Blood of Christ, Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," etc. Therefore the Baptism of the Spirit is more excellent than the Baptism of Blood. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.
On the contrary, Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the comparison between Baptisms says: "The newly baptized confesses his faith in the presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed; the latter with his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hands; the latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost."
I answer that, As stated above (Article 11), the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (11). These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Reply to Objection 1. A character is both reality and a sacrament. And we do not say that the Baptism of Blood is more excellent, considering the nature of a sacrament; but considering the sacramental effect.
Reply to Objection 2. The shedding of blood is not in the nature of a Baptism if it be without charity. Hence it is clear that the Baptism of Blood includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from this it is proved to be more perfect.
Reply to Objection 3. The Baptism owes its pre-eminence not only to Christ's Passion, but also to the Holy Ghost, as stated above.
-
For tell me, how easy is it to understand that a person who accepted the Catholic Faith, believed in Jesus Christ and the Trinity, who submitted himself under the Pope and who was obedient to the Catholic Church, that this person - if he died without baptism - was never a Catholic to begin with...
3. 1917 Code of Canon Law
On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
-
NO PERSON CAN BE SO BLIND AS YOU ARE UNLESS HE IS A MORTAL SINNER...
Amigo, you need to hyper down. If we met face to face, your attitude would be adjusted, quickly and, if necessary, forcibly.
-
Pope Pius IX, "Graves Ac Diuturnae," 1875, (# 4)...
Does anyone else find it ironic that Hietanen is quoting Pius IX as an authority???
-
Saint Thomas never equated sacramental Baptism with Baptism of Desire, for he said,
"As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, 'He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,' a gloss says: 'He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.'" (ST, III, 69, 5)
Given this fact and the fact of the One and Triune God's absolute sovereignty over His Creation, is not it reasonable to conclude that God would want everyone who enters Heaven to have sacramental Baptism in Water? And, if such is, indeed, His will, is not He capable of bring that about?
-
he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment
These words prove he thought the GUILT, in such cases, was already removed. Once the guilt is removed, heaven is open.
-
Saint Thomas never equated sacramental Baptism with Baptism of Desire...
No one said he did...
However, it is crystal clear that he believed a man can get the grace of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. That is THE issue being disputed.
-
And, Father Feeney nor his successors disputed the fact that Baptism of Desire confers sacramental grace; indeed, it is a response to sacramental grace from the One and Triune God. Point is that everyone agrees that sacramental Baptism is unique and special, above and beyond Baptism of Desire, and since it is something that God commands of everyone and since His commandments are not impossible for us to fulfill and since He is able to use miraculous means to bring about the fulfillment of His commandments, it is completely reasonable to at least suppose that everyone in Heaven will arrive there with the seal of sacramental Baptism in Water, something that we all agree they cannot get with Baptism of Desire.
-
Baptism of Desire confers sacramental grace; indeed, it is a response to sacramental grace from the One and Triune God.
Really? What sacramental grace is that?
-
It puts one in a state where one is justified before the One and Triune God. Father Feeney simply believed that the seal of Baptism would inevitably follow:
"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)
Justification (typically) precedes sacramental Baptism, which we believe will always occur sometime before (perhaps in a person's infancy) or after it.
-
Your response shows you missed the point of my question.
-
You already answered your question:
"I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): 'These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb.' In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): 'If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.' Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): 'The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable." (ST, III, 66, 11)
I agree with the above, all of it. Father Feeney simply asserted that, if only by Divine Providence, Baptism of Water will always follow.
-
If you say they deny the dogma, then why don't you cite anything?
Here is something from St. Thomas that clearly denies the dogma AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT...
No, I read it all. No where did it say what you claim. Please, point out explicitly where he denied the dogma.
OR IS IT THIS THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO?
he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment
These words prove he thought the GUILT, in such cases, was already removed. Once the guilt is removed, heaven is open.
IF you are going to show me that St. Thomas believed in baptism of desire, then, we have already gone through that and we already knew he believed in it, and that is no proof of a denial of a dogma, but simply an error.
By the way, why do you seem to be so eager in proving that Saints somehow have contradicted the dogma on no salvation outside the Catholic Church, is it because you deny the dogma yourself? They never denied the dogma, but yet do you want to imply they did. That is called bad will.
3. 1917 Code of Canon Law
On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
Try again, the 1917 Code of Canon Law is heretical on numerous occasions, neither is it infallible. I don't think I have to prove to you or repeat to you the numerous infallible dogmas which says that none can be saved without water baptism.
So only a faithless heretic would deny a dogma because of what a modernistic heretical canon law said. If the 1917 Code of Canon Law contradicts dogma, then it must be disregarded.
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.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE MANY OUTRAGEOUS CANONS FOUND IN THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW
THE 1917 CODE TEACHES THAT CATHOLICS MAY BE PRESENT AT NON-CATHOLIC FORMS OF WORSHIP, INCLUDING NON-CATHOLIC WEDDINGS AND NON-CATHOLIC FUNERALS!
Canon 1258, 1917 Code: “1. It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics. 2. Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated for the sake of honor or civil office, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided danger of scandal is absent.”
Note: this canon is talking about non-Catholic or non-Christian (false) worship and rites. This is outrageous! This canon allows one to travel to and attend a Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυє or a Hindu Temple or a Lutheran Service, etc., etc., etc. for the wedding or funeral of infidels or heretics – just as long as one doesn’t actively participate! This is ridiculous, for to go out of his way to be present at such non-Catholic services where false worship is conducted (for the sake of honoring or pleasing the person involved in it) is a scandal in itself. It is to honor a person who is sinning against the First Commandment. To go to the funeral of a non-Catholic is to imply that there was some hope for him for salvation outside the Church; and to attend the wedding of a non-Catholic is to imply that God condones his or her marriage outside the Church. A Catholic can neither take part actively in false worship nor go out of one’s way to travel to the false worship or the non-Catholic ceremony to honor it with his “passive” presence. To have a passive presence at non-Catholic services, is actually to honor the devil and the demons, since Psalms 95:5 says that “all the gods of the Gentiles are devils.” To show to others that you are attending their religious houses, is to show formal consent to their religion and it is mortally sinful, and completely inexcusable.
Does anyone else find it ironic that Hietanen is quoting Pius IX as an authority???
May I ask what you are trying to get at? What is wrong with quoting Pope Pius XI?
-
1.- I actually don't always go to an SSPX Mass, sometimes I attend FSSP Masses. I have access to one SSPX chapel and one FSSP chapel.
Is does not matter where you go so long as the society you attend is heretical or accepts Vatican II or it's antipopes - then you are in communion with heretics, even if you claim you do not agree with them.
How am I in sin for going to Church when these are my only two options? And just because Bishop Fellay thinks Buddhists and Hinduists can be saved does not mean the Society as a whole thinks so.
The SSPX as a whole denies the dogma. That is why they do not excommunicate the "priests" and "bishops" who denies the dogma, such as "bishop" Fellay. SSPX also denies the dogma on their public magazines, articles, websites, phamplets, etc. They are manifest heretics, and everyone knoews about it. So this is not just something a single "bishop" or "priest" believes in, it's in the SSPX public teachings... WAKE UP! Also, I have never talked to a SSPX priest that does not deny the dogma. If you ask your priest, if he believes Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc, can be saved, he will probably tell you that it is possible, through no fault of their own. Just open your mouth God have given you and ask the priest what he believes, and you might be surprised at his answer.
If you will not ask the priest to find out, then are you culpable and guilty, since we today in this great apostasy have an obligation to find out if the priest we go to is a heretic or not. When we know that almost everyone today is a heretic, then are we obliged to find out if with those we commune with is heretical or not.
Even if your priest does not deny the dogma, but yet remain in communion with a society that denies the dogma, he is complicit in the crime and guilty, and if he refuses to cut himself of from them, shall be looked upon as a heretic.
You cannot associate yourself with non-Catholic and obstinately adhere to them and think you can excuse yourself by saying, that you don't agree with what they believe, etc. It does not work like that, which is the reason for that we cannot be in communion with the "Orthodox", or the "Old Catholics" even though they have valid sacraments...
You used an analogy not long ago that it's not a sin to go to a store that sells dirty magazines because you can avoid them. Well, wouldn't the same thing apply here? If there are people with viewpoints that are incorrect can't I just avoid their views or avoid the person altogether if the person is a modernist or something?
No, the Catholic Church has explicitly forbidden Catholics to be in communion with non-Catholics. If you obstinately act in defiance to what the Church has taught, and you obstinately profess communion with non-Catholic apostates, then you are guilty of mortal sin and heresy, by partaking in the worship of non-Catholics.
Just because these new heretics and apostates from the faith call themselves "Catholic" and celebrates the traditional liturgy, does not make it licit to go to them. Just as other heretics prior to the apostasy was condemned and excommunicated, so too, must we, apply these same condemnations on the new heretics and schismatics that have sprung up since then.
Or do you think you can excuse yourself just because the See of Peter is Vacant, and that you by that fact are allowed to associate yourself with ungodly heretics? No, be sure about, that if a Pope existed today, all the new heretics today would have been thoroughly condemned, just as these apostates was condemned.
Pope Pius IX, Etsi Multa, #26, Nov. 21, 1873:"Therefore, by the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate and hold as anathema Joseph Humbert himself and all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle [2 John 10-11] to associate and have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted."
The above quote is very relevant to our situation today in that many priests and adherents of those priests would fall under this very same condemnation. First let’s learn a little history about the above condemnation of Joseph Humbert and all his adherents: "A surprisingly large number of German priests and laymen rejected the First Vatican Council’s solemn teaching on the papacy. In September 1870, nearly 1,400 Germans who called themselves 'Old Catholics' signed a declaration that renounced the conciliar teaching. In September 1871, 300 delegates met in Munich to organize a new church. Unable to find a Catholic bishop who would renounce Catholic dogma and join them, the Old Catholics turned to the Jansenist Bishop Heykamp of Devetner in the Netherlands of the schismatic Little Church of Utrecht. He ordained Father Joseph Humbert Reinkens a bishop in August 1873."
Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875: "… the new heretics who call themselves 'Old Catholics'... these schismatics and heretics... their wicked sect... these sons of darkness... their wicked faction… this deplorable sect… This sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways. We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church."
Here, Pope Pius IX gives an explicit confirmation that people must consider heretics or schismatics to be outside the Church and that there is no need for a further declaration to decide this. But who can deny the fact that Vatican II also is a “new church”, and that all the validly ordained bishops and priests left in this “new church” also would fall under this same condemnation as Joseph Humbert? Therefore, without a doubt, you may not approach any of the validly ordained Novus Ordo priests for the sacraments of Confession or the Eucharist at all, as the heretics and schismatics teach.
Another striking fact is that almost all of the validly ordained priests left in the entire world (both traditional “Catholic” priests and Novus Ordo priests alike), also reject Vatican I and papal infallibility, by obstinately denying infallible Catholic dogma. The old “Catholics” was excommunicated for this very reason, and one were not even allowed to greet them, and anyone who would adhere to them (for example, who received the sacraments from them) was to be excommunicated just like them:
“We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church." (Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875)
Therefore, without a doubt, neither may you approach any of the validly ordained traditional “Catholic” priests left in the world for the sacraments licitly, if they obstinately deny or reject even a single Catholic dogma or hold to even a single heresy, as Pope Leo XIII makes clear:
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "No one who merely disbelieves in all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic."
Here we see that Pope Leo XIII even mentions the possibility of some other new heresies that might arise in the future, and the Pope applied the following words even to those heretics (in future terms): "if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic."
2.- You didn't answer my question. I aksed you if you were a home-aloner. Please answer the question.
Since I have no access to a non-heretical liturgy in Sweden, I am forced to stay from. Many people have not have access to mass or the sacraments. It is the Faith which is important. People who compromise their faith and who put sacraments before the faith, will not be Saved.
Catholics who had no access to Catholic priests and avoided non-Catholic priests
There were times in the history of the Church when Catholics could not attend Mass for extended periods of time because no Catholic priests were available to them. In the case where only non-Catholic priests were available, Catholics were nevertheless dogmatically banned from any religious communion with them. Hence in the history of the Catholic Church there were extended periods of time in which Catholics were deprived of the Holy Mass and the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, confirmation, and orders. This is empirical proof that the Catholic faith comes before the Mass and sacraments and that Catholics can be saved without being able to attend Mass or receive the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, confirmation, and orders. Hence a man can be saved without these good things, but he cannot be saved without the Catholic faith.
St. Paul the Hermit
During the Decian persecution of Christians, St. Paul the Hermit fled to the desert when he was 16 years old. He then lived alone in the desert for nearly 100 years without a Mass and the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist, penance, and extreme unction. Yet when he died, St. Antony of the desert saw St. Paul‘s soul fly straight to heaven:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Paul the Hermit: “When a young man of sixteen Paul fled into the desert of the Thebaid during the Decian persecution. He lived in a cave in the mountain-side till he was one hundred and thirteen. The mountain, adds St. Jerome, was honeycombed with caves.”
The Life of Paulus the First Hermit, by St. Jerome, 374 or 375: “2. During the persecutions of Decius and Valerian, when Cornelius at Rome and Cyprian at Carthage shed their blood in blessed martyrdom, many churches in Egypt and the Thebaid were laid waste by the fury of the storm… 4. While such enormities were being perpetrated in the lower part of the Thebaid, Paul and his newly married sister were bereaved of both their parents, he being about sixteen years of age. He was heir to a rich inheritance, highly skilled in both Greek and Egyptian learning, gifted with a gentle disposition and a deep love for God. Amid the thunders of persecution he…fled to the mountain wilds to wait for the end of the persecution. He began with easy stages, and repeated halts, to advance into the desert. At length he found a rocky mountain, at the foot of which, closed by a stone, was a cave of no great size… 6. Accordingly, regarding his abode as a gift from God, he fell in love with it, and there in prayer and solitude spent all the rest of his life… 7. …The blessed Paul had already lived on earth the life of heaven for a hundred and thirteen years, and Antony at the age of ninety was dwelling in another place of solitude (as he himself was wont to declare), when the thought occurred to the latter, that no monk more perfect than himself had settled in the desert. However, in the stillness of the night it was revealed to him that there was farther in the desert a much better man than he, and that he ought to go and visit him… 14. …And now another day had dawned and a three hours‘ journey still remained, when he saw Paul in robes of snowy white ascending on high among the bands of angels, and the choirs of prophets and apostles…”
St. Benedict
When St. Benedict was 14 or 15 years of age, he fled from the world to live in a cave. He lived there for three years, and a priest visited him only once during that time. Butler’s Lives of the Saints does not mention that the priest offered him Mass or the Holy Eucharist; hence, at most, St. Benedict only attended Mass and received the Holy Eucharist once in three years.
St. Mary of Egypt
St. Mary of Egypt fled to the desert to do penance and lived in total isolation for nearly forty-seven years until Abbot Zosimus crossed her path. “Zosimus asked how long she had lived in that desert. ‘It is,‘ she said, ‘as near as I can judge, forty-seven years.‘” (Butler’s Lives of the Saints, Husenbeth Edition, v. I, April 9, St. Mary of Egypt, p. 436.)
During these forty-seven years St. Mary did not attend Mass, receive the Holy Eucharist, or have the sacrament of penance. Yet God was so pleased with her that He gave her the power of prophecy and miracles during her self-imposed exile.
3.- What LeFebvre even meant is debatable. It doesn't make him a heretic.
If he meant what he said, then that makes him a heretic. And since we cannot judge besides from what we know,we must condemn him for what he said.
St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”
4.- But you act as if though almost everything is sinful. So if I used your logic I wouldn't even be able to get out of bed in the morning without being gauranteed to commit a mortal sin.
You are making straw man arguments. It doesn't work.
-
1.- You must be a home-aloner then. A home-aloner is someone who stays home from Church because they don't like who is celebrating the Mass. That's not a good excuse. A good excuse would be if you did not have access to a TLM, but judging from what you said it sounds like you do yet reufse to attend, which therefore makes you a home-aloner. Home-aloners are not welcome on this forum. Furthermore, not having a good excuse to stay home and not attend Mass means that you have sinned by violating the Third Commandment. It's time that you became aware of your own mistakes instead of pointing out the mistakes of everyone else.
2.- The SSPX IS Catholic and is not heretical. Why do you even post on an SSPX forum if you're anti-SSPX? And not "almost everyone" these days is a heretic. I'd say about 60-70% of people in the world today are heretics. That's still alot, but from your logic that would mean about 90-95% of people today are heretics, and that's not an accurate number.
3.- It's ridiculous to think that LeFebvre should be condemned as a heretic until we actually find out what he meant. That's like saying an innocent person who was accused of committing murder, despite not having any concrete evidence that he actually murdered someone, should be prepared to be executed until it is proven that he was innocent.
4.- You are using straw man arguments. Not me.
-
Does anyone else find it ironic that Hietanen is quoting Pius IX as an authority???
May I ask what you are trying to get at? What is wrong with quoting Pope Pius IX?
...There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments...
There are other quotes from Pius IX that confound your interpretations of Catholic teaching; however, one should suffice to prove my point that it is ironic that you are quoting Pius IX.
-
I don't think I have to prove to you or repeat to you the numerous infallible dogmas which says that none can be saved without water baptism.
Well, at least this shows we are getting somewhere. I am sure your mouse would, if it could, be grateful that you have chosen to not overwork it when there is no point.
-
3.- It's ridiculous to think that LeFebvre should be condemned as a heretic until we actually find out what he meant. That's like saying an innocent person who was accused of committing murder, despite not having any concrete evidence that he actually murdered someone, should be prepared to be executed until it is proven that he was innocent.
It should be pointed out that Archbishop LeFebvre gave Brother Francis, a follower of Father Feeney, Holy Communion at Saint Mary’s:
http://catholicism.org/feeney-doctrine.html
-
1.- You must be a home-aloner then. A home-aloner is someone who stays home from Church because they don't like who is celebrating the Mass. That's not a good excuse. A good excuse would be if you did not have access to a TLM, but judging from what you said it sounds like you do yet reufse to attend, which therefore makes you a home-aloner. Home-aloners are not welcome on this forum. Furthermore, not having a good excuse to stay home and not attend Mass means that you have sinned by violating the Third Commandment. It's time that you became aware of your own mistakes instead of pointing out the mistakes of everyone else.
Show me a non heretical traditional mass to attend to in Sweden, and I will go there. You say, that I have no excuse because I have no Catholic Church where I live? You know, I will not compromise my Faith and enter the churches of heretics and schismatics. Many a times in Church history have the Faithful been without mass when their country either fell into heresy or apostasy.
But according to your heretical logic, must these people have joined in the communion with Arians, or other apostates from the faith, or else they would break the third commandment... I guess you do not realize how stupid that was which you just said.
You must know one thing. Many of the heretics listed below where less worse then the apostates that lives today. For none of them the denied the necessity of Jesus Christ for salvation.
Catholics during the Arian crisis
During the Arian crisis in the 4th century, Arian heretics took over many Catholic churches. Catholics were forbidden to attend Masses offered by Arian priests or receive any sacrament from them or be in any other kind of religious communion with the Arians; and therefore for an extended period of time, many Catholics could not attend Mass, receive the Holy Eucharist, go to confession, etc. St. Hermenegild was one such faithful Catholic:
St. Hermenegild, Martyr: "On Easter night a heretical Arian bishop was sent to him with Holy Communion, but he refused to receive even the Easter Communion from the hands of a heretic, and his father then put him to death." (The New Roman Missal, Fr. Lasance, 1945, April 13, p. 1687.)
We read that Saint Antony of the Desert would have nothing to do with the Meletian schismatics and Arian heretics other than to warn them and try to convert them:
St. Athanasius: "68. And he [St. Antony] was altogether wonderful in faith and religious, for he never held communion with the Meletian schismatics, knowing their wickedness and apostasy from the beginning; nor had he friendly dealings with the Manichaeans or any other heretics; or, if he had, only as far as advice that they should change to piety. For he thought and asserted that intercourse with these was harmful and destructive to the soul. In the same manner also he loathed the heresy of the Arians, and exhorted all neither to approach them nor to hold their erroneous belief. And once when certain Arian madmen came to him, when he had questioned them and learned their impiety, he drove them from the mountain, saying that their words were worse than the poison of serpents… 69. …Wherefore have no fellowship with the most impious Arians. For there is no communion between light and darkness." (Life of Anthony (Vita S. Antoni), by St. Athanasius, n. 68, 69.)
Catholics in Anglican England
When the Catholic churches in England became Anglican churches, Catholics were forbidden to attend Masses offered by Anglican priests, who at that time confected the Holy Eucharist because they were valid priests. Hence for an extended period of time, most English Catholics could not attend Mass, receive the Holy Eucharist, go to confession, etc., because they did not have access to a Catholic priest.
In 1580 Blessed Edward Campion, a convert from the Anglican religion, worked zealously in England to convert Anglicans and to edify Catholics. He forbade Catholics to attend the Masses of the Anglicans who inhabited the once Catholic churches. At that time in the Anglican Church, 46 years after its creation in 1534 by King Henry VIII, there was still a valid priesthood and therefore they confected the Holy Eucharist:
Wings of Eagles: "Before Campion and his associates began to preach, Catholics had often compromised with Protestantism to the extent of attending the official church services. But Campion preached recusancy, bold and uncompromising. Catholics could not attend the Protestant services and retain their faith." (Wings of Eagles, Corley and Williams, p. 40, Imprimatur: +Moses E. Kiley, Jan. 11, 1944, Archiepiscopus Milwvkiensis.)
Catholics in schismatic France
When most of the Catholic priests in France became schismatics by joining the French Constitutional Church, Catholics were forbidden to attend Masses offered by these priests even though they confected the Holy Eucharist because they were valid priests. Hence for an extended period of time, many French Catholics could not attend Mass, receive the Holy Eucharist, go to confession, etc.
Fr. Demaris, a Missionary of St. Joseph and professor of theology in Lyon, France, remained faithful during the upheaval caused by the French Revolution, when many priests had apostatized by joining the French Constitutional Church. Although there were no Catholic priests for the bulk of French Catholics, there were many non-Catholic priests available. In 1801 Fr. Demaris wrote a consoling letter titled 'They Have Taken Away My Lord' addressed to the Catholics who, instinctively obeying the divine laws that can never change, refused to go to non-Catholic churches and to attend Masses that were presided over by these ex-Catholic priests who were now non-Catholic schismatics. He speaks to Catholics of how God will remit their sins if they make a sincere confession to God along with the promise to confess to a Catholic priest when one becomes available. He speaks of making a good confession, just as they would if a Catholic priest were available:
Fr. Demaris: "Removed from the resources of the sanctuary and deprived of all exercise of the Priesthood, there remains no mediator for us save Jesus Christ. It is to Him we must go for our needs. Before His supreme Majesty we must bluntly tear the veil off our consciences and in search of the good and bad we have done, thank Him for His graces, confess our sins and ask pardon and to show us the direction of His Holy Will, having in our hearts the sincere desire to confess to His minister whenever we are able to do so. There, my children, is what I call confessing to God! In such a confession well made, God himself will absolve us. It is thus in all painful situations that deprive us of the Sacraments. The carrying of the Cross like a Christian is the source of the remission of our sins… What the world does to drive us away from God only brings us closer… We are now to repair those faults which came from too great a trust in absolution and not examining one‘s weaknesses thoroughly enough. Obliged to wail now before God, the faithful should consider all its deformities… Let this confession to God be for you a short daily practice, but fervent… The first fruit that you will draw from it apart from the remission of your sins, will be to learn to know yourself and to know God, and the second will be to be ever ready to present yourself to a priest if you are able, enriched in character by the mercy of the Lord.
"…Console yourselves, my children, in the trust you have in God. This tender Father will pour on you His graces, His blessings and His mercies in these awful moments that you fear, in more abundance than if you were being assisted by His ministers, of whom you have been deprived only because you wouldn‘t abandon Him. The abandonment and forsakenness that we fear for ourselves resembles that of the Savior on the Cross when He said to His Father, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?'…Your pains and abandonment lead you to your glorious destiny in ending your life like Jesus ended His! …Don‘t be surprised at the great number who quit! Truth wins, no matter how small the number of those who love and remain attached to God. God watches over us, our hope is justified. It tells us that either the persecution stops or the persecution will be our crown. In the alternative of one or the other, I see the accomplishment of our destiny. Let God‘s will be done, since in whatever manner He delivers us, His eternal mercies pour into us."
Fr. Demaris consoles the French Catholics who were deprived of extreme unction:
Fr. Demaris: "God, who loves and protects us, wishes to give us His Body at the approach of death—to take away our fear on this last journey. When you look to the future and see yourself on your deathbed, without the last sacrament, without Extreme Unction and without any help on the part of the ministers of the Lord, you see yourself abandoned in the most sad and terrible way. Console yourselves, my children, in the trust you have in God. This tender Father will pour on you His graces, His blessings and His mercies, in these awful moments that you fear, in more abundance than if you were being assisted by his ministers of whom you have been deprived only because you wouldn't abandon Him Yourself. The abandonment and forsakenness that we fear for ourselves resembles that of the Savior on the Cross when He said to His Father: 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' (Matthew 27: 46) Ah! How constructive and consoling are these words! Your pains and abandonment lead you to your glorious destiny in ending your life like Jesus ended His. Jesus, in His sufferings, His abandonment and His death, was in most intimate union with His Father. In your pains and abandonment, be to Him likewise united, and let your last sigh be like His, that God‘s Will be done. Being deprived of Extreme Unction, and in the hands of persons, who not only do not help, but insult me, I shall be much happier that my death shall have more conformity with that of Jesus who was a spectacle of opprobrium to all the world. Crucified by the hand of His enemies, He was treated like a thief and died between two thieves. He was Wisdom itself and was taken for an idiot; He was Truth, and He was taken for a cheat and deceiver. The Pharisees and Scribes triumphed over Him and in His Presence. They were finally sated with His Blood. Christ died in the most shameful infamy of torture and excruciating pains of the Cross. Christians, if your last moments and death are an occasion for your enemies to treat you with insults and disgrace, what were those of Jesus? I am not sure that the angel who was sent to make up for the hardheartedness and callousness of men was not to teach us, that in similar circuмstances, we receive the consolation of Heaven when that of men is missing. It was not without a special plan of God, that the Apostles who ought to have consoled Jesus, remained in a deep sleep. So the Faithful should not be surprised to find himself without a priest in his last moments. Jesus reproached His Apostles that they slept, but He did not say that they left Him without consolation, to teach us, that if we go into the Garden of Olives, if we climb up to Calvary, if we die alone and without human help, God watches over us, consoles us, and for us that suffices. Faithful, you are afraid of what follows the present time. Lift your eyes up to Jesus, keep them on Him, contemplate Him—He is your model."
Fr. Demaris consoles the French Catholics who were deprived of the Holy Eucharist:
Fr. Demaris: "The Holy Eucharist had for you many joys and advantages when you were able to participate in this Sacrament of love, but now you are deprived of it for being defenders of truth and justice. …We sacrifice our own life as much as it is in us to do renewing itself every day, every time that we adore with submission the hand of God that drives us away from His altars… It is to be advantageously deprived of the Eucharist, to raise the standard of the Cross for the cause of Christ and the glory of the Church… Yes, I have no fear in saying it. When the storm of the malice of men roars against truth and justice, it is more advantageous to the faithful to suffer for Christ than to participate in His Body by Communion. I seem to hear the Saviour saying to us 'Repair by this humiliating deprivation that glorifies Me, all the Communions which dishonor Me.'"
In all of these above cases, Catholics could not attend Mass or receive the Holy Eucharist or be confirmed or go to confession or receive the last rites (extreme unction) for extended periods of time. Who would dare say that these Catholics could not save their souls for want of a Catholic priest to offer Mass and dispense the sacraments? Who would dare say that these Catholics were not exempted from the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday? Only heretics who put the Mass and sacraments before the Catholic Faith would say or even think such a thing!
2.- The SSPX IS Catholic and is not heretical. Why do you even post on an SSPX forum if you're anti-SSPX? And not "almost everyone" these days is a heretic. I'd say about 60-70% of people in the world today are heretics. That's still alot, but from your logic that would mean about 90-95% of people today are heretics, and that's not an accurate number.
The SSPX is not Catholic but heretical. The SSPX are more heretical then the above mentioned examples of schism and heresy and apostasy. For none of them denied the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ or the Trinity for Salvation - SSPX is also accepts Benedict XVI as Pope, and he denies the dogma and grants salvation to Jews, Muslims etc, etc.... Yet, even though the above mentioned examples where less worse then todays situation, did they not go to those heretical or schismatical churches.
3.- It's ridiculous to think that LeFebvre should be condemned as a heretic until we actually find out what he meant. That's like saying an innocent person who was accused of committing murder, despite not having any concrete evidence that he actually murdered someone, should be prepared to be executed until it is proven that he was innocent.
LeFebvre is as guilty as a murderer caught in the act of murder. He explicitly said that people can be saved in another religion than the Catholic religion. That is heresy, pure and simple!
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”
4.- You are using straw man arguments. Not me.
No, you dishonest liar. You are saying over and over again that I say everything is a sin or sinful even though I have told you many times that I don't hold such a position.
-
From http://www.rosarychurch.net/answers/ap072001.html
The Church teaches two things:
There is no salvation apart from the Catholic Church.
Baptism is necessary for salvation, but those penitent souls who desire and intend prompt Baptism, yet are prevented by death, receive the effects of Baptism.
These two teachings cannot be mutually contradictory -- particularly when they are both explicitly taught by the same individual Pope, theologian, doctor, or father.
For the purposes of this discussion let us stipulate that all of the pronouncements that say something to the effect that "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church" (in the left-hand column below) are infallible and irrevocable (they probably are not, but let us just say they are for now).
Given this stipulation, we are bound to conclude that any pronouncement by anyone that contradicts the "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" pronouncement is materially heretical. Even if my stipulation is partially incorrect, all contradictory pronouncements after the first infallible "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" pronouncement must be heretical. (All contradictory pronouncements made before were simply wrong.)
The inescapable conclusion is that either these two teachings are somehow not contradictory -- or -- that a large number of Catholic Popes, theologians, doctors, and fathers were schizophrenics, liars, feeble minded persons, and/or heretics. If we assume that they did not suffer from such problems there are two possible explanations for their pronouncements:
Either they understood that the case of people dying with the desire of Baptism but unable to receive it was atypical, and not logically included within the law of "no salvation outside...." (that such souls were like the Fire Engines that don't get ticked for going through red lights).
-- or --
They believed that people in this atypical situation were adequately associated as members of the Church by virtue of their belief and desire to be members of the Church.
+
Saint Cyprian (died A.D. 258) didn't see any contradiction between:
"He who has turned his back on the Church of Christ shall not come to the rewards of Christ; he is an alien, a worldling, an enemy. You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the Church for your mother. Our Lord warns us when He says: `he that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.' Whosoever breaks the peace and harmony of Christ acts against Christ; whoever gathers elsewhere than in the Church scatters the Church of Christ." (Unity of the Catholic Church) "The catechumens who were caught and killed confessing the Name [of Christ] before they were baptized in the Church... holding the integral Faith and truth of the Church... were not deprived of the sacrament of Baptism, being baptized by the most glorious and excellent Baptism, by which the Lord Himself said he had to be baptized [Lk. 12:50]. That those who are baptized in their own blood and sanctified by their passion were glorified and received the Divine promise, is taught to us by the Lord Himself in the Gospel, when He promised to the thief who believed and confessed [the Faith] that he would be with Him in paradise" (Epistle, lxxii: 22).
+
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (died A.D. 386) didn't see any contradiction between:
"Abhor all heretics...heed not their fair speaking or their mock humility; for they are serpents, a `brood of vipers.' Remember that, when Judas said `Hail Rabbi,' the salutation was an act of betrayal. Do not be deceived by the kiss but beware of the venom. Abhor such men, therefore, and shun the blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, for whom there is no pardon. For what fellowship have you with men without hope. Let us confidently say to God regarding all heretics, `Did I not hate, O Lord, those who hated Thee, and did I not pine away because of Your enemies?' For there is an enmity that is laudable, as it is written, `I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.' Friendship with the serpent produces enmity with God, and death. Let us shun those from whom God turns away." (The Fathers of the Church) "If anyone does not receive Baptism, he shall not be saved, except the martyrs, who even without the water shall receive the kingdom."
+
St. Ambrose didn't see any contradiction between:
"Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church. Where the Church is there is not death but life eternal. ...Although many call themselves Christians, they usurp the name and do not have the reward." (The Fathers of the Church) "I hear that you grieve since he did not receive the sacrament of Baptism... But even for a long time he had this desire that ... he should be baptized.... Surely because he asked, he received, and hence there is the Scripture: 'The just man by whatsoever death he may be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest'.... If [martyrs] are washed in their own blood, his devotedness and intention washed him" (De obitu Valentiniani consolatio).
+
St. Augustine didn't see any contradiction between:
`If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'" (Encyclical, Ubi Primum) "Not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace what is Baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart if perhaps the shortness of time does not permit the celebration of the mystery of Baptism" (on Baptism, IV, 22, 29).
+
Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533) didn't see any contradiction between:
"Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Enchiridion Patristicuм) "No one can, without the sacrament of Baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal." (The Rule of Faith 43).
+
Pope Innocent II didn't see any contradiction between:
This space open for an Innocent II quote.
"To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation that the priest whom you indicated in your letter had died without the water of Baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read, brother, in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God,1where among other things it is written, 'Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.' Read again also the book of the Blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian2 where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concernig the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned."
1. Augustine, De civ. Dei 13, 7 [ML 41, 381]; De baptismo IV 22,29 {ML 43, 173].
2. Cap. 51 [ML 16, 1374].
(Pope Innocent II in response to a query from the Bishop of Cremona about the eternal fate of a priest, who, after death, was found to be ordained although never sacramentally Baptized. The validity or invalidity of his Orders is not discussed. Denzinger 388/741)
+
Pope Innocent III didn't see any contradiction between:
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.) "A certain Jew at the moment of death... immersed himself in water saying 'I baptize me in the name of the Father...' now, there must be a difference between the baptizer and the baptized... yet if this one died he would have gone to the heavenly kingdom ... because of his faith in the sacrament." Denzinger 413/788
+
Saint Thomas Aquinas didn't see any contradiction between:
"There is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the ark, which denotes the Church." (Summa Theologiae) "A man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's passion insofar as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for him.... Not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood; forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins" (Summa Theol., III,Q.66,a.11).
+
The Council of Trent didn't see any contradiction between:
"That our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God....(Session V, Decree on Original Sin, quoting Hebrews xi: 6.)
"For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation be washed away by regeneration. For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Session V, Chapter 5; quoting John iii: 5)
" In What the Justification of the Sinner Consists, and What are its Causes .... This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting. the causes of this justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies.... the instrumental cause is the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the Sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified (Session VI, Chapter VII, emphasis added) .
"A brief description of the justification of a sinner as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of graceand of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Session VI, Chapter IV, emphasis added)
"Canon 4. If anone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are surperfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema." (Session VI, Canons on the Sacraments in General., emphasis added.)
+
The Catechism of Trent didn't see any contradiction between:
"Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your holiness, that is with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the Lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the flood." (Catechism of Trent, quoting Saint Jerome in its article on the the statement in the Creed, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," Pars I, Caput VI, No. 12; Page 103 in the Mc Hugh and Callan translation.) "... yet, even though things are so, it is nevertheless not customary for the Church to confer the Sacrament of Baptism on men immediately, but rather at fixed times appointed for this. For the delay is not a danger as is said it would be over a child, for those with the use of reason, the resolution and plan of receiving Baptism and the full repentance for the bad acts of life endows them with grace and justice if suddenly some misfortune impedes so that they are not able to be washed with the saving water. On the contrary, this delay appears to bring forth some usefulness .... (Catechism of Trent, Pars II, Caput II, No. 36; Translation mine. Cf. Page 179 in McHugh and Callan translation.)
+
St. Robert Bellarmine didn't see any contradiction between:
"Our heretics, deny that baptism is necessary, not only for the remission of sin, but also for the attainment of Heaven. However, those who imagine that there is another remedy besides baptism openly contradict the Gospel, the Council, the Fathers, and consensus of the Universal Church." ( in Br. Richard Ibranyi, OSB, Outside the Church there is no salvation: Only Baptized Roman Catholics can hope to attain Eternal Life!" (Most Holy Family Monastery} p.175 ) "Outside the Church no one is saved, should be understood of those who belong to the Church neither in reality nor in desire, just as theologians commonly speak about baptism. Because catechumens, even though not in church in re (in reality), are in the church in voto (by desire) , and in that way they can be saved.” (De Ecclesia militante) , chap 3., ed. Giuliano, vol. 2, p. 76.
+
Pope Paul V didn't see any contradiction between:
This space open for an Paul V quote.
"That holy baptism, the gateway to the Christian religion and to eternal life, holding as it does the first place among the sacraments instituted by Christ for the New Covenant, is necessary for salvation for all, either in act or desire, is testified by the divine Truth Himself in these words: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn 3.5). Therefore, the greatest concern is to be exercised for its correct and timely administration and reception" (Roman Ritual, Part II, Chapter I, para #1, emphasis added.)..
+
St. Alphonsus di Liguori didn't see any contradiction between:
`
This space open for a St. Alphonsus quote
"96. Below, we shall speak of baptism of water, which very likely according to St. Thomas, [Alphonso] Salmeron, [Franciscus Maria] Magius, [Dominic or Peter] Soto, [Antonius] Velasquez, etc. was instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, at the time when Christ was baptized by John. However, Baptism of desire is a perfect conversion to God through contrition, or the love of God above all things, with an explicit or implicit wish of true Baptism of water, the change [i.e. of the soul] of which it supplies (according to Trent, sess. 14, c. 4) as far as the remission of guilt, but not as far as the impression of the character [of Baptism], neither as far as removing all pain of punishment: it is called [baptism] of desire [flaminis, lit. of blowing {as of the wind} -- this is how St. Alphonsus refers to Baptism of desire throughout], because it is by the impulse of the Holy Ghost, which is called a blowing [flamen]. So teach [Dominicus] Viva, Salmeron with Suarez, Vasquez, Croix, and others. IT IS DE FIDE that men are saved even by baptism of desire, taught in c. Apostolicam and Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved without the washing of regeneration, or the desire thereof. See Petro., p. 142, q. 6.
(Book 6, Tract 2, Chapter 1, n. 95-97, St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Theologia Moralis. Vol. 5. P.J. Haicq (Summi Pontificis S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide et Archiepiscopi Melchliniae): Melchlinia, 1845, pp. 309-310. Trans. Travis N. Yeager, 1999.)
+
Blessed Pope Pius IX didn't see any contradiction between:
"It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood." (Denzinger 1647)
Note that Blessed Pope Pius incorporates both teachings in the single statement in the right hand column --->
"Since it must be held by faith that nobody can be saved outside of the Roman Apostolic Church, this is the one, only, ark of salvation; anyone has not entered in it will perish in the deluge. But in the same time it must also be held for certain that those who ignore the true religion, when their ignorance is invincible, are not subject to guilt in the eyes of the Lord. Now, who will presume to determine the limits of that ignorance, taking into account the variety of the peoples, the regions, the various talents, and of many other things? When, freed from the bonds of the body, we will see God as He is, and we will see the close and beautiful tie that connects the divine mercy and the divine justice. But as long as we remain with the burdens of earth and the mortal mass that weights down the spirit, we firmly hold and agree with the Catholic doctrine, that there exists a single God, one single faith, a single baptism. Further investigating will only puff one up." [Dz. 1647
"In any event, as demands charity, let us continuously pray for the conversion of all people, of every land, who are not converted to Christ. Let us strive according to our power for the common salvation of all men, for the hand of the Lord is not shortened. The gifts of heavenly grace will not be withheld to those who, with sincere mind, ask to come to this light. This truth must itself be deeply imprinted in the minds of the faithful, so that they cannot come to the false doctrines that aim to foment that religious indifference, which we see spreading farther and more strongly and fortifying itself to damage of souls. [Dz. 1648
"Those afflicted with invincible ignorance of our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and lead a virtuous and dutiful life can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of men, will not permit, in accordance with His infinite goodness and mercy, anone who is not guilty of voulntary fault to suffer eternal punishment. However also well known is the dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, that those who obstinately oppose the authority and definitions of that Church, and who stubbornly remain separated from the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff (to who the Savior has entrusted His vineyard), cannot obtain salvation" (Denzinger 1677/2866).
+
Pope Saint Pius X didn't see any contradiction between:
"It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation." (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane) "Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation.... The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire" (Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, Baptism Q.16, 17).
+
Pope Benedict XV didn't see any contradiction between:
This space open for an Benedict XV quote.
"Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire is necessary for all for salvation and is not validly conferred except by washing with true and natural water along with the prescribed formula of words" (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 737 §1, emphasis added.).
-
Does anyone else find it ironic that Hietanen is quoting Pius IX as an authority???
May I ask what you are trying to get at? What is wrong with quoting Pope Pius IX?
...There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments...
There are other quotes from Pius IX that confound your interpretations of Catholic teaching; however, one should suffice to prove my point that it is ironic that you are quoting Pius IX.
Maybe you should read the whole of what he said:
Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: "Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains 'we shall see God as He is' (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."
The Pope was simply saying that people could be in ignorance on some parts of the Faith, but not in ignorance on the whole of the Catholic Faith "'one God, one faith, one baptism' (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."
Tell me, did you think the Pope was granting salvation to people who did not even believe in Jesus Christ or the Trinity? Only a faithless heretic would have come to such a conclusion.
Let's see what St. Thomas Aquinas has to say about this:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Prima Secunda Pars, Q. 76, Art. 2: "Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: Wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know."
A Person can never be in ignorance of the Catholic Faith and be saved, as it is explicitly stated elsewhere by popes and saints:
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”
Pope Benedict XIV, cuм Religiosi (# 4), June 26, 1754:
“See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”
2 Corinthians 4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”
This is why every Doctor of the Church held that no adult could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is why the Doctors of the Church who believed in baptism of desire (although they were wrong about this) only extended it to unbaptized catechumens who believed in the Trinity and Incarnation.
-
From http://www.rosarychurch.net/answers/ap072001.html
The Church teaches two things:
There is no salvation apart from the Catholic Church.
Baptism is necessary for salvation, but those penitent souls who desire and intend prompt Baptism, yet are prevented by death, receive the effects of Baptism.
These two teachings cannot be mutually contradictory -- particularly when they are both explicitly taught by the same individual Pope, theologian, doctor, or father.
You are quite wrong. Please either start to read the thread from the start and see all your arguments already refuted, or, simply accept these dogmas and stop denying them from here on.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “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.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925: “Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration.”
-
Hietanen
The energizer Bunny!!!!!! Keeps going and going.......and going and going! :heretic:
-
Here is an excellent article that summarizes, nicely, the position of the Saint Benedict Center, which Hietanen is not representing:
http://catholicism.org/desire-justification-salvation.html
Of course, the superiors at the various Saint Benedict Centers (of which there are at least three) do not have any control over individuals like Hietanen and/or their views.
-
1.- Hietanen, there is no such thing as a heretical Traditional Latin Mass. A TLM cannot be a heretical Mass even if said by a heretic (though come to think of it, true heretics typically avoid the TLM anyway). The SSPX is not heretical, so you are in error and in sin for violating the third Commandment. And you know, one of the reasons David Landry (CM) got banned was for being a home-aloner. So I suggest you stop being a home-aloner. You don't even know the definition of not having a Mass to go to. Even though I have access to two Traditional chapels, BOTH are more than two hours away, so I'm not able to attend every Sunday. You, however, have access to an SSPX chapel most likely, yet refuse to attend. Your tendencies seem rather narcisistic to me, you point out the faults of literally everyone else but refuse to point out your own. David Landry had the same problem.
2.- Believing Benedict is Pope doesn't make someone a heretic. You are clearly a dogmatic (extreme) sedevacantist.
3.- Please stop posting that quote from ABL, it does not change anything. You cannot call him a heretic if you do not even know for sure what he meant. And again, most sedes here, despite not being fond of the current-day SSPX, actually like LeFebvre. Why are you the only exception?
4.- I'm not a dishonest liar, I'm being truthful. You are spreading lies by saying LeFebvre was a heretic. I also never said you specifically said everything was a sin, I said you acted as if everything was. Stop pointing out everyone's faults, because two (even more than two, really) can play at that game, and people will likely start pointing out YOUR faults if you don't stop.
-
1.- Hietanen, there is no such thing as a heretical Traditional Latin Mass. A TLM cannot be a heretical Mass even if said by a heretic (though come to think of it, true heretics typically avoid the TLM anyway). The SSPX is not heretical, so you are in error and in sin for violating the third Commandment. And you know, one of the reasons David Landry (CM) got banned was for being a home-aloner. So I suggest you stop being a home-aloner. You don't even know the definition of not having a Mass to go to. Even though I have access to two Traditional chapels, BOTH are more than two hours away, so I'm not able to attend every Sunday. You, however, have access to an SSPX chapel most likely, yet refuse to attend. Your tendencies seem rather narcisistic to me, you point out the faults of literally everyone else but refuse to point out your own. David Landry had the same problem.
You are right that a traditional Latin mass said by a validly ordained priest in not in it self heretical mass even if the priest is a heretic or schismatic. Thanks for pointing out to me when I say wrongly.
However, when a heretic or schismatic celebrates mass and confects the sacraments, he confects the sacraments illicitly and sins mortally every time he confects these sacraments.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13; "Sacraments" (1912): “The care of all those sacred rites has been given to the Church of Christ. Heretical or schismatical ministers can administer the sacraments validly if they have valid Orders, but their ministrations are sinful (see Billot, op. cit., thesis 16). Good faith would excuse the recipients from sin.”
Also everyone who receive the sacraments from a knowingly heretical or schismatical priests, also sins mortally - unless, perhaps, they somehow thought that it was lawful for some reason and if they did it in good faith. Some people received the sacraments from heretical priests during the Anglican crisis, they didn't enter their Churches though, but invited the priest home, to give them the sacraments, I don't believe they where sinning. But after being aware of the dogmas condemning these practices, a person could never be in material heresy in this regard or be without sin.
But you, however, do not merely invite a heretical priest to confect the sacraments illicitly, but goes to their heretical or schismatical churches. The Eastern "Orthodox" also have valid Eucharist, but that does not make it licit to go there for the sacraments. In fact, it is a mortal sin to go there for mass and the sacraments. In the same way, then, is it likewise illicit and mortally sinful to approach the SSPX or any other heretical or schismatical priest that denies the Catholic Faith by denying infallible Catholic dogmas.
Pope Pius XI in his encyclical, Mortalium animos, Paragraphs 9-11 - Catholics are absolutely forbidden to have “…any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching…” and the “…Apostolic See [a pope in his supreme authority] has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics…”
You may want to argue that SSPX is not heretical, but that is only because you are a dishonest liar. SSPX denies many dogmas, they deny the dogma on no salvation outside the Church and deny the dogma on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation. SSPX also accepts Benedict XVI as the pope, even though he is proven to be a manifest heretic and an apostate from the Faith and an anti-pope. So, to claim that they are not heretics for denying dogmas and for accepting a devil, or even the beast prophesied about in the bible, as pope, is ludicrous beyond words -- but then again, what to accept from heretics and schismatics and mortal sinner accept for ridiculous excuses? We should get used to it!
You have no faith, that is why you would want to force people to be in communion with schismatics and apostates from the faith. It is just that simple. Did you even read the above examples of Faithful Catholics who where deprived of mass and the sacraments when there countries fell into apostasy or schism?
You must condemn them as well for breaking the third commandment for not being in communion with these schismatics and staying home according to your heretical and schismatical logic.
But in truth, you are self condemned. You can't realize that you are the one here who is erring when you are uniting yourself in communion with people who are non-Catholics - and you cannot realize that the people who stayed away from the heretical and schismatical Churches was right - for you are sadly a faithless heretic, and that is why you must be condemning people and accusing them for breaking the third commandment who are avoiding these non-Catholic churches.
“‘Canon 1258: It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.’
“...One may not be present at non-Catholic prayers, services or sermons either in a church or elsewhere.”
But I guess I could prove you wrong over and over again, you will just not care. You have already made up your mind that heretics and schismatics are Catholics. What then can be said to you? nothing. You are self condemned, for you are not a Catholic, you don't have the Catholic Faith, and are sadly a heretic in communion with other heretics and schismatics.
I can guess, with certainty, that you will continue to repeat over and over again that SSPX is catholic, and that people who are avoiding them is violating the third commandment - for you have nothing else to say really, faithless as you are. You will go on accusing people who stay away from heretics to be themselves heretical or schismatical... clueless as you are...
2.- Believing Benedict is Pope doesn't make someone a heretic. You are clearly a dogmatic (extreme) sedevacantist.
Only if someone were unaware of all his heresies and apostasies, and if they were unaware of the heresies in Vatican II, could they be excused - but not if they knew. It's also an infallible Catholic dogma that all heretics are outside the Church, therefore cannot a heretic be pope or head of the Church, it's just that simple. So people who obstinately deny this dogma, when being presented with it, are heretics, plain and simple.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441: “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 Church before the end of their lives…”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
3.- Please stop posting that quote from ABL, it does not change anything. You cannot call him a heretic if you do not even know for sure what he meant. And again, most sedes here, despite not being fond of the current-day SSPX, actually like LeFebvre. Why are you the only exception?
It does not prove anything for you because you are a faithless heretic in communion with heretics. Tell me, do you accept Benedict XVI as pope as well? Also, do you believe that Jews, Muslims, Hinduists, etc, can be saved through no fault of their own?
4.- I'm not a dishonest liar, I'm being truthful. You are spreading lies by saying LeFebvre was a heretic. I also never said you specifically said everything was a sin, I said you acted as if everything was. Stop pointing out everyone's faults, because two (even more than two, really) can play at that game, and people will likely start pointing out YOUR faults if you don't stop.
No, you are a dishonest liar. You attribute to me words that I never said or thought. I can also prove that you are a liar from your own words,
Why should I believe this post coming from a person who acts as if nearly everything is a mortal sin? To you, it's darn-near impossible for a person to go even one day without committing a mortal sin.
4.- But you act as if though almost everything is sinful. So if I used your logic I wouldn't even be able to get out of bed in the morning without being gauranteed to commit a mortal sin.
Even though I can prove to you with your own words that you are a liar and that you are putting words in my mouth, and that you use straw-man arguments - you will probably go on denying this, since you are bad will heretic and a liar on top of it. That is sadly what happens when one goes to heretics and joins in communion with them. All the sacrilegious mortally sinful receptions of the illicit sacraments have blinded you, on top of all your other heresies and mortal sins. Truly sad to behold.
So, if you can prove me wrong on something, please do so, and I will change gladly. But the only thing here you are trying to do is to make me look guilty for not attending the meetinghouses of heretics and schismatics. You cannot sadly see that you are wrong here, but that is only because you are a mortal sinner and a heretic who have united yourself with apostates from the Faith.
DOGMA CONDEMNS YOU, POPES CONDEMNS YOU, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONDEMNS YOU:
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“ The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
“ No one who merely disbelieves in all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“ By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
-
:sleep:
-
Pope Pius XI in his encyclical, Mortalium animos, Paragraphs 9-11 - Catholics are absolutely forbidden to have “…any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching…” and the “…Apostolic See [a pope in his supreme authority] has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics…”
One correction I must make. The Apostolic See [the Pope], whether in his supreme authority or not, have never allowed it's subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics...
The above could be very misleading, one could think that a Pope might have allowed this in his fallible capacity. But that is far from true, and it has never happened (unless, of course, you would accept the Vatican II "Popes" as true "Popes". They have indeed allowed their deceived subjects to partake in the assemblies of non-Catholics. But then again, they are not true Popes.)
So, just wanted to point that out.
-
1.- Heitanen, you cannot stay home from a Traditional Latin Mass just because you do not agree with the beliefs of the people who celebrate it. Furthermore, the Society as a whole does not hold the viewpoint that non-Catholics can be saved through their faith alone. What if the priest celebrating the Mass didn't think that people of other religions could be saved, would you still continue to not attend? And I have already answered your question about what I think of people of other religions. I do not think they can be saved through their faith.
2.- I do believe Benedict XVI is an actual Pope. HOWEVER, I have said on numerous occasions on these forums that I would not hesitate to take the sede stance should I feel that the day to declare the Pope an anti-pope ever came, but I do not feel like that time has come yet. You know, this is an SSPX forum, despite there being some sedes on here. You never said why you post on an SSPX forum. Or if you did, I didn't see it.
3.- You have not proved that I am a "dishonest liar". Some of your viewpoints are completely bizzare. Heitanen, take a look at your reputation rating over there (your rep rating is 5) and compare it to the reputation rating of most other people here. Why do you think your rep rating is so low? Because you are condemning most people here as heretics! Plus you are very aggressive in doing so, calling me and others heretics and liars. The title below your name may say "The Reckless" but it should say "The home-aloner". And don't make fun of my title, they are randomly given. Of course, I'd be willing to switch titles with you if you'd like...
-
You have not proved that I am a "dishonest liar".
Perhaps you are an honest liar? Or a dishonest truth-teller?
LOL!
He is young, hard-headed and full of piss and vinegar. Only time and life's hardships are likely to soften his perspective and manner.
-
1.- Heitanen, you cannot stay home from a Traditional Latin Mass just because you do not agree with the beliefs of the people who celebrate it. Furthermore, the Society as a whole does not hold the viewpoint that non-Catholics can be saved through their faith alone. What if the priest celebrating the Mass didn't think that people of other religions could be saved, would you still continue to not attend? And I have already answered your question about what I think of people of other religions. I do not think they can be saved through their faith.
Just as the French Catholics stayed away from the schismatical Churches in the revolution (even though they celebrated the traditional liturgy) so can I likewise stay away from schismatical and heretical priests in the great apostasy, for that is the only right thing to do. You cannot see it though. In the wally of Josapath you will see and understand what was the truth though.
If a SSPX priest didn't believe in any heresies, yet obstinately refused to break communion with a heretical society, he must be considered as a heretic and a schismatic. If this is not so, then could we approach any priest for the sacraments, even if he was an Eastern "Orthodox" who hold to no heresies. But it doesn't work that way. Heretics and schismatics has no part in the Catholic communion, as I've already proved at length.
2.- I do believe Benedict XVI is an actual Pope. HOWEVER, I have said on numerous occasions on these forums that I would not hesitate to take the sede stance should I feel that the day to declare the Pope an anti-pope ever came, but I do not feel like that time has come yet. You know, this is an SSPX forum, despite there being some sedes on here. You never said why you post on an SSPX forum. Or if you did, I didn't see it.
So you obstinately hold Benedict XVI as pope even after I showed you Catholic dogma showing you that no heretic or schismatic are inside the Church? Why do you reject dogma so much, do you want that much to be condemned?
To reject one dogma is enough for no longer being a Catholic.
3.- You have not proved that I am a "dishonest liar". Some of your viewpoints are completely bizzare. Heitanen, take a look at your reputation rating over there (your rep rating is 5) and compare it to the reputation rating of most other people here. Why do you think your rep rating is so low? Because you are condemning most people here as heretics! Plus you are very aggressive in doing so, calling me and others heretics and liars. The title below your name may say "The Reckless" but it should say "The home-aloner". And don't make fun of my title, they are randomly given. Of course, I'd be willing to switch titles with you if you'd like...
Trust me, the reputation Jesus had was also very low among many of the Jews. So that means nothing. In fact, the less reputation someone has, them ore truth he probably tells. Most saints have been persecuted, for they where not after worldly friends but spiritual friends. When people condemn peoples sins, they will be disliked, it's just that simple. I condemn sin and heresy, so those whom I rightfully condemn, will not like me. It's just that simple.
-
1.- The SSPX is neither schismatic nor heretical, Hietanen. I could equally say that you are a schismatic for being a home-aloner. You say that I am spiritually blind and that I do not care about upholding the Catholic faith, yet you are not even aware of your own faults. You make absurd excuses for not attending Mass on Sunday. I could understand if you literally did not have access to a TLM, but you have made it quite clear that you do have access to one but refuse to attend. There is a noticable difference between being in heresy and people only THINKING you are in heresy.
2.- I don't want to be condemned, and I do not appreciate you implying that I try to condemn myself. Nor have I rejected any Catholic dogma. You are the true liar, making up stuff about me that I never said or even implied. You are very rude and prideful. You condemn almost everyone else but refuse to point out your own faults.
3.- While it's true that Jesus did not have a high reputation amongst the Jews, this is a different scenario. You're posting on a forum, for starters. And God has the right to condemn people. But you are not God, so you have no right to tell people they are condemned before they even reach Judgement Day.
4.- You didn't answer another one of my questions. I asked you why you posted on an SSPX forum, one that is owned by a non-sede SSPX Traditional Catholic. I'd also like to know why you post here since Matthew has made it quite clear that home-aloners are NOT welcome.
-
1.- The SSPX is neither schismatic nor heretical, Hietanen. I could equally say that you are a schismatic for being a home-aloner.
No, you are a liar and of bad will. I can prove to you that the SSPX is heretical. They deny the dogma on no salvation outside the Church and the dogma on the absolute necessity of water baptism, and they deny the dogma which holds as outside Catholic communion and alien to the Church anyone who would recede in the lest degree from any point of doctrine. They print heresies in their public magazines and newspapers, and they announce heresies at their official web page, etc. They are heretics, all SSPX priests I have talked to denies the salvation dogma. You don't know what you are talking about.
Fr. Schmidberger, Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 10: “Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions, that is to say, if they are in invincible error.”
You say that I am spiritually blind and that I do not care about upholding the Catholic faith, yet you are not even aware of your own faults. You make absurd excuses for not attending Mass on Sunday. I could understand if you literally did not have access to a TLM, but you have made it quite clear that you do have access to one but refuse to attend. There is a noticable difference between being in heresy and people only THINKING you are in heresy.
You deny many dogmas, you for example deny the dogma that all heretics or schismatics are outside the Catholic Church. You hold Benedict XVI as pope even after being presented with the dogma. Thus you are a heretic and have rejected the Catholic Faith. You are also a heretic for defending heretics. You are also a heretic for obstinately being in communion with heretics.
I don't make excuses for not attending mass. I am telling you as it is. Not that I have any traditional Latin mass anywhere near where I am living, but that is beside the point. Even if I had a SSPX mass near I woulden't go there since they are heretics and schismatics.
2.- I don't want to be condemned, and I do not appreciate you implying that I try to condemn myself. Nor have I rejected any Catholic dogma. You are the true liar, making up stuff about me that I never said or even implied. You are very rude and prideful. You condemn almost everyone else but refuse to point out your own faults.
If you don't want to be condemned, stop rejecting dogma. Stop being in communion with people who reject dogma. SSPX reject these two dogmas below, and you know it, they believe in baptism of desire and hold as Pope a manifest heretic and apostate from the Church. They also deny the salvation dogma.
IF you don't want to be condemned, stop reject this dogma proving to you that Benedict cannot be the POPE SINCE HE IS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH AND NOT A CATHOLIC!
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “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 Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
DO YOU DENY THE DOGMA BELOW? DO YOU BELIEVE IN BAPTISM OF DESIRE LIKE THE SSPX DOES? IF SO WILL YOU BE CONDEMNED. TO REJECT DOGMAS WILL MAKE YOU CONDEMNED!
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
3.- While it's true that Jesus did not have a high reputation amongst the Jews, this is a different scenario. You're posting on a forum, for starters. And God has the right to condemn people. But you are not God, so you have no right to tell people they are condemned before they even reach Judgement Day.
I am not after worldly friends, and neither was Jesus. He rebuked the prideful sinful Jews, and they disliked Him for it. I, similarly, rebuke your sins and heresies, and are being disliked for it.
And, to your question. I have all the right in the world to tell you that you are condemned when you obstinately deny God's infallible dogmas. People who live in mortal sin and heresy, have we a right to condemn, correct and rebuke, in that we wish their conversion and to correct them so that they may convert.
-
To reject one dogma is enough for no longer being a Catholic.
St. Thomas did not believe Baptism with WATER was strictly necessary. Can you explain how he is both a Saint AND a Doctor?
-
Saint Thomas did believe in the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism in Water for infants, young children, the mentally impaired, basically everyone who was incapable of explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation.
-
Agreed. Now, let us discuss the matter at hand...
-
To reject one dogma is enough for no longer being a Catholic.
St. Thomas did not believe Baptism with WATER was strictly necessary. Can you explain how he is both a Saint AND a Doctor?
Sorry for not explaining my self overmuch. I forgot that there are people here who does not like to understand the issue we're talking about. Besides, I don't know how many times already have have told you about the concept, 'material heresy'.
OBSTINACY is what determines if a person ceases to be Catholic or not. If a person is innocently mistaken about a dogma, he is still a Catholic - unless he has had the truth presented to him, and he rejected it - then he would no longer be a Catholic.
Unless obstinacy is involved, we cannot say definitely that a person is a heretic or schismatic for not understanding all the dogmas. However, certain dogmas can a person never be erring about without for that very fact losing the Catholic faith, whether he is innocently or obstinate about them. If a person rejects Jesus or the Trinity for example, or if he holds some other belief incompatible with the Catholic Faith or the Natural Law, he would cease to be a Catholic, and automatically become a heretic or a mortal sinner.
-
Hietanen
The energizer Bunny!!!!!! Keeps going and going.......and going and going! :heretic:
LOL! The energiser Bunny pouring forth much cyber diarrhoea! :cussing: :heretic:
-
. I forgot that there are people here who does not like to understand the issue we're talking about.
What you "forgot" is what you never knew...that your arguments are not worth a pile of dog sh*t...
St. Thomas KNEW every single thing Holy Church taught up to the time he lived, which included the dogmas you incorrectly interpret...
-
I hope that this is the last post for this thread.
I would like to conclude (I hope) that it is most unfortunate that individuals like Hietanen are choosing to see a fundamental conflict between the teachings of Saint Thomas and those of Father Feeney where none, if fact, even exist. While we can all acknowledge Saint Thomas as being the greatest theologian of the Church, it is an undisputed fact that his understanding of the Catholic Faith only deepened throughout his extraordinary life. One need look no further than Thomas' understanding of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception which, after years of reflection, more or less reached the stage at which Holy Mother Church would, once and for all time, later define the dogma to be.
Father Feeney's development of Thomas' understanding of Baptism of Desire and Blood is, if you look at it in detail, very minor. I do not believe that Thomas, if he sat down with Father Feeney (indeed, both are, I believe, in Heaven at this very moment), would find any major disagreements with Father Feeney's theology.
Remember that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church were not unanimous on every single point of dogma and doctrine. Differences existed between them, but such differences were minor, and in many cases, superficial. On the essentials, they were in complete agreement. And none of them were at all opposed to genuine development in understanding more fully the Deposit of Faith.
You do not, of course, have to agree with Father Feeney's ideas, but he did not see his theology as being at all in conflict with the Fathers and Doctors of the Church nor in conflict with the Church's Ordinary and Supreme Magisterium.
-
. I forgot that there are people here who does not like to understand the issue we're talking about.
What you "forgot" is what you never knew...that your arguments are not worth a pile of dog sh*t...
St. Thomas KNEW every single thing Holy Church taught up to the time he lived, which included the dogmas you incorrectly interpret...
Eamon, can you give the first ex cathedra declaration before St. Thomas died in 1274 that specifically said that sacramental water Baptism was necessary for salvation?
-
"Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
-
"Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
You know what I meant... from the Chair of Peter a Dogmatic Definition that officially interpreted John 3:5 as literal such as Trent Session 6, Ch 4 (which was after St. Thomas). From what limited information I've seen, the closest one was the Council of Vienne 1311 (still after St. Thomas).
Prior to that, was there a Pope or Council that Dogmatically defined the absolute necessity of water Baptism and the literal interpretation of John 3:5?
-
I would like to conclude (I hope) that it is most unfortunate that individuals like Hietanen are choosing to see a fundamental conflict between the teachings of Saint Thomas and those of Father Feeney where none, if fact, even exist.
First, Father Feeney was not a heretic as far as I am aware of. He upheld the dogma on no salvation outside the Church and believed that people had to be baptized to be Saved, although, he was wrong in baptism of desire. But people can be in error on that without for that very fact becoming a heretic.
Now. I am not entirely familiar with the doctrine you are trying to preach here. You agree with C.M.R.I? Do you agree with them and their rejecting of the dogma on no salvation outside the Church?
If I don't remember wrong, you also linked to an article by them where they said that justification could be achieved without water baptism by a mere desire for baptism, although this justification will not save you. I am not entirely familiar with this subject, but we can see already that it is illogical and contradictory.
God does not forgive sins except for the baptized as St Augustine explains below. However, I don't know for a certain fact that an unbaptized person couldn't be forgiven a sin he committed if he really and truly had contrition for his sin - I could be wrong here, and I will of course correct my self if someone could prove that God does not, ever forgive sins for an unbaptized person.
Either way, it's an infallible dogma that original sin is not cleansed and put away unless for the baptized, so they could never have heaven or state of justification so long as they have the stain of original sin.
St Augustine, 395 A.D.: “… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.”
Justification is remission of sins, especially that of original sin. This cannot occur without water baptism. St Ambrose explains this further:
St. Ambrose: "You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace."
Furthermore, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, as early as the year 451, had already defined this doctrine as St. Ambrose expressed it and as we believe it.
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451: "Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS."
Now, in the section of Pope Leo’s dogmatic letter quoted above, he is dealing with the sanctification by the Spirit. "Sanctification by the Spirit" is the term for Justification from the state of sin (the state of grace). No one can get to heaven without Sanctification by the Spirit, as everyone professing to be Catholic admits. Pope St. Leo affirms, on the authority of the great apostles Sts. Peter and John, that this Sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood. It is only by receiving the blood of Redemption, he proves, that one can be changed from the state of Adam (original sin) to the state of grace (justification/sanctification). It is only by this Blood that Sanctification by the Spirit works. This dogma was also defined by the Council of Trent.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, on original sin, ex cathedra: "If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam... is taken away either by the forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, ‘made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30); or if he denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism… let him be anathema."
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "But although Christ died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His Passion is communicated."
It is a divinely revealed truth that no one can be freed from the state of sin and sanctified without the application the blood of Redemption to him. Of this no Catholic can doubt.
Pope St. Leo defined above that in Sanctification, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption cannot be separated from the water of baptism! You must be baptized with water to receive the Spirit of Sanctification and the blood of Redemption, according to this dogma. There can be no Justification by the Spirit and the Blood without the water! This excludes the very concept of baptism of desire and baptism blood, which is that sanctification by the Spirit and the Blood without water is possible.
A sinner cannot be sanctified by the Spirit and the Blood, which he must in order to be saved, without the water of Baptism. In light of this dogmatic letter, baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be held, for these theories separate the Spirit and the Blood from the water in sanctification.
-
Wasn't it Saint Thomas Aquinas who wanted his books all burned because he didn't think they were good enough? He saw a vision of Our Lord, and He said "You have spoken well of me." After that, Saint Thomas said that nothing he wrote mattered.
-
I like how Hietanen won't say why he posts on an SSPX forum. :rolleyes:
So if what he says is true about all SSPX Traditional Catholics here being heretics for being in communion with the SSPX, that would make Hietanen a heretic as well for posting on an SSPX forum. So Heitanen, as long as you continue to post here you might as well label yourself as a heretic.
-
I like how Hietanen won't say why he posts on an SSPX forum. :rolleyes:
So if what he says is true about all SSPX Traditional Catholics here being heretics for being in communion with the SSPX, that would make Hietanen a heretic as well for posting on an SSPX forum. So Heitanen, as long as you continue to post here you might as well label yourself as a heretic.
I don't post here to commune with you religiously or to unite myself to you in religious communion or by prayer. I post here to help people spiritually.
-
I like how Hietanen won't say why he posts on an SSPX forum. :rolleyes:
So if what he says is true about all SSPX Traditional Catholics here being heretics for being in communion with the SSPX, that would make Hietanen a heretic as well for posting on an SSPX forum. So Heitanen, as long as you continue to post here you might as well label yourself as a heretic.
I don't post here to commune with you religiously or to unite myself to you in religious communion or by prayer. I post here to help people spiritually.
Ok, here's a bit of advice for you Hietanen. Condemning people and calling them "heretics" isn't going to spiritually help them very much. So basically you are wasting your time, unless you start taking a kinder approach.
-
I like how Hietanen won't say why he posts on an SSPX forum. :rolleyes:
So if what he says is true about all SSPX Traditional Catholics here being heretics for being in communion with the SSPX, that would make Hietanen a heretic as well for posting on an SSPX forum. So Heitanen, as long as you continue to post here you might as well label yourself as a heretic.
I don't post here to commune with you religiously or to unite myself to you in religious communion or by prayer. I post here to help people spiritually.
Ok, here's a bit of advice for you Hietanen. Condemning people and calling them "heretics" isn't going to spiritually help them very much. So basically you are wasting your time, unless you start taking a kinder approach.
I don't think I condemn people or tell them the truth of that they in fact will go to hell for their mortal sin or heresies until they have manifested obstinacy in their sin or in their heresy. When a person defends his heresy or mortal sin, then must that person be condemned, since by condemning him, might he be struck with remorse and repent.
Jesus was very hard on the sinners, some repented, others did not. Others was he soft with, and they repented. All people are different, some listens better to calm words, others to hard rebukes.
Most people I have talked with here have not had any interest of accepting the true Catholic Faith or ceasing with their mortal sins, but have been overly obstinate in their errors. What can be said to such condemned sadly headed for Hell individuals other than the truth? Most people today sadly only care about living in mortal sin and to have pleasure, following God and his commandments, doing penance, and avoiding worldly pleasures, sinful films, bad video games, or whatever it can be, isn't in peoples interest anymore.
But what to expect? We are living in the last days after all, and the last days would be the worst of them all. Today, with all the technology that have been made available by the devil, countless of mortal sins and other pleasures, are sitting in front of man, and these things - without him understanding it because of his bad living and because he don't want to understand - draws him away from the love of God to the love of the world and of it's pleasures.
Please, read this file (http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/). I know many here simply refuse to do so since it condemns your sinful lifestyle, your sinful video games, your sinful films and series, and many other of your pleasures that you so much love to do. But if you really care of being saved and of being friend with God, you must not run away from the information that will help to save you,
http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/
-
"Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
You know what I meant... from the Chair of Peter a Dogmatic Definition that officially interpreted John 3:5 as literal such as Trent Session 6, Ch 4 (which was after St. Thomas). From what limited information I've seen, the closest one was the Council of Vienne 1311 (still after St. Thomas).
Prior to that, was there a Pope or Council that Dogmatically defined the absolute necessity of water Baptism and the literal interpretation of John 3:5?
Just bumping this question to see if I can get an answer from anyone.
-
Intended or not, that is annoying, umblehay. I will respond, but not tonight. I know it is hard to believe, but there is more to consider/discuss than "the dogma."
-
Intended or not, that is annoying, umblehay. I will respond, but not tonight. I know it is hard to believe, but there is more to consider/discuss than "the dogma."
I honestly don't know how that could be annoying. I'm asking a simple question trying to get a factual answer. The point is pertinent to the argument regarding the level of error in St. Thomas' writings. And, I know it's hard to believe, but there's more to consider/discuss than "the summa".
-
I like how Hietanen won't say why he posts on an SSPX forum. :rolleyes:
So if what he says is true about all SSPX Traditional Catholics here being heretics for being in communion with the SSPX, that would make Hietanen a heretic as well for posting on an SSPX forum. So Heitanen, as long as you continue to post here you might as well label yourself as a heretic.
I don't post here to commune with you religiously or to unite myself to you in religious communion or by prayer. I post here to help people spiritually.
Ok, here's a bit of advice for you Hietanen. Condemning people and calling them "heretics" isn't going to spiritually help them very much. So basically you are wasting your time, unless you start taking a kinder approach.
I don't think I condemn people or tell them the truth of that they in fact will go to hell for their mortal sin or heresies until they have manifested obstinacy in their sin or in their heresy. When a person defends his heresy or mortal sin, then must that person be condemned, since by condemning him, might he be struck with remorse and repent.
Jesus was very hard on the sinners, some repented, others did not. Others was he soft with, and they repented. All people are different, some listens better to calm words, others to hard rebukes.
Most people I have talked with here have not had any interest of accepting the true Catholic Faith or ceasing with their mortal sins, but have been overly obstinate in their errors. What can be said to such condemned sadly headed for Hell individuals other than the truth? Most people today sadly only care about living in mortal sin and to have pleasure, following God and his commandments, doing penance, and avoiding worldly pleasures, sinful films, bad video games, or whatever it can be, isn't in peoples interest anymore.
But what to expect? We are living in the last days after all, and the last days would be the worst of them all. Today, with all the technology that have been made available by the devil, countless of mortal sins and other pleasures, are sitting in front of man, and these things - without him understanding it because of his bad living and because he don't want to understand - draws him away from the love of God to the love of the world and of it's pleasures.
Please, read this file (http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/). I know many here simply refuse to do so since it condemns your sinful lifestyle, your sinful video games, your sinful films and series, and many other of your pleasures that you so much love to do. But if you really care of being saved and of being friend with God, you must not run away from the information that will help to save you,
http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/
Heitanen,
You are on a traditional Catholic forum! I think most of us here are striving to live a good Catholic life! What right do you have to call us heretics and tell us we are in mortal sin?
In my lifetime, I have met people like you. Everything is a mortal sin (by their judgement and false misguided interpretations of Church teachings usually put forth by lay theologians who have NO mission or authority from the Church to teach). .
Your guy in Sweden from the website link is one of the self appointed teachers, along with many others including Richard Ibranyi, Diamond brothers, and David Landry.
They all have a following of misguided souls that hinge on their every word. Each of these "teachers" have a slightly different twist on their false beliefs, and NONE of them would ever consult a priest before publishing their writings, as lay people are REQUIRED TO DO!
THIS IS NOT A CATHOLIC ATTITUDE! The Catholic Church is based on authority, and altho reduced in numbers, legit authority is sill functioning in the form of priest and bishops who believe and adhere to ALL the truths the Church teaches. They are the experts, not misquided lay people, who have NO authority to teach in the name of the Church!
Many of the people I have met who have had the misfortune to follow these lay theologians (BTW, most have been counseled not to by priests and rejected the counsel) ended up dying "home aloners", without the last sacraments of the church, or a requiem mass . They were put in the grave in a secular cemetary with prayers offered by a laymen in their group.
There is a large group of them in the Spokane/ CoeurdeAlene area of the pacific Northwest. They inch toward death, their souls languishing for the Sacraments. Some are former friends of mine that attended mass in years past. To them, every one is in sin, the priests and bishops are not legit etc! Actually they are in sin. They sin against the Holy Ghost by believing that God has taken away all priests and authority in the church, and that THEY alone are Catholics.
My advice to you is quit posting your condemnations on this forum. God reserves judgement to Himself!
In the past, Matthew has not allowed people like you on the forum spouting heresies. I think you have used this forum long enough! :heretic:[/b]
-
Heitanen, I think Emerentiana said it best. Your problem is that you condemn people left and right. The fact is that none of us are worthy of Heaven. However, God in His Infinite Mercy has mercy on many souls. He doesn't condemn people to Hell just because they sinned. Everybody sins. Even the saints sinned from time to time, with Our Blessed Mother Mary being the only saint that never sinned.
I think that you have the potential to be a good poster when it comes to defending the faith here at CatholicInfo, Heitanen. But you take it way too far. Not only have you condemned me and a few other SSPX Trads on here, but you have even condemned many of the sedes. Gladius Veritatis and Emerentiana are two sedes who are very good Traditional Catholics, yet you have condemned them both. You need to stop trying to judge a person's soul. It's not our place to judge a person's soul, only God can. If you are going to continue to tell people here they are going to Hell, then I suggest that you just leave. Because you aren't going to convince anyone here that way. Especially since pretty much everyone here strives to please God. You are judging people by their thoughts and motives, and that is something you just can't do. So please, either tone it down or just quit posting.
-
Heitanen,
You are on a traditional Catholic forum! I think most of us here are striving to live a good Catholic life! What right do you have to call us heretics and tell us we are in mortal sin?
I don't call people sinners or heretics unless I have talked to them and they have admitted to their heresies or their mortal sins. You, for example, defends NFP, denies the dogma on the absolute necessity of water baptism, and you have yet to retract your erroneous statements which was wholly refuted. So, you are a mortal sinner and a heretic. This is something I know from talking to you.
A question. Do you believe that practising Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc, through no fault of their own, can be saved?
In my lifetime, I have met people like you. Everything is a mortal sin (by their judgement and false misguided interpretations of Church teachings usually put forth by lay theologians who have NO mission or authority from the Church to teach). .
Everything is not a mortal sin, and I have never said that. Some people go to far, indeed, but that is beyond the point.
But most people in truth, have always been mortal sinner, which is why few are saved. Most people do say that what is sinful is not sinful, and what is illicit is licit. If it weren't for the fact that people are sinful, God would not have abandoned us to this great apostasy or let the ungodly take this much control.
Many here acts as if sin does almost not even exist. Those who thinks like that are sadly deceiving themselves.
My position in todays situation, and about many things today that are sinful or not sinful, etc, is written in this article. Read it!
http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/
If you just read it, you will see that most things is truly written. You won't hear these things from most of your priests, I assume.
Your guy in Sweden from the website link is one of the self appointed teachers... They all have a following of misguided souls that hinge on their every word. Each of these "teachers" have a slightly different twist on their false beliefs, and NONE of them would ever consult a priest before publishing their writings, as lay people are REQUIRED TO DO! THIS IS NOT A CATHOLIC ATTITUDE!
You seem to argue that we should rather follow heretical priests or bishops opinions before our own understanding, when we today have the capacity to study and learn the Catholic Faith?
If you want to be that stupid, that is up to you. I have already showed you the dogmas refuting baptism of desire, it is not hard to understand them, the problem is that you are not a Catholic, and therefore you you reject the dogmas and instead follows the opinions of heretical priests, bishops or societies.
Laypeople are required to consult the Church for publishing books, etc, in normal situations. But today, is this principle abrogated since almost no priests or bishops exists, and since we have no pope. It's just that simple, and only someone who is willingly blind would fail to see this.
The Catholic Church is based on authority, and altho reduced in numbers, legit authority is sill functioning in the form of priest and bishops who believe and adhere to ALL the truths the Church teaches. They are the experts, not misquided lay people, who have NO authority to teach in the name of the Church!
Only real Catholics=non heretical people, have authority in the Church. You don't understand this, for you have no interest in studying and learning the Catholic Faith, even though you could do so.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: "it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church."
Therefore, it is most certain that a heretic cannot have any authority in the Catholic Church, or that he can licitly consecrate the Eucharist or give valid confession, because it is absurd to imagine that one who is outside the Church can command in the Church.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943:"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
You also affirm that every opinion from a priest or bishop is Church teaching. WRONG, not everything a Catholic priest says are Church teaching, but if he is a Catholic, then has it authority and should be followed unless it contradicts dogma.
But the priests and bishops you are referring here to is not Catholics, but heretics, and they are members of heretical societies and deny many dogmas. No wonder then that you are deceived, if you have as opinion that everything these heretics says or do is Church teaching and have authority - just because they call themselves by the name of "Catholic" and go by the name of priest... Since you have this opinion, no wonder you accept NFP, or that you deny the dogma on the absolute necessity of water baptism - for your society and priest does the same, doesn't they? What society do you belong to, Emerentiana?
So, since almost all priests and bishops today deny the salvation dogma, do you deny it as well? Tell me, do you deny the salvation dogma? Do you believe practicing Jews, Muslims, atheists, can be saved? ANSWER!
Many of the people I have met who have had the misfortune to follow these lay theologians (BTW, most have been counseled not to by priests and rejected the counsel) ended up dying "home aloners", without the last sacraments of the church, or a requiem mass . They were put in the grave in a secular cemetary with prayers offered by a laymen in their group.
I know you can't understand this, but keeping the faith whole and inviolate is more important then receiving blasphemous, invalid and illicit sacraments. No heretic can licitly consecrate the Eucharist, but does so illicitly, and he sins mortally every time he confect the sacraments, because he is a heretic. Also everyone that knowingly and obstinately approach heretical priests for the sacraments, sins mortally. Heretical priests can neither give a valid confession, since they lack jurisdiction. Only Catholic priests have jurisdiction and can absolve. Heretics are not Catholics. So, you have invalid confession, and illicit Eucharist. So, what is there to go to mass for? Not for the sacraments, that's for sure!
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supp., Q. 38, Art. 2, Obj. 1: "The effect of absolution is nothing else but the forgiveness of sins which results from grace, and consequently a heretic cannot absolve, as neither can he confer grace in the sacraments."
So, what's important is to keep the Faith in this great apostasy, that is what matters. There have also been many instances when true Catholics couldn't go to mass when their country fell into schism or heresy. The Anglican schism is one example. But you just couldn't care, for the faith is not important for you - only an outward appearance of faith is what matters for you, a church building, a mass, a heretical priest, etc, all this do you care about - but the faith, which saves you, do you not care about! What stupidity!
TAKE IT FROM A SAINT. MAYBE YOU WILL LISTEN THEN;
St. John the Almsgiver, Patriarch of Alexandria, 7th Century AD: "Another thing the blessed man taught and insisted upon with all was never on any occasion whatsoever to associate with heretics and, above all, never to take the Holy Communion with them, 'even if', the blessed man said, 'you remain without communicating all your life, if through stress of circuмstances you cannot find a community of the catholic Church. For if, having legally married a wife in this world of the flesh, we are forbidden by God and by the laws to desert her and be united to another woman, even though we have to spend a long time separated from her in a distant country, and shall incur punishment if we violate our vows, how then shall we, who have been joined to God through the orthodox faith and the Catholic Church -- as the apostle says: 'I espoused you to one husband that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ' (2 Cor. 11:2) -- how shall we escape from sharing in that punishment which in the world to come awaits heretics, if we defile the orthodox and holy faith by adulterous communion with heretics?"
"For 'communion', he said, 'has been so called because he who has 'communion' has things in common and agrees with those with whom he has 'communion'. Therefore I implore you earnestly, children, never to go near the oratories of the heretics in order to communicate there.'" - [Three Byzantine Saints, "The Life of Saint John the Almsgiver",Translators: Elizabeth Dawes & Norman H. Baynes, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood: 1977; p. 251]
There is a large group of them in the Spokane/ CoeurdeAlene area of the pacific Northwest. They inch toward death, their souls languishing for the Sacraments. Some are former friends of mine that attended mass in years past. To them, every one is in sin, the priests and bishops are not legit etc! Actually they are in sin. They sin against the Holy Ghost by believing that God has taken away all priests and authority in the church, and that THEY alone are Catholics.
My advice to you is quit posting your condemnations on this forum. God reserves judgement to Himself!
Not all priests are heretics, there are some independent priests around the world who is not heretics, these priests and the faithful non-heretical laypeople are the Catholic Church. Heretics are not. Get this fact through your obstinate head now!
A similar situation have happened before, Emerentiana. If it was this bad during the Arian crisis as explained below, how bad will it be in the last great apostasy? Think about that.
“At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory’s [nαzιanz] present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.” (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 39.)
In the 4th century the Arian heresy became so widespread that the Arians (who denied the Divinity of Christ) came to occupy almost all the Catholic churches and appeared to be the legitimate hierarchy basically everywhere.
St. Ambrose (+382): “There are not enough hours in the day for me to recite even the names of all the various sects of heretics.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 158)
Things were so bad that St. Gregory nαzιanz felt compelled to say what the Catholic remnant today could very well say.
St. Gregory nαzιanz (+380): “Where are they who revile us for our poverty and pride themselves in their riches? They who define the Church by numbers and scorn the little flock?” (“Against the Arians,” The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 33)
This period of Church history, therefore, proves an important point for our time: If the Church's indefectible mission of teaching, governing and sanctifying required a governing (i.e., jurisdictional) bishop for the Church of Christ to be present and operative in a particular See or diocese, then one would have to say that the Church of Christ defected in all those territories where there was no governing Catholic bishop during the Arian heresy. However, it is a fact that in the 4th century, where the faithful retained the true Catholic faith, even in those Sees where the Bishop defected to Arianism, the faithful Catholic remnant constituted the true Church of Christ; and therefore, in that remnant, the Catholic Church existed and endured in her mission to teach, govern and sanctify without a governing bishop. This demonstrates that the Church of Christ's indefectibility and mission to teach, govern and sanctify does not require the presence of a jurisdictional bishop.
St. Athanasius: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition were reduced to a handful, they would be the true Church.”
-
Ok, Hietanen. I know that post wasn't directed at me, but I'll respond anyway.
1.- I can speak for Emerentiana on this one. She does not believe that people who practice false religions can be saved. They would have to convert to Catholicism. In fact, I don't think anyone here believes that people can be saved while they are still involved in practicing false religions. And again, just because Bishop Fellay thinks that people of nearly all religions can be saved, doesn't mean the Society as a whole thinks so. Bishop Williamson doesn't seem to think that.
2.- Many people here act as if almost nothing is a sin? That is absurd. You are making false accusations while at the same time failing to even realize that you have been overly-critical. It's God's place to judge souls, not yours. You're coming off as a narcicist. You can't admit to your own faults and act as if though it's your place to judge everyone and to condemn them.
3.- To you, about 95% of people in today's world are heretics. I'll admit that the actual number is high, unfortunetly, but it's not THAT high. God will decide who is saved and who is not, stop telling people where their soul will go. You aren't the judge.
4.- Not only are you aggressive and overly-critical, but you clearly don't know how to treat a woman. You don't tell them to get something "through their obstinate head". It's especially wrong to act that way to a Traditional Catholic woman. Most people here have every intention of pleasing God. Yet you're judging their intentions, saying that they don't want to please God. You are an extremist, Heitanen. You seem so certain that you will be saved and that nearly everyone else here will be condemned. Nobody here knows for sure where they will end up after this life, only God knows. You aren't God, stop trying to act like it. Again, please don't post here if you're going to keep this up. No one wants to read such nonsense.
-
1.- I can speak for Emerentiana on this one.
No you cannot, for you cannot answer many of the questions I was asking her, you are not her, and what she believe or thinks is not the same as you believe.
She does not believe that people who practice false religions can be saved. They would have to convert to Catholicism. In fact, I don't think anyone here believes that people can be saved while they are still involved in practicing false religions. And again, just because Bishop Fellay thinks that people of nearly all religions can be saved, doesn't mean the Society as a whole thinks so. Bishop Williamson doesn't seem to think that.
I think you should ask your priest if he agrees with you. You might be surprised. You should also ask the attendants at the Church you attend to, and what they believe. You will indeed be surprised. I hope I am wrong here, but sadly, I don't think I am.
You may also be surprised that your own founder disagrees with you.
Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:[
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
2. Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
3. Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
Bishop Lefebvre, Sermon at first Mass of a newly ordained priest (Geneva: 1976): “We are Catholics; we affirm our faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; we affirm our faith in the divinity of the Holy Catholic Church; we think that Jesus Christ is the sole way, the sole truth, the sole life, and that one cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently outside His Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church. No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church, but those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church, are saved by the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not know it, even if they are unaware of it...”
Here Lefebvre denies the dogma word for word:
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion[/i], but not by their religion…”
Open Letter to Confused Catholics, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
Pages 73: “Does this mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that.”
But I guess you will never admit that he is teaching heresy here.
2.- Many people here act as if almost nothing is a sin? That is absurd. You are making false accusations while at the same time failing to even realize that you have been overly-critical. It's God's place to judge souls, not yours. You're coming off as a narcicist. You can't admit to your own faults and act as if though it's your place to judge everyone and to condemn them.
No, I have talked with many of you. So I know how many of you act already.
I, and a few others on this thread, was the only people who condemned the mortally sinful practice of NFP. Thus, those who didn't condemn it, don't see it as sinful. What could be more sinful then NFP or against the natural law? If people can't see that NFP is sinful, then they are really bad off. But even some who was against NFP, didn't condemn people who practiced it. That is also sadly an infallible sign of damnation. To be silent, and refuse to condemn people who commit mortal sin, is likewise a mortal sin. Again, if we would encourage people to stop sinning, but don't do it, then we are guilty.
Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, AD 1245: "to be unwilling to disquiet evildoers is none other than to encourage them, and since he who fails to oppose a manifest crime is not without a touch of secret complicity
I also made a thread on sinful video games, many didn't care, one even encouraged the playing of sinful video games. Who opposed him, but me? Did you? No! You didn't say a word to him. If you would love him you would encourage him to stop playing these evil video games, and encourage him to stop play these evil video games.
I also spoke with many of you on the thread on 'Eating out on a Restaurant on Sunday'. I clearly proved to you that it is mortally sinful to unnecessarily break the sabbath or to be helping other people to unnecessarily break the sabbath, such as knowingly eating out on Sundays (which we have no necessity for doing) - but that still some do just because they feel to... But who cared about what I said? No one as I could see, since all opposed me.
Then we have the mortal sin of heresy to deny dogma. How many people here rejects dogma? Do you condemn people who reject a dogma and who sadly are on their way to Hell? No! You don't say a word. If you loved them, you would encourage them to believe in the dogma, as I have encouraged you.
But for you, sadly, you act as if mortal sin is not mortal sin - for if you really believed mortal sin was mortal sin, would you not encourage these people to stop with it? But you don't do it! And heresy, do you even believe in heresy? It sems not, for you say not a word to people who reject it. And neither have you cared to accept the dogmas I have proved to you to be true. If you believed that heresy heresy exists, then why do you deny the dogmas? To you, it seems, heresy is not heresy, mortal sin is not mortal sin - or perhaps, you might just believe, that you are safe anyway and saved, since you are good?
You are blind, pure and simple, and you will remain blind, until the day of your death, unless you wake up and convert.
3.- To you, about 95% of people in today's world are heretics. I'll admit that the actual number is high, unfortunetly, but it's not THAT high. God will decide who is saved and who is not, stop telling people where their soul will go. You aren't the judge.
I would say that more then 99% of people today living are condemned, me included. Few are saved, that's how it always have been, and you people are a fine example why that is true, but I guess you can't get it. The moment you die will you realize this truth though!
4.- Not only are you aggressive and overly-critical, but you clearly don't know how to treat a woman. You don't tell them to get something "through their obstinate head". It's especially wrong to act that way to a Traditional Catholic woman.
You say I cannot be harsh on a woman? Please, all heretics have the same bad will, and their faces are all the like, as Fourth Lateran Council affirms:
Fourth Lateran Council (1215): Canon 3, On Heresy: "We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and Catholic Faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride[/u]."
All heretics are condemned, all heretics are prideful, all heretics are the same, whether woman or man.
You are simply a blind man, that is why you are acting as if human respect is what matters. You don't care about the faith, but about pleasing men, you don't care about condemning sin and sinners, so that they may stop sin, but to please them and be nice to them. You are pathetic!
Most people here have every intention of pleasing God. Yet you're judging their intentions, saying that they don't want to please God. You are an extremist, Heitanen. You seem so certain that you will be saved and that nearly everyone else here will be condemned. Nobody here knows for sure where they will end up after this life, only God knows. You aren't God, stop trying to act like it. Again, please don't post here if you're going to keep this up. No one wants to read such nonsense.
If you don't like what I am writing, don't write to me.
And I don't judge peoples good intentions, I only judge and condemn clear cut heresies, sins and lies, and other things which should be corrected so that people can better themselves.
Now, most people here that I have talked with, can I with a certain fact say, have no intention of pleasing God whatsoever - you included - but rather to please other men.
If men would want to please God, then they would hate sin and hate heresy, and condemn sin and condemn heresy, and would help the sinners to convert. It's just that simple. But I haven't seen that here. I don't see people condemns obvious mortal sins or heresies, no. I rather see people, such as yourself, excusing people who commit mortal sins such as NFP! You are truly and amazingly, incredible blind. You have no clue...
-
I honestly don't know how that could be annoying. I'm asking a simple question trying to get a factual answer.
You asked the same question TWICE within a few hours' time -- and on a Saturday, which is often a busy day for people. It is VERY likely that few people had even read the original question by the time you asked it again. I told you I would get back to you and, before I had the chance to do so, you had already asked the same question again. IMO, that is annoying.
It is not the question that is the problem; it is the repetition after only a short time.
As for the smart as comment about the Summa, my activity here is not more or less limited to threads about the Summa, is it? When you fire, be sure to hit the mark.
-
I honestly don't know how that could be annoying. I'm asking a simple question trying to get a factual answer.
You asked the same question TWICE within a few hours' time -- and on a Saturday, which is often a busy day for people. It is VERY likely that few people had even read the original question by the time you asked it again. I told you I would get back to you and, before I had the chance to do so, you had already asked the same question again. IMO, that is annoying.
It is not the question that is the problem; it is the repetition after only a short time.
As for the smart as comment about the Summa, my activity here is not more or less limited to threads about the Summa, is it? When you fire, be sure to hit the mark.
Sorry
-
Hietanen,
It appears that your reputation has "bottomed-out." Look, I must agree with my esteemed colleagues here that you need to express your opinions less corrosively. Only the Church can pronounce someone to be a heretic, not you, not me, and not anyone else, so unless you can show that someone is embracing a position which has been condemned, you have absolutely no canonical right to sit in judgment of them and/or their position. Only the Church can do that.
-
1.- Hietanen, I can speak for Emerentiana because I have seen enough of her posts to know what she believes.
2.- It appears that LeFebvre means the Catholic Church can save these people. It does not appear that he means these people can be saved if they remain in their own religions and don't repent.
3.- Actually you are quite wrong about the video game thread. When Jehanne said that there weren't any satanic references in Dante's Inferno, I corrected him (someone else laughed at my post, I corrected that person as well). Go back and read the thread. I didn't comment on the "Doom" video game for two reasons. For one thing I was still trying to prove that Dante's Inferno was a bad game, and I also do not know very much about Doom. I do not, however, encourage playing the game because it does seem sinful. On the thread aoubt eating out on Sundays, pretty much everyone agreed that doing unnecessary work on Sunday is breaking the Sabbath. However, it's not a sin to eat out on Sunday. Not unless you went to an immodest place like Hooters (though going there would be a sin no matter which day of the week it was). I have corrected people who deny Catholic dogma many times. You haven't posted frequently enough to see my posts. There was a person on here a while back (Classicom) who constantly rejected dogma about The Blessed Virgin Mary, and I corrected him. Don't make false accusations if you don't have enough evidence to back up your claim.
4.- Emerentiana isn't a heretic, and heretic or not it is innappropriate to act that way towards a woman. Anyway, like I said, you're an extremist. This forum is well aware of sin. There's plenty of sin out there, both venial and mortal. Blasphemy, stealing, adultery, cussing, using God's name in vein, lying, worshipping false gods, etc. And that's only to name a few. We are well aware of sin, we just don't go to the extreme like you do, condemning everyone and everything. I suggest you stop admiring your own "perfections" or whatever and don't spew nonsense here.
-
2.- It appears that LeFebvre means the Catholic Church can save these people. It does not appear that he means these people can be saved if they remain in their own religions and don't repent.
And, he never claimed that anyone who made it to Heaven will have died without sacramental Baptism in Water. One can easily imagine a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., being validly baptized in his or her infancy and then leading a virtuous life without mortal sin. Perhaps this is what Archbishop LeFebvre was thinking, also.
-
I like how Hietanen won't say why he posts on an SSPX forum. :rolleyes:
So if what he says is true about all SSPX Traditional Catholics here being heretics for being in communion with the SSPX, that would make Hietanen a heretic as well for posting on an SSPX forum. So Heitanen, as long as you continue to post here you might as well label yourself as a heretic.
I don't post here to commune with you religiously or to unite myself to you in religious communion or by prayer. I post here to help people spiritually.
Ok, here's a bit of advice for you Hietanen. Condemning people and calling them "heretics" isn't going to spiritually help them very much. So basically you are wasting your time, unless you start taking a kinder approach.
I don't think I condemn people or tell them the truth of that they in fact will go to hell for their mortal sin or heresies until they have manifested obstinacy in their sin or in their heresy. When a person defends his heresy or mortal sin, then must that person be condemned, since by condemning him, might he be struck with remorse and repent.
Jesus was very hard on the sinners, some repented, others did not. Others was he soft with, and they repented. All people are different, some listens better to calm words, others to hard rebukes.
Most people I have talked with here have not had any interest of accepting the true Catholic Faith or ceasing with their mortal sins, but have been overly obstinate in their errors. What can be said to such condemned sadly headed for Hell individuals other than the truth? Most people today sadly only care about living in mortal sin and to have pleasure, following God and his commandments, doing penance, and avoiding worldly pleasures, sinful films, bad video games, or whatever it can be, isn't in peoples interest anymore.
But what to expect? We are living in the last days after all, and the last days would be the worst of them all. Today, with all the technology that have been made available by the devil, countless of mortal sins and other pleasures, are sitting in front of man, and these things - without him understanding it because of his bad living and because he don't want to understand - draws him away from the love of God to the love of the world and of it's pleasures.
Please, read this file (http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/). I know many here simply refuse to do so since it condemns your sinful lifestyle, your sinful video games, your sinful films and series, and many other of your pleasures that you so much love to do. But if you really care of being saved and of being friend with God, you must not run away from the information that will help to save you,
http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/
Heitanen,
You are on a traditional Catholic forum! I think most of us here are striving to live a good Catholic life! What right do you have to call us heretics and tell us we are in mortal sin?
In my lifetime, I have met people like you. Everything is a mortal sin (by their judgement and false misguided interpretations of Church teachings usually put forth by lay theologians who have NO mission or authority from the Church to teach). .
Your guy in Sweden from the website link is one of the self appointed teachers, along with many others including Richard Ibranyi, Diamond brothers, and David Landry.
They all have a following of misguided souls that hinge on their every word. Each of these "teachers" have a slightly different twist on their false beliefs, and NONE of them would ever consult a priest before publishing their writings, as lay people are REQUIRED TO DO!
THIS IS NOT A CATHOLIC ATTITUDE! The Catholic Church is based on authority, and altho reduced in numbers, legit authority is sill functioning in the form of priest and bishops who believe and adhere to ALL the truths the Church teaches. They are the experts, not misquided lay people, who have NO authority to teach in the name of the Church!
Many of the people I have met who have had the misfortune to follow these lay theologians (BTW, most have been counseled not to by priests and rejected the counsel) ended up dying "home aloners", without the last sacraments of the church, or a requiem mass . They were put in the grave in a secular cemetary with prayers offered by a laymen in their group.
There is a large group of them in the Spokane/ CoeurdeAlene area of the pacific Northwest. They inch toward death, their souls languishing for the Sacraments. Some are former friends of mine that attended mass in years past. To them, every one is in sin, the priests and bishops are not legit etc! Actually they are in sin. They sin against the Holy Ghost by believing that God has taken away all priests and authority in the church, and that THEY alone are Catholics.
My advice to you is quit posting your condemnations on this forum. God reserves judgement to Himself!
In the past, Matthew has not allowed people like you on the forum spouting heresies. I think you have used this forum long enough! :heretic:[/b]
[ Thanks Spiritus fo your support.
Ive been around many years Hietanen, I am sure many more than you.
I WAS THERE when the canon of the mass changed. There were very few who left the churches then.
We have had others like you on this forum. You really drain my energy, because you dont listen to anything thats said. You are wedded to your own opinions. The faith is simple. Our Lord told us that unless we are like little children we will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
We just have to believe what the church teaches and ALL that She teaches.....its that simple. I appologize for my simple responses. Im sure they are not adequate for you.
Like any other heretic, you love contraversy, and thrive on putting forth your absolutely heretical opinions.
The few priests and bishops who are left, to me are so precious. They bring My Lord and God to me in Holy Communion as my spiritual food!
Whatever group they come from doesnt matter to me, altho I can say proudly that Im affiliated with the CMRI, a group of very dedicated Holy priests, that expend every ounce of energy they have bringing the sacraments to tha faithful around the country and around the world.
They have taught me my faith since I was a young lady of 25 when I became affiliated with them. Im now 70. Ive had a long life, and I do know the trad movement, its origins and history. If not but by the grace of God go I .
Im thru with this dialogue with you! I will pray for you
-
Our Lord told us that unless we are like little children we will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
We just have to believe what the church teaches and ALL that She teaches.....its that simple.
And, that's the point, what does the Church (that is, the Magisterium, and not necessarily "the theologians") teach. To be like little children is to accept syllogistic reasoning, and what could be simpler than the following:
God desires that which is perfect for human beings, His Creation.
Major Premise: The One and Triune God is a Perfect Being; as such, He desires that which is Perfect for His Creation.
Minor Premise: Human beings are part of God's creation.
Conclusion: God desires that which is perfect for human beings.
God desires Sacramental Baptism in Water for all human beings.
Major Premise: God desires that which is perfect for human beings.
Minor Premise: Sacramental Baptism in Water is the "the perfect remedy of salvation." (Council of Vienne, Denzinger, #482)
Conclusion : God desires Sacramental Baptism in Water for all human beings.
God can bring about Sacramental Baptism in Water, that which He desires, for all human beings.
Major Premise: God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent; as such, He can bring about that which He desires, respecting, of course, human free will.
Minor Premise: God desires Sacramental Baptism in Water for all human beings.
Conclusion : God can bring about Sacramental Baptism for all human beings, as long as we cooperate with God's grace.
What could simpler than the above syllogistic proof or more childlike? Within each syllogism, if the major and minor premises are both true, then the conclusion which follows must also be true.
-
Hietanen,
It appears that your reputation has "bottomed-out." Look, I must agree with my esteemed colleagues here that you need to express your opinions less corrosively. Only the Church can pronounce someone to be a heretic, not you, not me, and not anyone else, so unless you can show that someone is embracing a position which has been condemned, you have absolutely no canonical right to sit in judgment of them and/or their position. Only the Church can do that.
Only the Church can 'formally' declare someone a heretic (when the Church hierarchy is visible and functioning normally). However, all people can see or understand when someone is a heretic if they obstinately reject a dogma. Or would you say that an obstinate protestant who openly reject the Catholic faith is not a heretic? No, you would probably not say so. so this point refutes you.
Since we have no non-heretical Catholic priests or bishops in the world, we must make these judgments for ourselves. Thus, when we see someone today be a heretic, then must we avoid him.
To await the judgment of the Church today as a requirement of avoiding heretical priests or bishops, when the See of Peter is vacant, and when no non-heretical bishops virtually exists anywhere on earth -, is truly ridiculous to even think about. Should we unite ourselves with known heretics and excuse ourselves with that the Church must make a declaration, when we know that that might not happen for who knows for how many years? No, that's not the Catholic approach, but the approach of cowards.
Further, Jehanne, you said the following: "so unless you can show that someone is embracing a position which has been condemned, you have absolutely no canonical right to sit in judgment of them and/or their position."
Since I can show that many people are embracing a position that has been condemned by the Church (by believing in baptism of desire, by practicing NFP, by denying the dogma on no salvation outside the Church, etc), then, according to your own logic, do I have the right to condemn them and call them heretics. So you seem to contradict yourself now. First can I not judge them, and next I can judge them. So, how is, Jehanne?
-
2.- It appears that LeFebvre means the Catholic Church can save these people. It does not appear that he means these people can be saved if they remain in their own religions and don't repent.
And, he never claimed that anyone who made it to Heaven will have died without sacramental Baptism in Water. One can easily imagine a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., being validly baptized in his or her infancy and then leading a virtuous life without mortal sin. Perhaps this is what Archbishop LeFebvre was thinking, also.
No infants can commit mortal sin. So if you are talking about people who are adults (above the age of reason, and are Muslims, Buddhists, Hinduists, etc., but being validly baptized, yet commit no mortal sin except for practising their false religion, they will still not be Saved, since all adults need to have an explicit Faith in the Trinity and Incarnation (Jesus) to be Saved.
Jehanne, what you said above is actually heretical if that was what you meant, namely, that a practicing Muslim who has been baptized and who commit no mortal sins yet have no Faith in Jesus or the Trinity - that he can be saved.
Was this what you meant?
-
2.- It appears that LeFebvre means the Catholic Church can save these people. It does not appear that he means these people can be saved if they remain in their own religions and don't repent.
And, he never claimed that anyone who made it to Heaven will have died without sacramental Baptism in Water. One can easily imagine a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., being validly baptized in his or her infancy and then leading a virtuous life without mortal sin. Perhaps this is what Archbishop LeFebvre was thinking, also.
No infants can commit mortal sin. So if you are talking about people who are adults (above the age of reason, and are Muslims, Buddhists, Hinduists, etc., but being validly baptized, yet commit no mortal sin except for practising their false religion, they will still not be Saved, since all adults need to have an explicit Faith in the Trinity and Incarnation (Jesus) to be Saved.
Jehanne, what you said above is actually heretical if that was what you meant, namely, that a practicing Muslim who has been baptized and who commit no mortal sins yet have no Faith in Jesus or the Trinity - that he can be saved.
Was this what you meant?
Simply lacking faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation is not a mortal sin. In addition, if a Muslim infant is validly baptized, we can certainly trust in the Holy Spirit to reveal to that person, if only by "internal inspiration," the explicit articles of Faith that he or she would need to believe, explicitly, in order to stay in a state of grace. Point is, when one is validly baptized in his or her infancy, eternal life is theirs to lose, not gain. Original sin has been cleansed and that person is at that point in time completely fit for Heaven.
-
Hietanen,
It appears that your reputation has "bottomed-out." Look, I must agree with my esteemed colleagues here that you need to express your opinions less corrosively. Only the Church can pronounce someone to be a heretic, not you, not me, and not anyone else, so unless you can show that someone is embracing a position which has been condemned, you have absolutely no canonical right to sit in judgment of them and/or their position. Only the Church can do that.
Only the Church can 'formally' declare someone a heretic (when the Church hierarchy is visible and functioning normally). However, all people can see or understand when someone is a heretic if they obstinately reject a dogma. Or would you say that an obstinate protestant who openly reject the Catholic faith is not a heretic? No, you would probably not say so. so this point refutes you.
Since we have no non-heretical Catholic priests or bishops in the world, we must make these judgments for ourselves. Thus, when we see someone today be a heretic, then must we avoid him.
To await the judgment of the Church today as a requirement of avoiding heretical priests or bishops, when the See of Peter is vacant, and when no non-heretical bishops virtually exists anywhere on earth -, is truly ridiculous to even think about. Should we unite ourselves with known heretics and excuse ourselves with that the Church must make a declaration, when we know that that might not happen for who knows for how many years? No, that's not the Catholic approach, but the approach of cowards.
Further, Jehanne, you said the following: "so unless you can show that someone is embracing a position which has been condemned, you have absolutely no canonical right to sit in judgment of them and/or their position."
Since I can show that many people are embracing a position that has been condemned by the Church (by believing in baptism of desire, by practicing NFP, by denying the dogma on no salvation outside the Church, etc), then, according to your own logic, do I have the right to condemn them and call them heretics. So you seem to contradict yourself now. First can I not judge them, and next I can judge them. So, how is, Jehanne?
Point is that you are imputing to people, like Archbishop Lefebvre, things that they did not say. Everyone on this board (indeed, everyone in the World) would have to acknowledge the possibility that some "non-Catholic" individual was validly baptized in his or her infancy, whether they were born to Jєωιѕн, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. parents. If that person perseveres in grace, eternal life will be his or her everlasting reward. We can leave things to the One and Triune God at that point. When seen in this light, absolutely nothing which Archbishop Lefebvre said can be construed as being heretical. It does not matter if he "said it"; perhaps he was just "thinking it." One thing is certain, and that is that Archbishop Lefebvre knew about this:
Baltimore Catechism -- Question 510:
Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
Answer: It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church provided that person (1) has been validly baptized; (2) firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and (3) dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.
So, I think that you should at least given him the benefit of the doubt. Okay?
-
2.- It appears that LeFebvre means the Catholic Church can save these people. It does not appear that he means these people can be saved if they remain in their own religions and don't repent.
It appears? No, he CLEARLY said that they could be Saved as practicing Muslims, or as practicing Jews. They could be saved in their own religion. That was what he said. He is a heretic, but you deny it though - for as I have said, you don't care about dogma or about heresy, but only about those dogmas you seem fit - which is in infallible sign of a heretic. No heretics deny all dogmas, only parts of them.
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”
3.- Actually you are quite wrong about the video game thread. When Jehanne said that there weren't any satanic references in Dante's Inferno, I corrected him (someone else laughed at my post, I corrected that person as well). Go back and read the thread. I didn't comment on the "Doom" video game for two reasons. For one thing I was still trying to prove that Dante's Inferno was a bad game, and I also do not know very much about Doom. I do not, however, encourage playing the game because it does seem sinful.
I was referring to the part that you didn't encourage him not to play other evil games. It does not matter if one is against certain games, yet allows the playing of other evil games. That is not how it works. Many people are also against certain things, and against certain sins, yet refuse to condemn other people who do these things or practice these things.
I know for a certain fact that there are many people against NFP, and they don't practice it themselves. But yet do these people have no problem with other people doing it, and they refuse to condemn people who practice it. To act in this way is an infallible sign of damnation.
I must ask you a question. Do you have as opinion that as long as a video game does not impose satanic signs or occult themes or promotes satanism, that it's fine to play those evil games even if they are immoral, or mortally sinful otherwise?
Some people - I don't say you think so - sadly have such a twisted view point. These people would only avoid the kind of games described above, or hardly even that, but if the games has no promoting of satanism, then they would have played that game, even it if is violent and mortally sinful other ways and you are hurting or killing other human beings. People who think in this way, have really no intention of avoiding mortal sin, but only of avoiding the most obvious evil, such as satanism, which might weight a little hard on their conscience.
On the thread aoubt eating out on Sundays, pretty much everyone agreed that doing unnecessary work on Sunday is breaking the Sabbath. However, it's not a sin to eat out on Sunday.
Then you don't agree. You thus have as opinion that it is not a mortal sin to help other people break the sabbath unnecessarily. You have no reason for eating out on a Sunday, yet do you obstinately assert that it is nothing wrong about it.
Unless you starve or have a true necessity for eating out on a Sunday - is it a mortal sin to eat out on Sundays. If you don't need to eat out, but yet to so just because it suits you, then you are committing a mortal sin for helping your neighbor to commit a possible mortal sin in breaking the sabbath. Some things are just wrong however innocent it might seem, that is why we must obey, and good requires obedience. Maybe you have forgotten that just for eating meat unnecessarily on a Friday without a just cause would likewise be a mortal sin? This is a serious matter.
You agree with that it is wrong to unnecessarily break the sabbath by working on Sundays. But why then would you want to eat out on a Sunday, which constitutes a work for these people? Can you truly be this blind?
I have corrected people who deny Catholic dogma many times. You haven't posted frequently enough to see my posts. There was a person on here a while back (Classicom) who constantly rejected dogma about The Blessed Virgin Mary, and I corrected him. Don't make false accusations if you don't have enough evidence to back up your claim.
Heretics only adhere to some dogmas, and rejecting others. Do you think you will have a reward for defending one dogma, while rejecting, let's say, ten others? No, certainly not.
You reject the dogma on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation? You reject the dogma that no heretic can be pope? You reject the dogma that heretics are outside the Catholic Church? You reject the dogma that NFP is a mortal sin and heresy against the natural law? You reject the dogma that Catholics must condemn and encourage sinners and heretics? You also defend people (Levfebre) who rejects the dogma on no salvation outside the Church.
These are just a few of the dogmas that you I have seen you reject by talking with you.
4.- Emerentiana isn't a heretic, and heretic or not it is innappropriate to act that way towards a woman. Anyway, like I said, you're an extremist. This forum is well aware of sin. There's plenty of sin out there, both venial and mortal. Blasphemy, stealing, adultery, cussing, using God's name in vein, lying, worshipping false gods, etc. And that's only to name a few. We are well aware of sin, we just don't go to the extreme like you do, condemning everyone and everything. I suggest you stop admiring your own "perfections" or whatever and don't spew nonsense here.
Emerentiana is a heretic, for she obstinately reject the dogma on the absolute necessity for water baptism for salvation. You claim to uphold dogma but proves over and over again, that you have no problem with people that rejects dogma. For you yourself rejects certain dogmas. Emerentiana also believes that there is nothing wrong with NFP, she thus rejects Pope Pius XI's dogma condemning NFP as well - but I presume you do likewise, since you defended Jehanne and claimed he was not a mortal siner for practicing it. Only a mortal sinner or an otherwise spiritually blind man would excuse mortal sin. Only a heretic would defend or overlook heresy, after it had been proved clearly that it was heresy.
-
2.- It appears that LeFebvre means the Catholic Church can save these people. It does not appear that he means these people can be saved if they remain in their own religions and don't repent.
And, he never claimed that anyone who made it to Heaven will have died without sacramental Baptism in Water. One can easily imagine a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., being validly baptized in his or her infancy and then leading a virtuous life without mortal sin. Perhaps this is what Archbishop LeFebvre was thinking, also.
No infants can commit mortal sin. So if you are talking about people who are adults (above the age of reason, and are Muslims, Buddhists, Hinduists, etc., but being validly baptized, yet commit no mortal sin except for practising their false religion, they will still not be Saved, since all adults need to have an explicit Faith in the Trinity and Incarnation (Jesus) to be Saved.
Jehanne, what you said above is actually heretical if that was what you meant, namely, that a practicing Muslim who has been baptized and who commit no mortal sins yet have no Faith in Jesus or the Trinity - that he can be saved.
Was this what you meant?
Simply lacking faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation is not a mortal sin. In addition, if a Muslim infant is validly baptized, we can certainly trust in the Holy Spirit to reveal to that person, if only by "internal inspiration," the explicit articles of Faith that he or she would need to believe, explicitly, in order to stay in a state of grace. Point is, when one is validly baptized in his or her infancy, eternal life is theirs to lose, not gain. Original sin has been cleansed and that person is at that point in time completely fit for Heaven.
ANSWER THE QUESTION, SINCE I DON'T WANT TO PRESUME WITHOUT KNOWING!
Jehanne, can an adult practicing Muslim, Jew, Hinduist, etc, but who is baptized, and who otherwise commit no mortal sins, but yet have no Faith in Jesus Christ or in the Trinity, be Saved according to you?
Lacking Faith in the Trinity or Incarnation is not a mortal sin for infants, and it is neither a mortal sin for adults - if they have no way of knowing about the Faith. But even though it is not a mortal sin for them in that sense, it is still a mortal sin for them in the other sense, since they cannot gain eternal life without expressed belief in The trinity and Incarnation.
-
Point is that you are imputing to people, like Archbishop Lefebvre, things that they did not say. Everyone on this board (indeed, everyone in the World) would have to acknowledge the possibility that some "non-Catholic" individual was validly baptized in his or her infancy, whether they were born to Jєωιѕн, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. parents. If that person perseveres in grace, eternal life will be his or her everlasting reward.
An adult must have belief in the Trinity and Incarnation for salvation, he must thus be a Catholic. An adult Jew or Muslim who has been baptized can thus not be saved if he does not have the Catholic Faith, they must have expressed belief in Jesus and the Trinity. Do you agree with this or deny this?
Levfebre said that people could be saved as practicing Muslims, etc. That is heretical, plain and simple.
Baltimore Catechism -- Question 510:
Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
Answer: It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church provided that person (1) has been validly baptized; (2) firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and (3) dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.
So, I think that you should at least given him the benefit of the doubt. Okay?[/quote]
The above is heretical if it is speaking about that people can be saved as practicing Jews or Muslims, etc. (A Person could be saved practising a Christian religion so long as he himself though believes in no heresies and believes in Jesus Christ and the Trinity). No adults can be saved without expressed belief in Jesus Christ or the Trinity. Even if they are baptized, or have no other mortal sins - if they have not the Catholic Faith (Jesus Christ and the Trinity), they will be lost.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS OR NOT?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra ( infallible statement from the chair of Peter): “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 Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
You must thus be a Catholic to be Saved. No adult practicing Jew or Muslim can ever be Saved. Those who assert that adult practicing Muslims or Jews can be Saved - are heretics and condemned.
-
ANSWER THE QUESTION, SINCE I DON'T WANT TO PRESUME WITHOUT KNOWING!
Jehanne, can an adult practicing Muslim, Jew, Hinduist, etc, but who is baptized, and who otherwise commit no mortal sins, but yet have no Faith in Jesus Christ or in the Trinity, be Saved according to you?
Lacking Faith in the Trinity or Incarnation is not a mortal sin for infants, and it is neither a mortal sin for adults - if they have no way of knowing about the Faith. But even though it is not a mortal sin for them in that sense, it is still a mortal sin for them in the other sense, since they cannot gain eternal life without expressed belief in The trinity and Incarnation.
We can trust that the One and Triune God will reveal, if only through internal inspiration, what that individual would need to believe, which certainly could include the Articles of Faith. The fact is that such an individual is a Child of God and salvation is theirs to lose not gain.
-
1.- No, LeFebvre did not clearly say that people could be saved while still practicing false religions. He said that they could be saved if they eventually converted to Catholicism! You are slow, Hietanen! You don't get things. I've met some hard-headed people in my day, but I'm not sure that I have met ANYONE more hard-headed than you. You can claim that we are hard-headed, but I think it's quite the opposite...
2.- I never encouraged Jehanne to play other evil games. Any game that has killing in it, or violence, immodesty, or whatever should be avoided AT ALL COSTS. That's why I say that if you're going to play video games, stick to generally harmless ones like sports games or Mario. It's not the act of owning video games that is sinful. It's owning bad ones, or losing your temper over them, or becoming obssessed with them.
3.- I actually have not eaten out on Sunday in months, and before that it was a long time before I did. I generally don't encourage eating out on Sundays, but saying it's a sin because we're giving money to people who break the Sabbath is ridiculous. That's like saying we shouldn't go to a grocery store that is open on Sunday even if we don't go on Sunday because we're giving money to people who break the Sabbath. Your reasoning is way off. As far as baptism, water baptism is the way it should be done. However, if a dying person wants to be baptized but cannot, then they certainly will not go to hell. Therefore, baptism of desire is perfectly valid.
4.- I've seen you cut down this forum quite a bit the past few days. But you know, if you were to leave and go to another forum, you'd soon learn that CatholicInfo wasn't so bad like you think it is. I dare you to post on Catholic Answers. That place is so full of modernists that you wouldn't be able to take it anymore after only a few days or so. I would know, I used to post there (having not realized how modernist it was at the time) and was banned for cutting down Vatican II. You wouldn't even be allowed on a place like AngelQueen, people can't even say the word "sedevacantist" on that forum. I doubt you'd be allowed on FishEaters either. So you have two options. Just post here and stop complaining and condemning people, or leave and try another forum.
-
1.- No, LeFebvre did not clearly say that people could be saved while still practicing false religions. He said that they could be saved if they eventually converted to Catholicism! ...
Ok .. one more time... IF this quote is accurate (and I would like to see the entire address if it is available)... SS, How can you say ABL did not say people could be saved practicing thier false religion?......
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”
-
1.- No, LeFebvre did not clearly say that people could be saved while still practicing false religions. He said that they could be saved if they eventually converted to Catholicism! You are slow, Hietanen! You don't get things. I've met some hard-headed people in my day, but I'm not sure that I have met ANYONE more hard-headed than you. You can claim that we are hard-headed, but I think it's quite the opposite...
No, SpiritusSanctus, Levfebre never said they had to convert. You must lie, for you don't want to take him for the words he used. That is your problem. He never said they need to convert. He said they could practice their own religion and be saved. That is what he said, plain and simple.
Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:[
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
2. Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
3. Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”
Open Letter to Confused Catholics, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
Pages 73: “Does this mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that.”
What Levfebre is saying here is that people can be a practicing Muslim and be saved, somehow, by the Church. This is a rejection of the dogma on no salvation outside the Church. He never said they have to convert. So only a liar would claim he said so.
2.- I never encouraged Jehanne to play other evil games. Any game that has killing in it, or violence, immodesty, or whatever should be avoided AT ALL COSTS. That's why I say that if you're going to play video games, stick to generally harmless ones like sports games or Mario. It's not the act of owning video games that is sinful. It's owning bad ones, or losing your temper over them, or becoming obssessed with them.
What I meant to say was that you didn't tell him he shouldn't be playing evil video games like doom. If you truly believe it is a mortal sin to play such games, and if you then know that your play such games, yet tell him nothing, what kind of friend are you then?
3.- I actually have not eaten out on Sunday in months, and before that it was a long time before I did. I generally don't encourage eating out on Sundays, but saying it's a sin because we're giving money to people who break the Sabbath is ridiculous. That's like saying we shouldn't go to a grocery store that is open on Sunday even if we don't go on Sunday because we're giving money to people who break the Sabbath. Your reasoning is way off.
No, we shouldn't be buying food on Sundays, it is a mortal sin to buy food unnecessarily on Sundays if you don't have too. If you have to buy food then you don't commit any sin and neither can you be guilty for your neighbors sin who was working unnecessarily on a Sunday. What we are talking about here is necessity and non-necessity. You are judging non-necessity in the same level of necessity, which is your main error.
For Catholics to keep the sabbath worthily, some preplanning will be necessary. Only someone who has totally dropped the fear of God would break his commandments and preach the breaking of his commandments like you do.
It is also a mortal sin to eat out on Sundays, since this eating out will be a work for the people you go to - you are thus helping these people commit a mortal sin. Only a mortal sinner headed for Hell would obstinately assert that it is not a mortal sin to help other people commit mortal sin.
You admit that it is a mortal sin of sabbath breaking to work unnecessarily on Sundays? But why then can't you see that it is likewise then a mortal sin to do unnecessary actions with constitutes a work for other people on a Sunday, such as eating out?
Only your obstinacy here is hindering you from seeing the truth, sadly.
As far as baptism, water baptism is the way it should be done. However, if a dying person wants to be baptized but cannot, then they certainly will not go to hell. Therefore, baptism of desire is perfectly valid.
If a dying unbaptised person died without baptism he will be lost forever. That is how it is. He was not one of the elect.
Why do you deny the dogma, just because you can't understand why such an example you described above must be condemned?
God knows everything. Thus, if he let someone die without baptism, then did God know that that person was unworthy of Heaven.
Please, for the love of yourself, stop denying these dogmas. Denying dogma is what condemns people and makes them a heretic.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “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.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 : “Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration.”
Neither did you give any answer on the following:
You reject the dogma that Catholics are forbidden to be in religious communion with heretics? You reject the dogma that no heretic can be pope? You reject the dogma that heretics are outside the Catholic Church? You reject the dogma that NFP is a mortal sin and heresy against the natural law? You reject the dogma that Catholics must condemn and encourage sinners and heretics? You also defend people (Levfebre) who rejects the dogma on no salvation outside the Church.
-
ANSWER THE QUESTION, SINCE I DON'T WANT TO PRESUME WITHOUT KNOWING!
Jehanne, can an adult practicing Muslim, Jew, Hinduist, etc, but who is baptized, and who otherwise commit no mortal sins, but yet have no Faith in Jesus Christ or in the Trinity, be Saved according to you?
Lacking Faith in the Trinity or Incarnation is not a mortal sin for infants, and it is neither a mortal sin for adults - if they have no way of knowing about the Faith. But even though it is not a mortal sin for them in that sense, it is still a mortal sin for them in the other sense, since they cannot gain eternal life without expressed belief in The trinity and Incarnation.
We can trust that the One and Triune God will reveal, if only through internal inspiration, what that individual would need to believe, which certainly could include the Articles of Faith. The fact is that such an individual is a Child of God and salvation is theirs to lose not gain.
I would say that this belief you have is modernism. Maybe not heresy, but modernism - maybe even close to heresy, since you are deviating from what the Church and the Fathers has always taught in regards to how God will save people with false Faith. What you are saying above, Jehanne, is not what the Church has ever taught, or what any saints has ever believed in. You also contradict the bible.
2 Corinthians 4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”
St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”
Pope Benedict XIV, cuм Religiosi (# 4), June 26, 1754: “See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”
-
Okay, let me ask you this -- what happens to an infant born of Muslim parents who is validly baptized but who dies at age one? Age five? Age six? How about if the child is profoundly retarded and dies at age 40?
-
I honestly don't know how that could be annoying. I'm asking a simple question trying to get a factual answer.
You asked the same question TWICE within a few hours' time -- and on a Saturday, which is often a busy day for people. It is VERY likely that few people had even read the original question by the time you asked it again. I told you I would get back to you and, before I had the chance to do so, you had already asked the same question again. IMO, that is annoying.
It is not the question that is the problem; it is the repetition after only a short time.
As for the smart as comment about the Summa, my activity here is not more or less limited to threads about the Summa, is it? When you fire, be sure to hit the mark.
BTW.... it was more like 10 hours... now its been a couple days... am I allowed to repost a question since no one responded to it the first time? It should be an easy question to answer for those who hold that St. Thomas knew the Dogma.
-
Okay, let me ask you this -- what happens to an infant born of Muslim parents who is validly baptized but who dies at age one? Age five? Age six? How about if the child is profoundly retarded and dies at age 40?
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism:
“If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.”[cxv]
If they reach an age of reason and reject the faith, they sever their union with the Body of Christ. Does that not make sense?
-
Yes, absolutely; for Hietanen, I am not sure. But, what does it mean to "sever their union with the Body of Christ"? Is simply being ignorant of the Gospel constitute severing one's union with the Body of Christ?
-
1.- Heitanen, I'm not making up lies. People of other religions can be saved if they convert, and I personally believe that God has mercy on some Protestants. Obviously the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is true, but it's not impossible for God to occasionally allow a Protestant who had every intention of pleasing God into Heaven.
2.- I already told you why I didn't tell Jehanne not to play Doom. If I had known enough about it I would have said something. Plus, I was busy trying to prove that Dante's Inferno was a bad game.
3.- You don't read posts right. I never said that people should buy food on Sunday if they didn't have to. I said that if we used your logic, we might as well not give money to a grocery store that was open on Sunday.
4.- Benedict being an anti-pope is a matter of opinion, not a necessity. There are numerous other people on this forum who don't think he's an anti-pope, if you don't like it, don't post here. I do not reject Catholic dogma on salvation, baptism, or ANYTHING else. You're an extremist, Hietanen. And extremism is a form of heresy, therefore you are a heretic. You're posts are extremely smug and arrogant. You come off as a religious know-it-all, and to be honest I'm getting tired of it, and I think other people here are as well.
-
1.- No, LeFebvre did not clearly say that people could be saved while still practicing false religions. He said that they could be saved if they eventually converted to Catholicism! ...
Ok .. one more time... IF this quote is accurate (and I would like to see the entire address if it is available)... SS, How can you say ABL did not say people could be saved practicing thier false religion?......
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”
umblehay, please keep that nonsense to your self. This is an SSPX forum. I don't have a problem with constructive criticism of the SSPX, because they are not perfect and neither was LeFebvre. However, without LeFebvre there would be no SSPX, no FSSP, no SSPV. The TLM would be almost non-existent. LeFebvre is a saint and he did not mean what you thought he did. So again, please stop the criticism of him. I have no interest in reading it. I'm a Traditional Catholic who is working on his salvation, not an extremist like Heitanen who goes around condemning everybody.
-
1.- Heitanen, I'm not making up lies. People of other religions can be saved if they convert, and I personally believe that God has mercy on some Protestants. Obviously the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is true, but it's not impossible for God to occasionally allow a Protestant who had every intention of pleasing God into Heaven.
Of course, such persons would not be Protestants, which is what you meant to say. We all agree that a validly baptized "Protestant," especially those who are baptized in infancy are fully Catholic, and if they die without mortal sin, then they will go to Heaven, as Catholics.
Of course, I knew what you meant. Heitanen, on the other hand, is going to take you literally and call you a heretic for what you literally said.
-
You guys have debated the ridiculous Feeneyite heresy for 70 pages!!??
Just use your brain. God condemning someone who never had the chance to accept Christ is unjust and absurd! Case closed.
-
BTW.... it was more like 10 hours... now its been a couple days... am I allowed to repost a question since no one responded to it the first time?
Do whatever you want...
FWIW, I DID respond to you first question. You just didn't like the response :)
Believe it or not, some of us have lives outside the home.
It should be an easy question to answer for those who hold that St. Thomas knew the Dogma.
Actually, it requires at least a little time to look up quotes, etc. IMO, your attitude does not inspire one to take the necessary time -- even if it is only five minutes.
-
Sorry
Considering your recent post, I have my doubts that you were really sorry for anything.
-
Eamon, can you give the first ex cathedra declaration before St. Thomas died in 1274 that specifically said that sacramental water Baptism was necessary for salvation?
You DO realize that the Church does not teach SOLELY via ex cathedra statements, right?
The verse from Holy Writ is crystal clear, and it comes from Incarnate Wisdom -- the Supreme teaching authority.
FWIW, here is a little something for you (from Hietanen's post):
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451: "Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS."
-
You guys have debated the ridiculous Feeneyite heresy for 70 pages!!??
Just use your brain. God condemning someone who never had the chance to accept Christ is unjust and absurd! Case closed.
So, an infant who dies without sacramental Baptism goes to Heaven?
-
Catholics are free to differ as to what happens to unbaptized infants. Limbo is not a dogma. A Catholic is free to believe God saves them as they have no personal guilt and had no chance to remit original sin.
I believe Aquinas and Augustine differed on this issue.
-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo
The Limbo of Infants (Latin limbus infantium or limbus puerorum) is a hypothesis about the permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered, have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution. Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of "mildest punishment" consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo.
While the Catholic Church has a defined doctrine on original sin, it has none on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, leaving theologians free to propose different theories, which Catholics are free to accept or reject.[8]...
-
Okay, let me ask you this -- what happens to an infant born of Muslim parents who is validly baptized but who dies at age one? Age five? Age six? How about if the child is profoundly retarded and dies at age 40?
First, virtually no people but Christians baptize their children with the correct wording. So when you say baptized Muslims or Jew infants, you are speaking of scenarios which virtually never happen.
So long as a validly baptized infant is in state of infancy, is she/he a Catholic. The moment that Child reaches age of reason, and rejects the Faith, or dies in mortal sin, he/she is lost.
Profoundly retarded people remain in infancy during their whole life, and if such are baptized, they are Catholics and saved.
Yes, absolutely; for Hietanen, I am not sure. But, what does it mean to "sever their union with the Body of Christ"? Is simply being ignorant of the Gospel constitute severing one's union with the Body of Christ?
Not sure about what? I think you know my position. Please explain.
1.- Heitanen, I'm not making up lies. People of other religions can be saved if they convert, and I personally believe that God has mercy on some Protestants. Obviously the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is true, but it's not impossible for God to occasionally allow a Protestant who had every intention of pleasing God into Heaven.
Of course, such persons would not be Protestants, which is what you meant to say. We all agree that a validly baptized "Protestant," especially those who are baptized in infancy are fully Catholic, and if they die without mortal sin, then they will go to Heaven, as Catholics.
Of course, I knew what you meant. Heitanen, on the other hand, is going to take you literally and call you a heretic for what you literally said.
No, I have no problem with him saying that a protestant can be saved, I understand that, since they believe in the trinity and incarnation. What I have problem with, was when people apply the same logic to Muslims, Jews, Hinduists, etc. That's a problem, which is heresy. Therefore, cannot Levfebre have escaped heresy, since he not only mentioned Protestants, but Muslims, Jews, Hundistis, animalists, etc, and that they could be saved practicing their religion.
The problem is dishonesty. SpiritusSanctus has to make it look like as if this is only about protestants, or as if Levfebre was only speaking about protestants or about people who actually believed in Jesus Christ and the Trinity and who was baptized. But that is far from true, as we've know.
-
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”[lxxvii]
-
1.- Heitanen, I'm not making up lies. People of other religions can be saved if they convert, and I personally believe that God has mercy on some Protestants. Obviously the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is true, but it's not impossible for God to occasionally allow a Protestant who had every intention of pleasing God into Heaven.
I not having problem with that a protestant (but who really is a Catholic without him knowing or understanding it) can be Saved if he believes in no heresy and is baptized. You are just dishonest when you ONLY mentions protestant, for you KNOW Levfebre was talking about Jews, Muslims, Hinduists, animalists, etc, and that THEY too could be saved practicing their religion.
3.- You don't read posts right. I never said that people should buy food on Sunday if they didn't have to. I said that if we used your logic, we might as well not give money to a grocery store that was open on Sunday.
That's correct since my English is not my first language, and since I sometimes read a little to fast.
But no, you are quiet wrong in your logic. You will not be sinning for going to places on other days which likewise have open on Sundays, to say so is just ridiculous, for if so then could you not buy any food at all at any time. Don't take it to far, bad will is your problem. Only if you deliberately go there without a just case ON A SUNDAY would you be guilty. You cannot be guilty for doing what you ought to do, by doing your business there on other days. You will not be guilty for what they did on another day since you cannot hinder them anyway, they have their free will. We need to buy food to survive, this is a necessity. You know it, yet you want make such arguments.
But no one need to eat on a restaurant on a Sunday and help another person to commit a possible mortal sin of unnecessary work on a Sunday. That you refuse to see this is sad to behold.
Unless a person has a real necessity and just cause for eating out on Sundays, it is a mortal sin, just like eating meat on a Friday is a mortal sin, without a just cause.
4.- Benedict being an anti-pope is a matter of opinion, not a necessity. There are numerous other people on this forum who don't think he's an anti-pope, if you don't like it, don't post here. I do not reject Catholic dogma on salvation, baptism, or ANYTHING else. You're an extremist, Hietanen. And extremism is a form of heresy, therefore you are a heretic. You're posts are extremely smug and arrogant. You come off as a religious know-it-all, and to be honest I'm getting tired of it, and I think other people here are as well.
I have already proved that you reject numerous dogmas. You obstinately reject the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation, even after I have shown you the dogmas. You obstinately reject the dogma that a heretic (Benedict XVI) cannot be the pope, or that a heretic cannot even be a Catholic. You also reject the dogma that NFP is a sin and intrinsically evil, hence that you defend other people who practice it by saying that they are not mortal sinners.
These are just a few. So, you are a heretic, and you are clearly a liar, sadly headed for Hell. I can prove with dogma, that you are a heretic, but you just don't care. Why do you wish to be condemned? Why? Maybe you just have a weak faith such as my self, which makes you unsure about the true Faith, hence that you follow the big herd sheep of heard and what they believe.
Pray for Faith, and in knowing the truth, and God will enlighten you SpiritusSanctus.
-
You guys have debated the ridiculous Feeneyite heresy for 70 pages!!??
Just use your brain. God condemning someone who never had the chance to accept Christ is unjust and absurd! Case closed.
No, you are sadly a heretic. For you are saying here that people who never even believes in Jesus Christ can be saved. You are thus contradicting the bible, the father and saints of the Church, and the dogmas.
You have to realize that if people die without Faith in Jesus, then was these people bad. God does not condemn anyone unjustly, God does not do evil. All people that dies in faithlessness, heresy, or mortal sin, did God foreknew that they where bad and unworthy of Heaven.
WHY PEOPLE OF BAD WILL AND PRIDE ARE LEFT IN DARKNESS
Many people also don’t understand why so many “good” people are left in heresy or schism, faithlessness and darkness, or why so many “good” people have never even heard of Jesus Christ - and why these “good” people would be condemned and go to Hell if they died in that state, when they are not yet heretics or schismatics (for they cannot reject what they do not yet know about)?
The answer to these questions is that God beforehand knew of these peoples rejection of the true faith even though it was never presented to them. For even though a person has never heard of the Catholic Church or Her teachings on the Eucharist, Confession, Baptism, Faith and Works unto Salvation etc, during his whole life, but that person - while reading his Bible - rejects words which clearly indicates these teachings, i.e. "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have, you have no life in you", or "receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained;" then, if he read such and like words, but simply refused to believe that Jesus really could mean what he was saying, and that it was impossible that his personal interpretation was wrong, and if he was obstinate about his position, then he would be a mortal sinner and prideful, for he have already made up his mind that his personal interpretation is right. Thus, if ever the true position would have been presented to him, he would simply have refused to believe in it, and would then have become a heretic. I think many people who have talked with protestant heretics are aware of these facts. These protestant heretics often express opinions such as: “I simply refuse to believe such a teaching to be true”, or “I simply refuse to believe the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, etc…”
A humble soul will always think that it is possible that he or she has understood some things wrong, and thus will always conform herself immediately to the true faith when it is presented to her. A person who always thinks he’s right or who cannot accept advice from other people or who always have a high esteem of his own mind, he cannot, in truth, be in good disposition of ever receiving the true Catholic Faith. He would just simply refuse to believe if the true faith ever was presented to him. It’s truly a most sad and abominable pride and presumption to believe that it is not possible that one has understood some things wrong, and that one could not be corrected by other people. All heretics, without exception, have fallen in this trap of pride and presumption. The same must be said about all people who die as heretics, schismatics, pagans, infidels, Jews or Muslims, etc. A humble soul will not reject God’s words because he can’t understand it, but will rather seek to understand it, in that he prays to God for help and guidance (in knowing the truth). The mere thought or reflection of a humble soul that he or she might be in error, and her humble prayers to God coupled with abstinence from mortal sins, fervently pleading for His enlightenment concerning a specific issue, is often enough for a soul to come out of a heresy. For humility is the perfect way to Heaven, and none but the humble will enter therein.
"Heresies are only embraced by those who had they persevered in the faith, would be lost by the irregularity of their lives."
-St. Augustine
The first sin that every single heretic falls for before falling into heresy is always one or many of the seven mortal sins; namely, pride, lust, gluttony, envy, greed, sloth, and wrath. By reason of their mortal sins, the devil gains the possession of their conscience by justice, and is able to influence them into believing heresies. This is the sad truth behind heresy. A person who avoids mortal sins and follows the natural law, and also tries as much as he is able to avoid venial sins, will never fall into heresy, since holy angels guard him when he is in the state of grace.
We can never accept even the smallest venial sin. St. Teresa of Avila said, “For the love of God, take care never to grow careless about venial sin, however small … There is nothing small if it goes against so great a sovereign.” Deliberate venial sin weakens the spiritual powers, reduces our resistance to evil, and causes us to wander in our journey to the Cross. It is an illness of the soul, but not its supernatural death.
1 John 5:16 “There is sin which is mortal … All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”
When a venial sin is enacted with full consent, the devil gets a hold over the person’s soul, where he is able to influence the soul more, and in a little while, he leads the soul into countless of mortal sins from this seemingly small venial sin, unless penance and amendment is made in reparation to God’s justice. A soul that continues in venial sin without quitting his sinful occasions deserve to fall into mortal sin since he rejected God’s commandments. If the soul continues committing venial sin, it will always end in mortal sin, so it’s very important to guard against mortal and venial sins at all times. Billions of poor souls are now suffering in the fires of hell, cursing their habitual venial sins that led them into committing mortal sins. If you wish to avoid joining them in the fires of hell, avoid every occasion of sin as if it were true poison.
All heretics, and all the other people who die outside the Church and Salvation, does not seek after the truth nor prays to God to enlighten them about the truth. These people rather refuse to believe, or only believe in what they think is of the true Faith, rejecting everything else. This is the heresy or mortal sin all the Protestants or Eastern “Orthodox,” etc, fall under, who in truth (many of them) do not fully understand what the Church teaches (yet obstinately refuses to believe in it whenever it is presented to them) or would refuse to believe in it if it ever were presented to them.
This is the exact reason why many people are left in darkness and faithlessness, since God beforehand knew of their bad will and their refusal to accept the true Catholic Faith. This is a truth of Faith that is taught by many of the Popes, Saints and Fathers of the Church.
St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”
Pope Benedict XIV, cuм Religiosi (# 4), June 26, 1754:
“See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”
2 Corinthians 4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”
This is why every Doctor of the Church held that no adult could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is why the Doctors of the Church who believed in baptism of desire (although they were wrong about this) only extended it to unbaptized catechumens who believed in the Trinity and Incarnation.
However, we should not think we are good in any way for having the Faith or think that we are special in anyway for being brought into the Faith. This is a trap which one easily could fall for. And it is a very dangerous trap, for if a person thinks himself to be special in anyway, then he is probably already lost. Pride (in my opinion) leads most souls to Hell. It is the beginning and end of damnation. (You may of course think or consider yourself to be specially evil or sinful, such as: “that you are the worst person on earth” or “the greatest sinner on earth” etc, which is good to think about oneself). This is the way one should consider oneself: as the greatest sinner in the world and totally unworthy to receive any grace from God. In truth, personally, I do not understand why I have been brought to the Faith, and why so many pagans, Jews or Muslims, who are better than me, have not. What did I do to deserve this grace of Faith, and what did they fail to do? Why are they in darkness, while I have found the true light of the Gospel? Why, I often ask myself, without understanding why. I will quote St. Alphonsus, who explains this better than me:
St. Alphonsus, Preparation For Death, (c. +1760): “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760): “How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”
-
Catholics are free to differ as to what happens to unbaptized infants. Limbo is not a dogma. A Catholic is free to believe God saves them as they have no personal guilt and had no chance to remit original sin.
I believe Aquinas and Augustine differed on this issue.
No Catholics are NOT free to believe God saves unbaptized infants since Catholic dogma tells us that no one can be Saved without water baptism! Period. Only water baptism remits the guilt of original sin, that's a dogma. Also, people who are not baptized into the Church are not Catholics. So, unbaptized infants are not Catholics, and thus outside the Church and salvation.
Baptism of Desire and Trent's Decree Concerning Original Sin
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."
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 threatenedand go to hell for calling or Lord and His Church a liar, or affirm it, refusing to believe or speak heresy.
"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
-
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”[lxxvii]
This Council did not remotely have infant baptism in mind. Look at the context.
-
Heit,
Not true. You are not understanding those quotes with the mind of the Church but your own private interpretation.
-
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”[lxxvii]
This Council did not remotely have infant baptism in mind. Look at the context.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”
Also look at the immediate above infallible decree which speaks of INFANTS.
-
Heit,
Not true. You are not understanding those quotes with the mind of the Church but your own private interpretation.
No, you are just a heretic, it's just that simple. You deny dogmas, by an infallible condemned tactic: "under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
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[/u]."
-
1.- No, LeFebvre did not clearly say that people could be saved while still practicing false religions. He said that they could be saved if they eventually converted to Catholicism! ...
Ok .. one more time... IF this quote is accurate (and I would like to see the entire address if it is available)... SS, How can you say ABL did not say people could be saved practicing thier false religion?......
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”
umblehay, please keep that nonsense to your self. This is an SSPX forum. I don't have a problem with constructive criticism of the SSPX, because they are not perfect and neither was LeFebvre. However, without LeFebvre there would be no SSPX, no FSSP, no SSPV. The TLM would be almost non-existent. LeFebvre is a saint and he did not mean what you thought he did. So again, please stop the criticism of him. I have no interest in reading it. I'm a Traditional Catholic who is working on his salvation, not an extremist like Heitanen who goes around condemning everybody.
I agree the Archbishop was a defender of the true Mass. But to worship his every word and raise his voice to the level of infalliblity is just as wrong as raising St. Thomas to that level. He was simply wrong on these points (mainly due to the fact the he was indoctrinated in these errors in his Priestly formation). A great man made a mistake, why can't you just accept that?
-
But to worship his every word and raise his voice to the level of infalliblity is just as wrong as raising St. Thomas to that level.
When someone does the latter, you be sure to let us know, okay?
-
Umble,
Were Pius IX and XII true Popes?
-
I agree the Archbishop was a defender of the true Mass. But to worship his every word and raise his voice to the level of infalliblity is just as wrong as raising St. Thomas to that level. He was simply wrong on these points (mainly due to the fact the he was indoctrinated in these errors in his Priestly formation). A great man made a mistake, why can't you just accept that?
When you say mistake, what do you mean then? He did preach apostasy, the rejection of the entire Christian faith, so it's not just a simple mistake. To deny our Lord, is not just a mistake, but an antichristian error of apostasy.
-
Umble,
Were Pius IX and XII true Popes?
Of course, but even the Popes are infallible ONLY when speaking from the Chair of Peter.
-
Catholics are free to differ as to what happens to unbaptized infants. Limbo is not a dogma. A Catholic is free to believe God saves them as they have no personal guilt and had no chance to remit original sin.
I believe Aquinas and Augustine differed on this issue.
Infants who die without Sacramental Baptism in Water are forever lost. This is de fide. What is theological opinion is where such infants will spend Eternity. That they are excluded from Heaven, the Beatific Vision, is an infallible truth of the Catholic Faith:
"If anyone says that, because the Lord said ‘In My Father’s house are many mansions,’ it might be understood that in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be some middle place, or some place anywhere, where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven which is life eternal: Let him be anathema. For when the Lord says ‘Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God,’ what Catholic will doubt that one who has not deserved to be a co-heir with Christ will be a partner of the Devil?" (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger , 30th edition, p.45, note 2)."
Now some will claim that the Council of Carthage, being a regional Council of the Church, was not infallible. However, St. Pope Zosimus published Carthage’s canons as his own, which made them infallible and binding upon the universal Church. This is referred to in the Council of Ephesus. Pope Zosimus’ Tractoria was sent to the whole world:
“Pope Zosimus of blessed memory directs us, when writing to the bishops of the whole world.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 134)
“The same teacher Zosimus trained us, who, when spoke to the the bishops of the whole world.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 135)
“We[Zozimus], however, by the inspiration of God have referred all things to that of our brothers and co-bishops.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 134)
This is the beginning of his Tractoria and it tells us all things are referred to the African bishops, which is why the Council of Carthage received this great praise:
“Furthermore that which was determined in the decrees of the synod of Cathage [418 AD], we have embraced as the Apostolic See’s own (Ephesus; Denzinger 136), and,
“But although we do not dare to esteem lightly the deeper and more difficult parts of the questions which they [Augustine and Zozimus] have treated in more detail who have restrained the heretics, we do not consider it necessary to add what their writings, according to the aforementioned regulation of the Apostolic See, have taught us.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 142)
-
Okay, let me ask you this -- what happens to an infant born of Muslim parents who is validly baptized but who dies at age one? Age five? Age six? How about if the child is profoundly retarded and dies at age 40?
First, virtually no people but Christians baptize their children with the correct wording. So when you say baptized Muslims or Jew infants, you are speaking of scenarios which virtually never happen.
See my other thread for a plausible scenario of this:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-absurdity-of-Ecuмenism
-
BTW.... it was more like 10 hours... now its been a couple days... am I allowed to repost a question since no one responded to it the first time? It should be an easy question to answer for those who hold that St. Thomas knew the Dogma.
Ok, St. Thomas Aquinas was born in 1225 or 1227 and died in 1274 per The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm)
In 1215 The 4th Lateran Council (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html) defined: There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation......
The same council also states: But the sacrament of baptism, which by the invocation of each Person of the Trinity, namely of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is effected in water, duly conferred on children and adults in the form prescribed by the Church by anyone whatsoever, leads to salvation. And should anyone after the reception of baptism have fallen into sin, by true repentance he can always be restored. Not only virgins and those practicing chastity, but also those united in marriage, through the right faith and through works pleasing to God, can merit eternal salvation.
St. Thomas Aquinas agrees with The 4th Lateran Council teachings as he obviously believed that baptism of desire and blood are not sacraments at all and that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation, here he writes:
Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (65, 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (60, 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments." (Summa, pt. 3, q. 66, a. 11.)
Men are bound to those things without which they cannot attain salvation… Consequently, it is clear that everyone is bound to be baptized, and that without baptism there is no salvation for men." (Summa, pt. 3, q. 68, a. 1.)
I do not understand why you asked about this umblehay anmay.
-
Heitanen, you are a heretic who is only interested in condemning people. It isn't your responsibility to judge a person's soul. I am not bad-willed, if I was I would not be posting on a Traditional Catholic forum. You are extremely stubborn. I'm not going to debate with you anymore. There's no point in it. I will pray that God shows you that when you searched for Traditional Catholicism, you went too far. In the mean time, don't bother responding to me. I'm not going to reply, unless it's about a subject other than this one.
-
1.- No, LeFebvre did not clearly say that people could be saved while still practicing false religions. He said that they could be saved if they eventually converted to Catholicism! ...
Ok .. one more time... IF this quote is accurate (and I would like to see the entire address if it is available)... SS, How can you say ABL did not say people could be saved practicing thier false religion?......
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”
umblehay, please keep that nonsense to your self. This is an SSPX forum. I don't have a problem with constructive criticism of the SSPX, because they are not perfect and neither was LeFebvre. However, without LeFebvre there would be no SSPX, no FSSP, no SSPV. The TLM would be almost non-existent. LeFebvre is a saint and he did not mean what you thought he did. So again, please stop the criticism of him. I have no interest in reading it. I'm a Traditional Catholic who is working on his salvation, not an extremist like Heitanen who goes around condemning everybody.
I agree the Archbishop was a defender of the true Mass. But to worship his every word and raise his voice to the level of infalliblity is just as wrong as raising St. Thomas to that level. He was simply wrong on these points (mainly due to the fact the he was indoctrinated in these errors in his Priestly formation). A great man made a mistake, why can't you just accept that?
Umblehay, I don't worship Archbishop LeFebvre, nor do I think he was perfect. That is an absurd accusation. There were a few things that I disagreed with him on, one in particular being that at first, he went along with the Vatican II docuмents apparently (although he later admitted it was a mistake). If I thought he literally meant that people could be saved while still practicing false religions, I would disagree with him on that as well. But there is no way that's what he meant.
-
Heitanen, you are a heretic who is only interested in condemning people. It isn't your responsibility to judge a person's soul. I am not bad-willed, if I was I would not be posting on a Traditional Catholic forum. You are extremely stubborn. I'm not going to debate with you anymore. There's no point in it. I will pray that God shows you that when you searched for Traditional Catholicism, you went too far. In the mean time, don't bother responding to me. I'm not going to reply, unless it's about a subject other than this one.
It's not heresy to condemn sin and heresy, as you falsely imply. You have already admitted that you deny the baptism dogma, and that you deny the dogma that a heretic cannot be pope, or that heretics cannot even be Catholics or inside the Church. You also deny that NFP is a mortal sin and heresy against the natural law. You also deny the dogma that Catholics are forbidden to be in communion with heretics and schismatics, etc, etc.
I can prove that you are a heretic from your own words. You cannot point out however, that I have rejected obstinately a single dogma. If you could do that, I would be happy, for then you would help me to come out of error. That's the difference between you and me. I am searching for the true Catholic Faith, and are ready to accept it. You, however, deny the true Faith whenever it is presented to you, for you seem to be happy where you are already, you are happy with the heretical schismatical sect you belong to, and with the heresies you believe in, and you don't seem to want to be involved in the changes which embracing the true Catholic faith would inevitably lead you into, strife with family, strife with friends and companions, etc. Is this what is keeping you from embracing the true Faith, because the changes seem to impossible to embrace? You are afraid of loosing the little you have in life, the little feeling of security?
-
BTW.... it was more like 10 hours... now its been a couple days... am I allowed to repost a question since no one responded to it the first time? It should be an easy question to answer for those who hold that St. Thomas knew the Dogma.
Ok, St. Thomas Aquinas was born in 1225 or 1227 and died in 1274 per The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm)
In 1215 The 4th Lateran Council (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html) defined: There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation......
The same council also states: But the sacrament of baptism, which by the invocation of each Person of the Trinity, namely of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is effected in water, duly conferred on children and adults in the form prescribed by the Church by anyone whatsoever, leads to salvation. And should anyone after the reception of baptism have fallen into sin, by true repentance he can always be restored. Not only virgins and those practicing chastity, but also those united in marriage, through the right faith and through works pleasing to God, can merit eternal salvation.
St. Thomas Aquinas agrees with The 4th Lateran Council teachings as he obviously believed that baptism of desire and blood are not sacraments at all and that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation, here he writes:
Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (65, 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (60, 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments." (Summa, pt. 3, q. 66, a. 11.)
Men are bound to those things without which they cannot attain salvation… Consequently, it is clear that everyone is bound to be baptized, and that without baptism there is no salvation for men." (Summa, pt. 3, q. 68, a. 1.)
I do not understand why you asked about this umblehay anmay.
First of all, thank you for that information Stuborn.
To answer your question about why I was asking, it is because elsewhere in the Summa St. Thomas also wrote about BOD/BOB. This is one of the key points that BOD advocates point to in order to support thier case.
-
Saint Thomas teaches that BoD/BoB are possible for an individual when he or she is unable, through no fault of his own, to obtain Sacramental Baptism in Water. I do not believe that such a situation happens, ever. For starters, the One and Triune God, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, could see to it that such an individual was sacramentally baptized in his or her infancy, so this would the "rejoinder" to any scenarios that the SSPX or anyone else would propose as to why BoD/BoB must happen.
-
Your Welcome.
I thought that might be what you were asking about and yes, he did contradict himself stating:
.....Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly......... (Summa, pt. 3, q. 68. a. 2.)
The fact that he, St. Augustine and St. Alphonsus contradicted themselves is, IMO, proof positive as to why we must rely only on defined dogma in this matter.
Until such a time that BOB/BOD is specifically defined or condemned infallibly, it seems prudent to stick with what has already been defined infallibly, which is the one baptism (Eph 4:5) with water as being absolutely necessary.
-
It should pointed out that Saint Augustine, when he died, was working on a second Retractions.
-
....The fact that he, St. Augustine and St. Alphonsus contradicted themselves is, IMO, proof positive as to why we must rely only on defined dogma in this matter.....
You do realize you have commited high treason in the eyes of many on here...LOL...
-
Here is another interesting quote from a Pope prior to the man made doctrine of BOD. Even though it is not ex cathedra ( there see, I do know that there is more to understanding the faith than JUST dogmatic statements ) ....
Pope St. Siricius, 385, [Concerning the necessity of baptism] “Therefore just as we declare that respect for the Easter sacrifice [Paschal time] should not be lessened in the case of any person, in like manner we wish help to be brought with all speed to children who because of their age cannot yet speak, and to those who in any emergency are in need of the water of holy baptism, lest it should lead to the destruction of our souls if, by refusing the water of salvation to those who desire it, each of them, when taking leave of this world, should lose both the kingdom and life. Indeed whoever suffers the peril of shipwreck, an enemy attack, the danger of siege or desperation resulting from some bodily infirmity, and so asks for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the moment of their request the reward of regeneration that they beg for. This much should suffice for my digression on this subject; now let all priests who do not wish to be wrenched from the firmly-fixed rock of the apostles, on which Christ built his universal church, hold fast to the aforesaid rule.” (Latin found in Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Latin Edition, 1962, no. 184; an English Translation found in The Christian Faith, Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1996, p. 540.)
-
Here is another interesting quote from a Pope prior to the man made doctrine of BOD. Even though it is not ex cathedra ( there see, I do know that there is more to understanding the faith than JUST dogmatic statements ) ....
Pope St. Siricius, 385, [Concerning the necessity of baptism] “Therefore just as we declare that respect for the Easter sacrifice [Paschal time] should not be lessened in the case of any person, in like manner we wish help to be brought with all speed to children who because of their age cannot yet speak, and to those who in any emergency are in need of the water of holy baptism, lest it should lead to the destruction of our souls if, by refusing the water of salvation to those who desire it, each of them, when taking leave of this world, should lose both the kingdom and life. Indeed whoever suffers the peril of shipwreck, an enemy attack, the danger of siege or desperation resulting from some bodily infirmity, and so asks for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the moment of their request the reward of regeneration that they beg for. This much should suffice for my digression on this subject; now let all priests who do not wish to be wrenched from the firmly-fixed rock of the apostles, on which Christ built his universal church, hold fast to the aforesaid rule.” (Latin found in Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Latin Edition, 1962, no. 184; an English Translation found in The Christian Faith, Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1996, p. 540.)
The key words UNBLE are those who desire it.
The Church has always taught Baptism of desire.
My saint, St Emerentiana, DESIRED Baptism. She was a catechumen when she was martyered for the faith. The Church made her a saint. She is on the calender, and she is remembered in the Roman Breviary.
-
I do not remember any controversy over BOD/BOB when I was growing up in the Catholic Church preV2.
Was there controversy about it in the hierarchy at that time?
I see statements by Doctors of the church pro and con but it seems that in those statements they are not arguing about the existence of B/B but those statements are in context of other issues they are talking about.
(:heretic: where applicable.)
I am probably missing something. :reading:
But
1. Am I missing something?
and
2. Was the Church EVER divided on this issue preV2?
-
Here is another interesting quote from a Pope prior to the man made doctrine of BOD. Even though it is not ex cathedra ( there see, I do know that there is more to understanding the faith than JUST dogmatic statements ) ....
Pope St. Siricius, 385, [Concerning the necessity of baptism] “Therefore just as we declare that respect for the Easter sacrifice [Paschal time] should not be lessened in the case of any person, in like manner we wish help to be brought with all speed to children who because of their age cannot yet speak, and to those who in any emergency are in need of the water of holy baptism, lest it should lead to the destruction of our souls if, by refusing the water of salvation to those who desire it, each of them, when taking leave of this world, should lose both the kingdom and life. Indeed whoever suffers the peril of shipwreck, an enemy attack, the danger of siege or desperation resulting from some bodily infirmity, and so asks for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the moment of their request the reward of regeneration that they beg for. This much should suffice for my digression on this subject; now let all priests who do not wish to be wrenched from the firmly-fixed rock of the apostles, on which Christ built his universal church, hold fast to the aforesaid rule.” (Latin found in Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Latin Edition, 1962, no. 184; an English Translation found in The Christian Faith, Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1996, p. 540.)
The key words UNBLE are those who desire it.
The Church has always taught Baptism of desire.
My saint, St Emerentiana, DESIRED Baptism. She was a catechumen when she was martyered for the faith. The Church made her a saint. She is on the calender, and she is remembered in the Roman Breviary.
You can't read very well. The Pope said that they must receive baptism to be Saved, even if they had desired baptism prior. The pope said that even those who desire baptism risks loosing salvation unless they actually receive the water-baptism. That was what he defined, that we should baptize those who desire baptism in emergencies or danger of death.
Adults must both desire baptism, and receive baptism, to be saved, that is why the Pope mentioned desire.
St Emerentiana, was baptized, since she is a saint. I have already proved that to you, but you just couldn't care.
No one can be saved without baptism, so for you to obstinately assert that St. Emerentiana was unbaptized, is a mortal sin of heresy on your part, since you know the dogmas but willingly reject them.
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.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “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.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 : “Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration.”
-
Here is another interesting quote from a Pope prior to the man made doctrine of BOD. Even though it is not ex cathedra ( there see, I do know that there is more to understanding the faith than JUST dogmatic statements ) ....
Pope St. Siricius, 385, [Concerning the necessity of baptism] “Therefore just as we declare that respect for the Easter sacrifice [Paschal time] should not be lessened in the case of any person, in like manner we wish help to be brought with all speed to children who because of their age cannot yet speak, and to those who in any emergency are in need of the water of holy baptism, lest it should lead to the destruction of our souls if, by refusing the water of salvation to those who desire it, each of them, when taking leave of this world, should lose both the kingdom and life. Indeed whoever suffers the peril of shipwreck, an enemy attack, the danger of siege or desperation resulting from some bodily infirmity, and so asks for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the moment of their request the reward of regeneration that they beg for. This much should suffice for my digression on this subject; now let all priests who do not wish to be wrenched from the firmly-fixed rock of the apostles, on which Christ built his universal church, hold fast to the aforesaid rule.” (Latin found in Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Latin Edition, 1962, no. 184; an English Translation found in The Christian Faith, Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1996, p. 540.)
The key words UNBLE are those who desire it.
The Church has always taught Baptism of desire.
My saint, St Emerentiana, DESIRED Baptism. She was a catechumen when she was martyered for the faith. The Church made her a saint. She is on the calender, and she is remembered in the Roman Breviary.
She could have been validly baptized in her infancy; impossible to prove that such did not happen.
-
My saint, St Emerentiana, DESIRED Baptism. She was a catechumen when she was martyered for the faith. The Church made her a saint. She is on the calender, and she is remembered in the Roman Breviary.[/b]
Another thing to consider Emerentiana is that people were still considered catechumens even AFTER they recieved sacramental Baptism because they were still in the need of learning more about the faith. This is something that I only recently became aware of. So, while your Saint may be recorded as having been a catechumen when she was martyred, it didn't necessarily mean she was not baptized.
-
Can someone please watch this video and show me where St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsis taught what is shown in the video.
http://www.youtube.com/user/mhfm1#p/u/197/J01vVszOObY
I watched it (most of it, anyway). Naturally, no one will provide any citations, etc., .
Oddly, those of the Dimonds' and Hietanen's persuasion will make truly absurd (as in, irrational and completely implausible) excuses on the part of St. Alphonsus, but grant ZERO latitude to modern men who, for all they know, are of good will. Tis just an observation. Do with it what you will...
I just went back and re-read this. Maybe I misread this the first time around, but you say "because the two Doctors you mentioned did not teach what is mentioned in the video". Well, Bro. Dimond dosen't even bring up anything but the dogmatic definitions. But to reply to your question, what the two Doctors who even posed the possibility of BOD did say about it is nothing at all similar to the modernist interpretation of the dogma that developed into what is being taught even by the Trady Priests of today. And the reason the Dimonds give less latitude to the "modern" men, IMO is that we today have access to ALL the info at our fingertips to review and discuss. We have the ability to put everything in to proper order and perspective and look at the issues in total.
Why did you have to turn the focus of this video from what it was truly about (the false teachings from the SSPX) into a straw man argument about the Doctors of the Church who aren't even mention in the video?
I'll read through the rest of the pages, but did you ever address the actual point of the video? Or is diversion the only recourse to take so that the actual point of the video can be suppressed?
-
She could have been validly baptized in her infancy; impossible to prove that such did not happen.
And is it possible to prove she was baptized? Also, do you honestly believe such an emphasis would be placed on her conversion and status as a catechist if that was the case? Sorry, I don't buy that.
-
Bumping for Iuvenalis.