Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Jehanne on October 27, 2014, 03:52:53 PM
-
It says this:
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
But, Pope Pius XI, a mere two decades before said this:
for the truth of the Christian faith stands expressed in the teaching of the Synod of Trent: "Let no one rashly 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, and assists you that you may be able"
So, if entering the Catholic Church is a precept, why (or how) could such ever be "impossible" for a justified individual to fulfill?
-
It says this:
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
But, Pope Pius XI, a mere two decades before said this:
for the truth of the Christian faith stands expressed in the teaching of the Synod of Trent: "Let no one rashly 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, and assists you that you may be able"
So, if entering the Catholic Church is a precept, why (or how) could such ever be "impossible" for a justified individual to fulfill?
The precepts are fulfilled through externals but also through a pure desire.
A drunkard may die in the barroom, but 5 minutes before his death be sorry for his misspent life, have perfect contrition and have the intention of going yo confession.
From all appearances the man died a sinner, but known to God, the last minute change in this man may brought about his salvation.
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
-
The precepts are fulfilled through externals but also through a pure desire.
A drunkard may die in the barroom, but 5 minutes before his death be sorry for his misspent life, have perfect contrition and have the intention of going yo confession.
From all appearances the man died a sinner, but known to God, the last minute change in this man may brought about his salvation.
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
More pure prot BOD talk. Here (https://www.youtube.com /watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M14fSoqpOss) are those who fulfill everything you preach, so according to you, they all belong to the Church by desire - (except I don't think anyone is drunk) and will be rewarded salvation.
-
The precepts are fulfilled through externals but also through a pure desire.
A drunkard may die in the barroom, but 5 minutes before his death be sorry for his misspent life, have perfect contrition and have the intention of going yo confession.
From all appearances the man died a sinner, but known to God, the last minute change in this man may brought about his salvation.
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
More pure prot BOD talk. Here (https://www.youtube.com /watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M14fSoqpOss) are those who fulfill everything you preach, so according to you, they all belong to the Church by desire - (except I don't think anyone is drunk) and will be rewarded salvation.
I will stick with Catholic teaching, you are the one protesting the teaching, like all Protestants before you.
Tread carefully, there is no salvation outside the Church. The Holy Office did not warn those in your sect for fun, this is serious.
-
The Holy Office in its letter approved by the Pope, taught the followers of the Saint Benedict Center:
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
-
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
Point taken, Ambrose (and, thank you for your prayers!) However, such cases, if they occur, are known to the Triune God alone; so why bother even discussing them?
-
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
Point taken, Ambrose (and, thank you for your prayers!) However, such cases, if they occur, are known to the Triune God alone; so why bother even discussing them?
Because they are driven by modernist philanthropic sentimentality in which the salvation of non-Catholics must be a known de-facto, this is, a visible exception to the thrice defined dogma of EENS, at expense of God's Law.
They feel so strongly about this, in the pluralistic society we live in, that they feel the constant need to reiterate and promote it to all who wants to hear, even the enemies of the Catholic Church, who are delighted to learn that there is really no need to explicitly belong to the Catholic Church for salvation anymore, that they can still be saved in their false religions because the Catholic dogmas of salvation have been upgraded to be in harmony with the world. Modernists have taken great care to spread globally this misinformation, giving the impression to the world that the Church has changed when She cannot.
-
The precepts are fulfilled through externals but also through a pure desire.
A drunkard may die in the barroom, but 5 minutes before his death be sorry for his misspent life, have perfect contrition and have the intention of going yo confession.
From all appearances the man died a sinner, but known to God, the last minute change in this man may brought about his salvation.
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
More pure prot BOD talk. Here (https://www.youtube.com /watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M14fSoqpOss) are those who fulfill everything you preach, so according to you, they all belong to the Church by desire - (except I don't think anyone is drunk) and will be rewarded salvation.
I will stick with Catholic teaching, you are the one protesting the teaching, like all Protestants before you.
Tread carefully, there is no salvation outside the Church. The Holy Office did not warn those in your sect for fun, this is serious.
You preach the prot version, as I posted, of salvation by desire and you call that Catholic teaching. You know better - so you will not be able to plead ignorance.
-
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
Point taken, Ambrose (and, thank you for your prayers!) However, such cases, if they occur, are known to the Triune God alone; so why bother even discussing them?
Many truths of our Faith cannot be known except by Faith, so this truth is not any different.
The state of grace or of mortal sin cannot be seen by human eyes, yet we are taught by the Church how to enter one state or the other.
The teaching of the Church on Baptism of Desire demonstrates God's mercy of those who desire Him, but die prior to Baptism. If someone were to die prior to Baptism, such as Valentinian, it is a great consolation to family and friends know that they deceased relative or friend may still have been saved through Baptism of Desire.
St. Ambrose made this point explicitly in his funeral oration after Valentinian had died unexpectadly prior to his Baptism.
-
The teaching of the Church on Baptism of Desire demonstrates God's mercy of those who desire Him, but die prior to Baptism. If someone were to die prior to Baptism, such as Valentinian, it is a great consolation to family and friends know that they deceased relative or friend may still have been saved through Baptism of Desire.
In other words, a soften cushion for those who rather do not want to think or believe in the reality of Hell.
-
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
Point taken, Ambrose (and, thank you for your prayers!) However, such cases, if they occur, are known to the Triune God alone; so why bother even discussing them?
Many truths of our Faith cannot be known except by Faith, so this truth is not any different.
The state of grace or of mortal sin cannot be seen by human eyes, yet we are taught by the Church how to enter one state or the other.
The teaching of the Church on Baptism of Desire demonstrates God's mercy of those who desire Him, but die prior to Baptism. If someone were to die prior to Baptism, such as Valentinian, it is a great consolation to family and friends know that they deceased relative or friend may still have been saved through Baptism of Desire.
St. Ambrose made this point explicitly in his funeral oration after Valentinian had died unexpectadly prior to his Baptism.
Point taken; however, if we can have certainty in someone's explicit desire for Baptism, can not we also have certainty in someone's explicit non-desire for Baptism? And, for the latter category of individuals (those who have died, at least) that they are, in fact, in eternal Hell?
-
The precepts are fulfilled through externals but also through a pure desire.
A drunkard may die in the barroom, but 5 minutes before his death be sorry for his misspent life, have perfect contrition and have the intention of going yo confession.
From all appearances the man died a sinner, but known to God, the last minute change in this man may brought about his salvation.
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
More pure prot BOD talk. Here (https://www.youtube.com /watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M14fSoqpOss) are those who fulfill everything you preach, so according to you, they all belong to the Church by desire - (except I don't think anyone is drunk) and will be rewarded salvation.
I will stick with Catholic teaching, you are the one protesting the teaching, like all Protestants before you.
Tread carefully, there is no salvation outside the Church. The Holy Office did not warn those in your sect for fun, this is serious.
You preach the prot version, as I posted, of salvation by desire and you call that Catholic teaching. You know better - so you will not be able to plead ignorance.
You should read in fear and trembling the warning given by the Holy Office to your sect. I posted it for you above. You are jeopardizing your salvation by rejecting the voice of the Pope, and refusing to submit to his teaching.
For Catholics, submission to the Pope is not optional, it is mandatory.
-
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
Point taken, Ambrose (and, thank you for your prayers!) However, such cases, if they occur, are known to the Triune God alone; so why bother even discussing them?
Many truths of our Faith cannot be known except by Faith, so this truth is not any different.
The state of grace or of mortal sin cannot be seen by human eyes, yet we are taught by the Church how to enter one state or the other.
The teaching of the Church on Baptism of Desire demonstrates God's mercy of those who desire Him, but die prior to Baptism. If someone were to die prior to Baptism, such as Valentinian, it is a great consolation to family and friends know that they deceased relative or friend may still have been saved through Baptism of Desire.
St. Ambrose made this point explicitly in his funeral oration after Valentinian had died unexpectadly prior to his Baptism.
Point taken; however, if we can have certainty in someone's explicit desire for Baptism, can not we also have certainty in someone's explicit non-desire for Baptism? And, for the latter category of individuals (those who have died, at least) that they are, in fact, in eternal Hell?
No, you can never with certainty know if someone is in Hell. We do not know the final dispositions of any man, in the minutes and even seconds prior to his death.
Until the very last second on earth, there is always a chance of final repentance. There is always a chance that a non-Catholic could cooperate with grace, be truly sorry for his sins, accept the Faith, and desire to enter the Church.
-
The teaching of the Church on Baptism of Desire demonstrates God's mercy of those who desire Him, but die prior to Baptism. If someone were to die prior to Baptism, such as Valentinian, it is a great consolation to family and friends know that they deceased relative or friend may still have been saved through Baptism of Desire.
In other words, a soften cushion for those who rather do not want to think or believe in the reality of Hell.
No, Hell exists, and Baptism of Desire exists. Both must be believed and rejection of either is heresy.
-
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
Point taken, Ambrose (and, thank you for your prayers!) However, such cases, if they occur, are known to the Triune God alone; so why bother even discussing them?
Because they are driven by modernist philanthropic sentimentality in which the salvation of non-Catholics must be a known de-facto, this is, a visible exception to the thrice defined dogma of EENS, at expense of God's Law.
They feel so strongly about this, in the pluralistic society we live in, that they feel the constant need to reiterate and promote it to all who wants to hear, even the enemies of the Catholic Church, who are delighted to learn that there is really no need to explicitly belong to the Catholic Church for salvation anymore, that they can still be saved in their false religions because the Catholic dogmas of salvation have been upgraded to be in harmony with the world. Modernists have taken great care to spread globally this misinformation, giving the impression to the world that the Church has changed when She cannot.
There are no exceptions to EENS.
There are no exceptions to Baptism of Desire.
The Church teaches both. The sin and crime of denying either of these teachings is heresy.
-
St. Ambrose made this point explicitly in his funeral oration after Valentinian had died unexpectadly prior to his Baptism.
It is an error to think that st. Ambrose taught "Baptism of Desire", certainly, he would have never even think of the modernist interpretation that Ambrose CI here promotes. Here is the actual st. Ambrose on the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism for salvation.
“One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized . . . Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water, for ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom.’ Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace.”
-
Pelagian heretic Ambrose resurfaces to continue referring to Baptism and Membership in the Church necessities of precept alone for salvation.
-
Pelagian heretic Ambrose resurfaces to continue referring to Baptism and Membership in the Church necessities of precept alone for salvation.
Yeh, sure,by your logic, the Catholic Church is Pelagian.
I opt out of your sect, and choose to remain in the Catholic Church.
-
St. Ambrose made this point explicitly in his funeral oration after Valentinian had died unexpectadly prior to his Baptism.
It is an error to think that st. Ambrose taught "Baptism of Desire", certainly, he would have never even think of the modernist interpretation that Ambrose CI here promotes. Here is the actual st. Ambrose on the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism for salvation.
“One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized . . . Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water, for ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom.’ Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace.”
He taught Baptism of Desire as clear as day. Read the funeral oration. Everyone throughout Church history agrees on this fact, except the tiny sect of Feeneyites.
Pope Innocent II taught:
(12th Century): From his letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona, "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 Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys 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 administered 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." (Denzinger 388)
-
No, you can never with certainty know if someone is in Hell. We do not know the final dispositions of any man, in the minutes and even seconds prior to his death.
Until the very last second on earth, there is always a chance of final repentance. There is always a chance that a non-Catholic could cooperate with grace, be truly sorry for his sins, accept the Faith, and desire to enter the Church.
I really think that this is a novelty of the past few centuries, which has pervaded even traditional Catholic circles. Consider these quotes from the late Brother Thomas Mary Sennott:
When St. Francis Xavier was preaching in Japan, his listeners raised the problem of the invincible ignorance of their ancestors:
“The principal trouble of those men of good will before they received the light of faith was inability to reconcile the infinite goodness and mercy of God with the fact that He had not made Himself known to them and to their ancestors before the coming of St. Francis. If it was true, as Francis taught, that all those who did not adore the true God went to Hell, then their ancestors must have gone there, even though they had been given no opportunity by God of realizing their duty to Him.
“‘Our Lord helped us to deliver them from this terrible misgiving [said Francis]. We gave them very good reasons for holding that the law of God was imprinted on men’s hearts from the beginning. Before even the law of the Buddhists came from China to Japan, the Japanese, their ancestors, knew that it was wrong and wicked to commit murder, to steal, to bear false witness, or to break any other of the Ten Commandments, and their consciences smote them if they did so, proving that they knew the commandments of God without having been taught them except by the Creator of all peoples.'” 4
St. Francis de Sales also wrote about the fate of the Japanese who lived before the coming of St. Francis Xavier:
“But concerning them that remain in the sleep of sin: Oh! what good reason they have to lament, groan, weep and say: woe the day! for they are in the most lamentable of cases; yet they have no reason to grieve or complain, save about themselves, who despised, yea rebelled against, the light; who were untractable to invitations, and obstinate against inspirations; so that it is their own malice alone they must ever curse and reproach, since they themselves are the sole authors of their ruin, the sole workers of their damnation. So the Japanese complaining to the Blessed Francis Xavier their Apostle, that God Who had had so much care of other nations, seemed to have forgotten their predecessors, not having given them the knowledge of Himself, for want of which they must have been lost: the man of God answered them that the divine natural law was engraven in the hearts of all mortals, and that if their forerunners had observed it, the light of heaven would without doubt have illuminated them, as on the contrary, having violated it, they deserved damnation. An apostolic answer of an apostolic man, and resembling the reason given by the great Apostle of the loss of the ancient Gentiles, whom he calls inexcusable, for that having known good they followed evil; for it is in a word that which he inculcates in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. Misery upon misery to those who do not acknowledge that their misery comes from their malice.”
http://catholicism.org/doctrinalsummary.html#a%29%20Invincible%20Ignorance
Here's another letter from Saint Francis Xavier:
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1552xavier4.asp
-
No, you can never with certainty know if someone is in Hell. We do not know the final dispositions of any man, in the minutes and even seconds prior to his death.
Until the very last second on earth, there is always a chance of final repentance. There is always a chance that a non-Catholic could cooperate with grace, be truly sorry for his sins, accept the Faith, and desire to enter the Church.
I really think that this is a novelty of the past few centuries, which has pervaded even traditional Catholic circles. Consider these quotes from the late Brother Thomas Mary Sennott:
When St. Francis Xavier was preaching in Japan, his listeners raised the problem of the invincible ignorance of their ancestors:
“The principal trouble of those men of good will before they received the light of faith was inability to reconcile the infinite goodness and mercy of God with the fact that He had not made Himself known to them and to their ancestors before the coming of St. Francis. If it was true, as Francis taught, that all those who did not adore the true God went to Hell, then their ancestors must have gone there, even though they had been given no opportunity by God of realizing their duty to Him.
“‘Our Lord helped us to deliver them from this terrible misgiving [said Francis]. We gave them very good reasons for holding that the law of God was imprinted on men’s hearts from the beginning. Before even the law of the Buddhists came from China to Japan, the Japanese, their ancestors, knew that it was wrong and wicked to commit murder, to steal, to bear false witness, or to break any other of the Ten Commandments, and their consciences smote them if they did so, proving that they knew the commandments of God without having been taught them except by the Creator of all peoples.'” 4
St. Francis de Sales also wrote about the fate of the Japanese who lived before the coming of St. Francis Xavier:
“But concerning them that remain in the sleep of sin: Oh! what good reason they have to lament, groan, weep and say: woe the day! for they are in the most lamentable of cases; yet they have no reason to grieve or complain, save about themselves, who despised, yea rebelled against, the light; who were untractable to invitations, and obstinate against inspirations; so that it is their own malice alone they must ever curse and reproach, since they themselves are the sole authors of their ruin, the sole workers of their damnation. So the Japanese complaining to the Blessed Francis Xavier their Apostle, that God Who had had so much care of other nations, seemed to have forgotten their predecessors, not having given them the knowledge of Himself, for want of which they must have been lost: the man of God answered them that the divine natural law was engraven in the hearts of all mortals, and that if their forerunners had observed it, the light of heaven would without doubt have illuminated them, as on the contrary, having violated it, they deserved damnation. An apostolic answer of an apostolic man, and resembling the reason given by the great Apostle of the loss of the ancient Gentiles, whom he calls inexcusable, for that having known good they followed evil; for it is in a word that which he inculcates in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. Misery upon misery to those who do not acknowledge that their misery comes from their malice.”
http://catholicism.org/doctrinalsummary.html#a%29%20Invincible%20Ignorance
Here's another letter from Saint Francis Xavier:
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1552xavier4.asp
As a general rule, it can be said that they would all have lost their soul. Anyone who does outside of the visible Church is presumed to be lost. This is why they cannot have masses said for them or be buried in consecrated ground.
When it comes to particular cases, there can never be certainty. We can never have good hope for such souls, as Pope Pius IX taught.
You can also find similar statements by St. Alphonsus, who also explained very clearly Baptism of Desire. There is no contradiction.
-
The precepts are fulfilled through externals but also through a pure desire.
A drunkard may die in the barroom, but 5 minutes before his death be sorry for his misspent life, have perfect contrition and have the intention of going yo confession.
From all appearances the man died a sinner, but known to God, the last minute change in this man may brought about his salvation.
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
More pure prot BOD talk. Here (https://www.youtube.com /watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M14fSoqpOss) are those who fulfill everything you preach, so according to you, they all belong to the Church by desire - (except I don't think anyone is drunk) and will be rewarded salvation.
I will stick with Catholic teaching, you are the one protesting the teaching, like all Protestants before you.
Tread carefully, there is no salvation outside the Church. The Holy Office did not warn those in your sect for fun, this is serious.
You preach the prot version, as I posted, of salvation by desire and you call that Catholic teaching. You know better - so you will not be able to plead ignorance.
You should read in fear and trembling the warning given by the Holy Office to your sect. I posted it for you above. You are jeopardizing your salvation by rejecting the voice of the Pope, and refusing to submit to his teaching.
For Catholics, submission to the Pope is not optional, it is mandatory.
You can flap your lips all you want, but one thing you'll never be able to do is defend the absolute necessity of the sacrament for salvation. We know this because for about a year now you've had an open challenge and you've ignored that challenge for the whole year - which demonstrates your dishonesty in the whole matter.
You also will never be able to explain that video, which with precision meets your definition of a BOD - why do you ignore it, why do you not address it?
For Catholics, submission to the Pope is not optional, it is mandatory.
But you have a personal disclaimer for that too - a "get out of jail free card". This is typical for sacrament despisers such as yourself. You only submit to the conciliar popes in their examples of a BOD, while you are denying it. :facepalm:
-
As a general rule, it can be said that they would all have lost their soul. Anyone who does outside of the visible Church is presumed to be lost. This is why they cannot have masses said for them or be buried in consecrated ground.
When it comes to particular cases, there can never be certainty. We can never have good hope for such souls, as Pope Pius IX taught.
You can also find similar statements by St. Alphonsus, who also explained very clearly Baptism of Desire. There is no contradiction.
If you are saying the following...
1) Those who die outside of the visible Catholic Church must be presumed to be lost.
2) We cannot have "good hope" for those in #1.
...how is the above any different from the message which Father Feeney was preaching in the late 1940s?
-
The precepts are fulfilled through externals but also through a pure desire.
A drunkard may die in the barroom, but 5 minutes before his death be sorry for his misspent life, have perfect contrition and have the intention of going yo confession.
From all appearances the man died a sinner, but known to God, the last minute change in this man may brought about his salvation.
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
More pure prot BOD talk. Here (https://www.youtube.com /watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M14fSoqpOss) are those who fulfill everything you preach, so according to you, they all belong to the Church by desire - (except I don't think anyone is drunk) and will be rewarded salvation.
So Ambrose, your double talking ends up putting you in a corner.
The video above shows an explicit example of your a BOD in action wherein the explicit profession of sorrow for their sins takes place for you to see.
Yet they do even more by professing publicly their personal acceptance of jesus as their savior - something your preachings on a BOD has never even once mentioned as being a requirement.
Surely these souls, belonging to the Church by desire are saved - something you've repeatedly promoted along with salvation via No Sacrament At All for as long as I remember - at least a year now.
There are tons of similar videos on youtube demonstrating your version of a BOD - I picked this one because it's only a minute long.
This is what you repeatedly preach is a teaching of the Church. :facepalm:
-
As a general rule, it can be said that they would all have lost their soul. Anyone who does outside of the visible Church is presumed to be lost. This is why they cannot have masses said for them or be buried in consecrated ground.
When it comes to particular cases, there can never be certainty. We can never have good hope for such souls, as Pope Pius IX taught.
You can also find similar statements by St. Alphonsus, who also explained very clearly Baptism of Desire. There is no contradiction.
If you are saying the following...
1) Those who die outside of the visible Catholic Church must be presumed to be lost.
2) We cannot have "good hope" for those in #1.
...how is the above any different from the message which Father Feeney was preaching in the late 1940s?
1. When we presume one to be lost, that does not mean that they are definitively lost.
2. Saying we cannot have good hope does not mean no hope.
According to the SBC position of the 1940's, which denied implicit Baptism of Desire one would say that there is no hope for those without the explicit desire to join the Church, even if the other conditions were met.
-
The precepts are fulfilled through externals but also through a pure desire.
A drunkard may die in the barroom, but 5 minutes before his death be sorry for his misspent life, have perfect contrition and have the intention of going yo confession.
From all appearances the man died a sinner, but known to God, the last minute change in this man may brought about his salvation.
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
More pure prot BOD talk. Here (https://www.youtube.com /watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M14fSoqpOss) are those who fulfill everything you preach, so according to you, they all belong to the Church by desire - (except I don't think anyone is drunk) and will be rewarded salvation.
So Ambrose, your double talking ends up putting you in a corner.
The video above shows an explicit example of your a BOD in action wherein the explicit profession of sorrow for their sins takes place for you to see.
Yet they do even more by professing publicly their personal acceptance of jesus as their savior - something your preachings on a BOD has never even once mentioned as being a requirement.
Surely these souls, belonging to the Church by desire are saved - something you've repeatedly promoted along with salvation via No Sacrament At All for as long as I remember - at least a year now.
There are tons of similar videos on youtube demonstrating your version of a BOD - I picked this one because it's only a minute long.
This is what you repeatedly preach is a teaching of the Church. :facepalm:
False. Your straw man has nothing to do with Catholic teaching as explained by the Popes, the Holy Office and the dogmatic theologians.
-
The precepts are fulfilled through externals but also through a pure desire.
A drunkard may die in the barroom, but 5 minutes before his death be sorry for his misspent life, have perfect contrition and have the intention of going yo confession.
From all appearances the man died a sinner, but known to God, the last minute change in this man may brought about his salvation.
One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.
More pure prot BOD talk. Here (https://www.youtube.com /watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M14fSoqpOss) are those who fulfill everything you preach, so according to you, they all belong to the Church by desire - (except I don't think anyone is drunk) and will be rewarded salvation.
I will stick with Catholic teaching, you are the one protesting the teaching, like all Protestants before you.
Tread carefully, there is no salvation outside the Church. The Holy Office did not warn those in your sect for fun, this is serious.
You preach the prot version, as I posted, of salvation by desire and you call that Catholic teaching. You know better - so you will not be able to plead ignorance.
You should read in fear and trembling the warning given by the Holy Office to your sect. I posted it for you above. You are jeopardizing your salvation by rejecting the voice of the Pope, and refusing to submit to his teaching.
For Catholics, submission to the Pope is not optional, it is mandatory.
You can flap your lips all you want, but one thing you'll never be able to do is defend the absolute necessity of the sacrament for salvation. We know this because for about a year now you've had an open challenge and you've ignored that challenge for the whole year - which demonstrates your dishonesty in the whole matter.
You also will never be able to explain that video, which with precision meets your definition of a BOD - why do you ignore it, why do you not address it?
For Catholics, submission to the Pope is not optional, it is mandatory.
But you have a personal disclaimer for that too - a "get out of jail free card". This is typical for sacrament despisers such as yourself. You only submit to the conciliar popes in their examples of a BOD, while you are denying it. :facepalm:
But I have defended what the Church has taught. You are not the Church. Your job is to submit and obey, not protest the teachings.
Go to the library on this site and you will find many of the approved works that I have scanned on this subject.
Have you ever just thought, just for a minute, to learn from your betters and just realize that you are an untrained layman? Btw, when I say betters, I don't mean myself, I mean the countless trained and comissioned theologians whose works were approved by the Church authorities for centuries who all stand against the ideas of your tiny sect.
I just cannot grasp why you and some others on here can't see this pride in yourselves. I am the first to admit that I am an ant next to an elephant in comparison to the great Doctors of the Church and theologians. It amazes me to see people who call themselves Catholics think they are smarter or more knowledgable than men thousands of times greater than them.
-
But I have defended what the Church has taught. You are not the Church. Your job is to submit and obey, not protest the teachings.
Go to the library on this site and you will find many of the approved works that I have scanned on this subject.
Have you ever just thought, just for a minute, to learn from your betters and just realize that you are an untrained layman? Btw, when I say betters, I don't mean myself, I mean the countless trained and comissioned theologians whose works were approved by the Church authorities for centuries who all stand against the ideas of your tiny sect.
I just cannot grasp why you and some others on here can't see this pride in yourselves. I am the first to admit that I am an ant next to an elephant in comparison to the great Doctors of the Church and theologians. It amazes me to see people who call themselves Catholics think they are smarter or more knowledgable than men thousands of times greater than them.
You have not defended, you have denied what the Church teaches - proof of this is your incapability to defend what the Church defends - the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. We've been over this many times over the past year.
The Church teaches: If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.........[let him be anathema.] - you demonstrate repeatedly that you deny this dogma since you post obsessively and repeatedly all over CI - including the library - that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation, which is in direct contradiction to this dogma. You know Trent anathematizes you for this yet you show no signs of repenting.
But this is the part that most explicitly condemns your preaching that the Church teaches salvation via a BOD, which we all know is No Sacrament At All:
"and [if anyone saith] 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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
As for the rest of your post, you have continued to weasel out of the question and I can say there is no end to your weaseling. Your standard non-answer to clear challenges are the same tired old Novus Ordo inspired canned replies.
If you honestly believed the church teaches a BOD then you would jump to the chance to defend a BOD in that video - you would use it as an explicit example of what a BOD is - but even YOU know better but refuse to admit and profess the truth.
-
But I have defended what the Church has taught. You are not the Church. Your job is to submit and obey, not protest the teachings.
Go to the library on this site and you will find many of the approved works that I have scanned on this subject.
Have you ever just thought, just for a minute, to learn from your betters and just realize that you are an untrained layman? Btw, when I say betters, I don't mean myself, I mean the countless trained and comissioned theologians whose works were approved by the Church authorities for centuries who all stand against the ideas of your tiny sect.
I just cannot grasp why you and some others on here can't see this pride in yourselves. I am the first to admit that I am an ant next to an elephant in comparison to the great Doctors of the Church and theologians. It amazes me to see people who call themselves Catholics think they are smarter or more knowledgable than men thousands of times greater than them.
You have not defended, you have denied what the Church teaches - proof of this is your incapability to defend what the Church defends - the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. We've been over this many times over the past year.
The Church teaches: If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.........[let him be anathema.] - you demonstrate repeatedly that you deny this dogma since you post obsessively and repeatedly all over CI - including the library - that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation, which is in direct contradiction to this dogma. You know Trent anathematizes you for this yet you show no signs of repenting.
But this is the part that most explicitly condemns your preaching that the Church teaches salvation via a BOD, which we all know is No Sacrament At All:
"and [if anyone saith] 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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
As for the rest of your post, you have continued to weasel out of the question and I can say there is no end to your weaseling. Your standard non-answer to clear challenges are the same tired old Novus Ordo inspired canned replies.
If you honestly believed the church teaches a BOD then you would jump to the chance to defend a BOD in that video - you would use it as an explicit example of what a BOD is - but even YOU know better but refuse to admit and profess the truth.
But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church. I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.
BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video. The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.
-
But I have defended what the Church has taught. You are not the Church. Your job is to submit and obey, not protest the teachings.
Go to the library on this site and you will find many of the approved works that I have scanned on this subject.
Have you ever just thought, just for a minute, to learn from your betters and just realize that you are an untrained layman? Btw, when I say betters, I don't mean myself, I mean the countless trained and comissioned theologians whose works were approved by the Church authorities for centuries who all stand against the ideas of your tiny sect.
I just cannot grasp why you and some others on here can't see this pride in yourselves. I am the first to admit that I am an ant next to an elephant in comparison to the great Doctors of the Church and theologians. It amazes me to see people who call themselves Catholics think they are smarter or more knowledgable than men thousands of times greater than them.
You have not defended, you have denied what the Church teaches - proof of this is your incapability to defend what the Church defends - the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. We've been over this many times over the past year.
The Church teaches: If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.........[let him be anathema.] - you demonstrate repeatedly that you deny this dogma since you post obsessively and repeatedly all over CI - including the library - that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation, which is in direct contradiction to this dogma. You know Trent anathematizes you for this yet you show no signs of repenting.
But this is the part that most explicitly condemns your preaching that the Church teaches salvation via a BOD, which we all know is No Sacrament At All:
"and [if anyone saith] 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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
As for the rest of your post, you have continued to weasel out of the question and I can say there is no end to your weaseling. Your standard non-answer to clear challenges are the same tired old Novus Ordo inspired canned replies.
If you honestly believed the church teaches a BOD then you would jump to the chance to defend a BOD in that video - you would use it as an explicit example of what a BOD is - but even YOU know better but refuse to admit and profess the truth.
But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church. I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.
BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video. The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.
BOD explained by the Church requires holding the Catholic Faith necessary for justification. Therefore, if ever possible, it cannot apply to a Jєω, Muslim, Hindu, etc that dies in ignorance of the Faith.
-
But I have defended what the Church has taught. You are not the Church. Your job is to submit and obey, not protest the teachings.
Go to the library on this site and you will find many of the approved works that I have scanned on this subject.
Have you ever just thought, just for a minute, to learn from your betters and just realize that you are an untrained layman? Btw, when I say betters, I don't mean myself, I mean the countless trained and comissioned theologians whose works were approved by the Church authorities for centuries who all stand against the ideas of your tiny sect.
I just cannot grasp why you and some others on here can't see this pride in yourselves. I am the first to admit that I am an ant next to an elephant in comparison to the great Doctors of the Church and theologians. It amazes me to see people who call themselves Catholics think they are smarter or more knowledgable than men thousands of times greater than them.
You have not defended, you have denied what the Church teaches - proof of this is your incapability to defend what the Church defends - the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. We've been over this many times over the past year.
The Church teaches: If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.........[let him be anathema.] - you demonstrate repeatedly that you deny this dogma since you post obsessively and repeatedly all over CI - including the library - that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation, which is in direct contradiction to this dogma. You know Trent anathematizes you for this yet you show no signs of repenting.
But this is the part that most explicitly condemns your preaching that the Church teaches salvation via a BOD, which we all know is No Sacrament At All:
"and [if anyone saith] 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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
As for the rest of your post, you have continued to weasel out of the question and I can say there is no end to your weaseling. Your standard non-answer to clear challenges are the same tired old Novus Ordo inspired canned replies.
If you honestly believed the church teaches a BOD then you would jump to the chance to defend a BOD in that video - you would use it as an explicit example of what a BOD is - but even YOU know better but refuse to admit and profess the truth.
But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church. I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.
BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video. The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.
BOD explained by the Church requires holding the Catholic Faith necessary for justification. Therefore, if ever possible, it cannot apply to a Jєω, Muslim, Hindu, etc that dies in ignorance of the Faith.
Now we are finally getting somewhere.
Yes, supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation.
The only question left open on this matter is the minimum amount of Faith necessary to fulfill the act of Faith. That matter remains unresolved by the magisterium, and the theologians do not have a consensus, only a majority and minority opinion.
-
But I have defended what the Church has taught. You are not the Church. Your job is to submit and obey, not protest the teachings.
Go to the library on this site and you will find many of the approved works that I have scanned on this subject.
Have you ever just thought, just for a minute, to learn from your betters and just realize that you are an untrained layman? Btw, when I say betters, I don't mean myself, I mean the countless trained and comissioned theologians whose works were approved by the Church authorities for centuries who all stand against the ideas of your tiny sect.
I just cannot grasp why you and some others on here can't see this pride in yourselves. I am the first to admit that I am an ant next to an elephant in comparison to the great Doctors of the Church and theologians. It amazes me to see people who call themselves Catholics think they are smarter or more knowledgable than men thousands of times greater than them.
You have not defended, you have denied what the Church teaches - proof of this is your incapability to defend what the Church defends - the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. We've been over this many times over the past year.
The Church teaches: If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.........[let him be anathema.] - you demonstrate repeatedly that you deny this dogma since you post obsessively and repeatedly all over CI - including the library - that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation, which is in direct contradiction to this dogma. You know Trent anathematizes you for this yet you show no signs of repenting.
But this is the part that most explicitly condemns your preaching that the Church teaches salvation via a BOD, which we all know is No Sacrament At All:
"and [if anyone saith] 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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
As for the rest of your post, you have continued to weasel out of the question and I can say there is no end to your weaseling. Your standard non-answer to clear challenges are the same tired old Novus Ordo inspired canned replies.
If you honestly believed the church teaches a BOD then you would jump to the chance to defend a BOD in that video - you would use it as an explicit example of what a BOD is - but even YOU know better but refuse to admit and profess the truth.
But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church. I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.
BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video. The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.
BOD explained by the Church requires holding the Catholic Faith necessary for justification. Therefore, if ever possible, it cannot apply to a Jєω, Muslim, Hindu, etc that dies in ignorance of the Faith.
Now we are finally getting somewhere.
Yes, supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation.
The only question left open on this matter is the minimum amount of Faith necessary to fulfill the act of Faith. That matter remains unresolved by the magisterium, and the theologians do not have a consensus, only a majority and minority opinion.
The only Supernatural Faith is the Catholic FAITH!
"Those who die as infidels are damned" - some stupid Feeneyite said that.....no.....It was the greatest Pope in the past 300 years, St. Pope Pius X.
Do you think you are smarter than St. Pope Pius X?
-
But I have defended what the Church has taught. You are not the Church. Your job is to submit and obey, not protest the teachings.
Go to the library on this site and you will find many of the approved works that I have scanned on this subject.
Have you ever just thought, just for a minute, to learn from your betters and just realize that you are an untrained layman? Btw, when I say betters, I don't mean myself, I mean the countless trained and comissioned theologians whose works were approved by the Church authorities for centuries who all stand against the ideas of your tiny sect.
I just cannot grasp why you and some others on here can't see this pride in yourselves. I am the first to admit that I am an ant next to an elephant in comparison to the great Doctors of the Church and theologians. It amazes me to see people who call themselves Catholics think they are smarter or more knowledgable than men thousands of times greater than them.
You have not defended, you have denied what the Church teaches - proof of this is your incapability to defend what the Church defends - the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. We've been over this many times over the past year.
The Church teaches: If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.........[let him be anathema.] - you demonstrate repeatedly that you deny this dogma since you post obsessively and repeatedly all over CI - including the library - that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation, which is in direct contradiction to this dogma. You know Trent anathematizes you for this yet you show no signs of repenting.
But this is the part that most explicitly condemns your preaching that the Church teaches salvation via a BOD, which we all know is No Sacrament At All:
"and [if anyone saith] 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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
As for the rest of your post, you have continued to weasel out of the question and I can say there is no end to your weaseling. Your standard non-answer to clear challenges are the same tired old Novus Ordo inspired canned replies.
If you honestly believed the church teaches a BOD then you would jump to the chance to defend a BOD in that video - you would use it as an explicit example of what a BOD is - but even YOU know better but refuse to admit and profess the truth.
But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church. I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.
BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video. The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.
BOD explained by the Church requires holding the Catholic Faith necessary for justification. Therefore, if ever possible, it cannot apply to a Jєω, Muslim, Hindu, etc that dies in ignorance of the Faith.
Now we are finally getting somewhere.
Yes, supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation.
The only question left open on this matter is the minimum amount of Faith necessary to fulfill the act of Faith. That matter remains unresolved by the magisterium, and the theologians do not have a consensus, only a majority and minority opinion.
The only Supernatural Faith is the Catholic FAITH!
"Those who die as infidels are damned" - some stupid Feeneyite said that.....no.....It was the greatest Pope in the past 300 years, St. Pope Pius X.
Do you think you are smarter than St. Pope Pius X?
CMRI Ambrose goes so far to deny that there MUST be a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, which contradicts all Catholic dogmas AND even speculations ever made by theologians. As said before, not even the conciliar Popes have gone that far of declaring BOD a dogma of Faith as these CMRI sedevacantists do repeatedly.
-
But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church. I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.
BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video. The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.
You have denied the necessity of the sacraments, you reject their necessity because you preach salvation is attainable without them.
Trent anathematizes you because you have offered indisputable evidence for the last year at least to prove that you are the "anyone" they mention: "and [if anyone saith] 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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Your constant cult like inspired mantra of "I teach what the Church teaches" while wholeheartedly and emphatically denying what the Church explicitly teaches is beyond ludicrous and only those suffering with a severe case of a reading comprehension impediment could possibly agree with you.
The proof that the video precisely demonstrates your version of BOD is that like your version of a BOD, the video version is prot, both versions are completely identical - and in your dishonesty, all you offer once again is a non-answer to the challenge of demonstrating how the video BOD differs from your version, which only serves to prove you either have no idea wth you have been talking about this last year or you purposely preach error - can you be honest enough for just a moment to at least agree with that?
-
But I have defended what the Church has taught. You are not the Church. Your job is to submit and obey, not protest the teachings.
Go to the library on this site and you will find many of the approved works that I have scanned on this subject.
Have you ever just thought, just for a minute, to learn from your betters and just realize that you are an untrained layman? Btw, when I say betters, I don't mean myself, I mean the countless trained and comissioned theologians whose works were approved by the Church authorities for centuries who all stand against the ideas of your tiny sect.
I just cannot grasp why you and some others on here can't see this pride in yourselves. I am the first to admit that I am an ant next to an elephant in comparison to the great Doctors of the Church and theologians. It amazes me to see people who call themselves Catholics think they are smarter or more knowledgable than men thousands of times greater than them.
You have not defended, you have denied what the Church teaches - proof of this is your incapability to defend what the Church defends - the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. We've been over this many times over the past year.
The Church teaches: If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.........[let him be anathema.] - you demonstrate repeatedly that you deny this dogma since you post obsessively and repeatedly all over CI - including the library - that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation, which is in direct contradiction to this dogma. You know Trent anathematizes you for this yet you show no signs of repenting.
But this is the part that most explicitly condemns your preaching that the Church teaches salvation via a BOD, which we all know is No Sacrament At All:
"and [if anyone saith] 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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
As for the rest of your post, you have continued to weasel out of the question and I can say there is no end to your weaseling. Your standard non-answer to clear challenges are the same tired old Novus Ordo inspired canned replies.
If you honestly believed the church teaches a BOD then you would jump to the chance to defend a BOD in that video - you would use it as an explicit example of what a BOD is - but even YOU know better but refuse to admit and profess the truth.
But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church. I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.
BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video. The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.
BOD explained by the Church requires holding the Catholic Faith necessary for justification. Therefore, if ever possible, it cannot apply to a Jєω, Muslim, Hindu, etc that dies in ignorance of the Faith.
Now we are finally getting somewhere.
Yes, supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation.
The only question left open on this matter is the minimum amount of Faith necessary to fulfill the act of Faith. That matter remains unresolved by the magisterium, and the theologians do not have a consensus, only a majority and minority opinion.
The only Supernatural Faith is the Catholic FAITH!
True
"Those who die as infidels are damned" - some stupid Feeneyite said that.....no.....It was the greatest Pope in the past 300 years, St. Pope Pius X.
Do you think you are smarter than St. Pope Pius X?
No
-
But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church. I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.
BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video. The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.
You have denied the necessity of the sacraments, you reject their necessity because you preach salvation is attainable without them.
Trent anathematizes you because you have offered indisputable evidence for the last year at least to prove that you are the "anyone" they mention: "and [if anyone saith] 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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Your constant cult like inspired mantra of "I teach what the Church teaches" while wholeheartedly and emphatically denying what the Church explicitly teaches is beyond ludicrous and only those suffering with a severe case of a reading comprehension impediment could possibly agree with you.
The proof that the video precisely demonstrates your version of BOD is that like your version of a BOD, the video version is prot, both versions are completely identical - and in your dishonesty, all you offer once again is a non-answer to the challenge of demonstrating how the video BOD differs from your version, which only serves to prove you either have no idea wth you have been talking about this last year or you purposely preach error - can you be honest enough for just a moment to at least agree with that?
You can tell me I deny the sacraments until the end of time, but that does not make it true. I believe in the necessity of the sacraments as the Church teaches me to believe. That is where you and I differ.
I learn from the Church, while you rely on private judgment.
Don't think I havn't noticed you and all of those like you who would not answer my challenge from months ago.
You have no support for your ideas, and all Catholic sources stand against you, but you just keep digging in, and falsely claiming that I am the one denying a Teaching of the Church, ignoring the obvious fact that it is you and all like you who reject Baotism of Desire and Baptism of Blood that are rejecting the Catholic Faith.
-
You can tell me I deny the sacraments until the end of time, but that does not make it true. I believe in the necessity of the sacraments as the Church teaches me to believe. That is where you and I differ.
You defend nothing except salvation via No Sacrament At All - this is how you defend the necessity of the sacraments - by defending salvation is attainable without them (for others they are not necessary, as for you, they are a necessity).
Your church may teach this, but the Catholic Church teaches that whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema.
I learn from the Church, while you rely on private judgment.
Don't think I havn't noticed you and all of those like you who would not answer my challenge from months ago.
You have no support for your ideas, and all Catholic sources stand against you, but you just keep digging in, and falsely claiming that I am the one denying a Teaching of the Church, ignoring the obvious fact that it is you and all like you who reject Baotism of Desire and Baptism of Blood that are rejecting the Catholic Faith.
You presented a challenge? What was it - to see how long people can withstand your Novus Ordo prot teaching on a Traditional Catholic Forum?
Your entire prot teaching of salvation via NSAA is summed up perfectly in that one minute video - even YOU agree with that - the problem is that is prot teaching, not a teaching of the Church.
-
You can tell me I deny the sacraments until the end of time, but that does not make it true. I believe in the necessity of the sacraments as the Church teaches me to believe. That is where you and I differ.
You defend nothing except salvation via No Sacrament At All - this is how you defend the necessity of the sacraments - by defending salvation is attainable without them (for others they are not necessary, as for you, they are a necessity).
Your church may teach this, but the Catholic Church teaches that whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema.
I learn from the Church, while you rely on private judgment.
Don't think I havn't noticed you and all of those like you who would not answer my challenge from months ago.
You have no support for your ideas, and all Catholic sources stand against you, but you just keep digging in, and falsely claiming that I am the one denying a Teaching of the Church, ignoring the obvious fact that it is you and all like you who reject Baotism of Desire and Baptism of Blood that are rejecting the Catholic Faith.
You presented a challenge? What was it - to see how long people can withstand your Novus Ordo prot teaching on a Traditional Catholic Forum?
Your entire prot teaching of salvation via NSAA is summed up perfectly in that one minute video - even YOU agree with that - the problem is that is prot teaching, not a teaching of the Church.
The necessity is fulfilled through the sacrament or the desire for it, as the Catholic Church teaches.
You reject this teaching. I fear for your soul. I find you a very annoying person, but I truly do not want you to go to Hell. You should pray, reflect, and ask God for the grace to help you get out of this heresy.
There is always time so long as God gives it to you to repent.
-
You can tell me I deny the sacraments until the end of time, but that does not make it true. I believe in the necessity of the sacraments as the Church teaches me to believe. That is where you and I differ.
You defend nothing except salvation via No Sacrament At All - this is how you defend the necessity of the sacraments - by defending salvation is attainable without them (for others they are not necessary, as for you, they are a necessity).
Your church may teach this, but the Catholic Church teaches that whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema.
I learn from the Church, while you rely on private judgment.
Don't think I havn't noticed you and all of those like you who would not answer my challenge from months ago.
You have no support for your ideas, and all Catholic sources stand against you, but you just keep digging in, and falsely claiming that I am the one denying a Teaching of the Church, ignoring the obvious fact that it is you and all like you who reject Baotism of Desire and Baptism of Blood that are rejecting the Catholic Faith.
You presented a challenge? What was it - to see how long people can withstand your Novus Ordo prot teaching on a Traditional Catholic Forum?
Your entire prot teaching of salvation via NSAA is summed up perfectly in that one minute video - even YOU agree with that - the problem is that is prot teaching, not a teaching of the Church.
The necessity is fulfilled through the sacrament or the desire for it, as the Catholic Church teaches.
Yet the Church teaches that whoever says what you just said is anathema - so which church is it that taught you one could make it to heaven without them? The CMRI one? Is that where you get that heresy from?
The Catholic Church teaches that WHOEVER SAYS that without the sacraments, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification, let him be anathema.
Your anathema should be upgraded since you bypass justification entirely and go straight to salvation - without the sacrament.
You really should repeat the teaching of Trent 500,000 times a day until you believe it.
Now, hows about you talk yourself into another ditch and explain how your BOD is different than the video's BOD?
-
You can tell me I deny the sacraments until the end of time, but that does not make it true. I believe in the necessity of the sacraments as the Church teaches me to believe. That is where you and I differ.
You defend nothing except salvation via No Sacrament At All - this is how you defend the necessity of the sacraments - by defending salvation is attainable without them (for others they are not necessary, as for you, they are a necessity).
Your church may teach this, but the Catholic Church teaches that whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema.
I learn from the Church, while you rely on private judgment.
Don't think I havn't noticed you and all of those like you who would not answer my challenge from months ago.
You have no support for your ideas, and all Catholic sources stand against you, but you just keep digging in, and falsely claiming that I am the one denying a Teaching of the Church, ignoring the obvious fact that it is you and all like you who reject Baotism of Desire and Baptism of Blood that are rejecting the Catholic Faith.
You presented a challenge? What was it - to see how long people can withstand your Novus Ordo prot teaching on a Traditional Catholic Forum?
Your entire prot teaching of salvation via NSAA is summed up perfectly in that one minute video - even YOU agree with that - the problem is that is prot teaching, not a teaching of the Church.
The necessity is fulfilled through the sacrament or the desire for it, as the Catholic Church teaches.
Yet the Church teaches that whoever says what you just said is anathema - so which church is it that taught you one could make it to heaven without them? The CMRI one? Is that where you get that heresy from?
The Catholic Church teaches that WHOEVER SAYS that without the sacraments, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification, let him be anathema.
Your anathema should be upgraded since you bypass justification entirely and go straight to salvation - without the sacrament.
You really should repeat the teaching of Trent 500,000 times a day until you believe it.
Now, hows about you talk yourself into another ditch and explain how your BOD is different than the video's BOD?
No, the Church of Stubborn says I am anathema, not the Catholic Church which teaches exactly what I keep telling you, but you keep rejecting.
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
You and I do not share the same Faith. I am sticking with the Catholic Church, I hope for your sake you do also and recant.
-
LOL
Who are you trying to kid?
Your church is shown in the video, it's easy to see because you've done a great job of describing it umpteen times.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
It doesn't really matter Cantarella because there is no prying the truth out of a determined hypocrite.
He was baptized but preaches others can make it to heaven without it.
He goes to Mass but figures others don't really need to.
He receives the Bread of Life but believes others don't really need it.
And on and on it goes.
He saw two different videos - one a Catholic example of a BOD and the other a prot example of a BOD.
He chooses the prot example as if that one were truth (but he is afraid to admit it).
He made his choice, he knows better and he will answer for it.
-
LOL
Who are you trying to kid?
Your church is shown in the video, it's easy to see because you've done a great job of describing it umpteen times.
No, my Church is called the Catholic Church, and it was not in your video.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
It doesn't really matter Cantarella because there is no prying the truth out of a determined hypocrite.
He was baptized but preaches others can make it to heaven without it.
He goes to Mass but figures others don't really need to.
He receives the Bread of Life but believes others don't really need it.
And on and on it goes.
He saw two different videos - one a Catholic example of a BOD and the other a prot example of a BOD.
He chooses the prot example as if that one were truth (but he is afraid to admit it).
He made his choice, he knows better and he will answer for it.
I am not interested in your videos. The Catholic Church through her Doctors, catechsims, and theologians has taught and explained Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
For you that is not good enough, you rely on your private judgment and reject these sacred teachings.
You do so at your own peril.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
Read my footer.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
It doesn't really matter Cantarella because there is no prying the truth out of a determined hypocrite.
He was baptized but preaches others can make it to heaven without it.
He goes to Mass but figures others don't really need to.
He receives the Bread of Life but believes others don't really need it.
And on and on it goes.
He saw two different videos - one a Catholic example of a BOD and the other a prot example of a BOD.
He chooses the prot example as if that one were truth (but he is afraid to admit it).
He made his choice, he knows better and he will answer for it.
I am not interested in your videos. The Catholic Church through her Doctors, catechsims, and theologians has taught and explained Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
For you that is not good enough, you rely on your private judgment and reject these sacred teachings.
You do so at your own peril.
Of course you're not interested in any video proof of your BOD placed right before your eyes. But not just proof, you had two versions, a prot version of a BOD and a Catholic version of a BOD - and YOU choose the prot version - then get perturbed over the whole thing. :facepalm:
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
Read my footer.
Ambrose's footer is false. It is just not true that all taught BOD, but even if it was true, that does not make Baptism of Desire an infallible dogma, which is what Ambrose preaches.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
Read my footer.
Ambrose's footer is false. It is just not true that all taught BOD, but even if it was true, that does not make Baptism of Desire an infallible dogma, which is what Ambrose preaches.
He must only read footers that he himself writes.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
It doesn't really matter Cantarella because there is no prying the truth out of a determined hypocrite.
He was baptized but preaches others can make it to heaven without it.
He goes to Mass but figures others don't really need to.
He receives the Bread of Life but believes others don't really need it.
And on and on it goes.
He saw two different videos - one a Catholic example of a BOD and the other a prot example of a BOD.
He chooses the prot example as if that one were truth (but he is afraid to admit it).
He made his choice, he knows better and he will answer for it.
I am not interested in your videos. The Catholic Church through her Doctors, catechsims, and theologians has taught and explained Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
For you that is not good enough, you rely on your private judgment and reject these sacred teachings.
You do so at your own peril.
Of course you're not interested in any video proof of your BOD placed right before your eyes. But not just proof, you had two versions, a prot version of a BOD and a Catholic version of a BOD - and YOU choose the prot version - then get perturbed over the whole thing. :
That's not proof, what a joke. Now, present proof from approved Catholic texts, without Feeneyite private interpretation or twisting.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
Read my footer.
Ambrose's footer is false. It is just not true that all taught BOD, but even if it was true, that does not make Baptism of Desire an infallible dogma, which is what Ambrose preaches.
He must only read footers that he himself writes.
It sums it up succinctly.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
Read my footer.
Ambrose's footer is false. It is just not true that all taught BOD, but even if it was true, that does not make Baptism of Desire an infallible dogma, which is what Ambrose preaches.
The sources are all HERE (https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire)
Let him with ears hear, let him with eyes see.
I wonder how easy Luther would have fooled you to with his "great knowledge" if you lived in his time?
You fall for the Feeneyite propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
Read my footer.
Ambrose's footer is false. It is just not true that all taught BOD, but even if it was true, that does not make Baptism of Desire an infallible dogma, which is what Ambrose preaches.
The sources are all HERE (https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire)
Let him with ears hear, let him with eyes see.
I wonder how easy Luther would have fooled you to with his "great knowledge" if you lived in his time?
You fall for the Feeneyite propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
You keep wondering about that, meanwhile, you've been fooled hook, line and sinker by Cushing who preached much of what Luther taught.
Do yourself a favor and heed my exhortations to you about repeating the words of Trent - "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" over and over again until you believe it no matter how long it takes.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
Read my footer.
Ambrose's footer is false. It is just not true that all taught BOD, but even if it was true, that does not make Baptism of Desire an infallible dogma, which is what Ambrose preaches.
The sources are all HERE (https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire)
Let him with ears hear, let him with eyes see.
I wonder how easy Luther would have fooled you to with his "great knowledge" if you lived in his time?
You fall for the Feeneyite propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
You keep wondering about that, meanwhile, you've been fooled hook, line and sinker by Cushing who preached much of what Luther taught.
Do yourself a favor and heed my exhortations to you about repeating the words of Trent - "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" over and over again until you believe it no matter how long it takes.
Yes, I am sticking with Trent, and it's clear teaching of Baptism of Desire.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
Read my footer.
Ambrose's footer is false. It is just not true that all taught BOD, but even if it was true, that does not make Baptism of Desire an infallible dogma, which is what Ambrose preaches.
The sources are all HERE (https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire)
Let him with ears hear, let him with eyes see.
I wonder how easy Luther would have fooled you to with his "great knowledge" if you lived in his time?
You fall for the Feeneyite propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
You keep wondering about that, meanwhile, you've been fooled hook, line and sinker by Cushing who preached much of what Luther taught.
Do yourself a favor and heed my exhortations to you about repeating the words of Trent - "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" over and over again until you believe it no matter how long it takes.
Yes, I am sticking with Trent, and it's clear teaching of Baptism of Desire.
You mean Trent's clear teaching condemning your prot version of a BOD, don't you?
Or are you still promoting your prot version that's in the prot video? - because that is protestant, might be the CMRI version too - I'm not sure, but it's not the Catholic version.
Best thing for you to do is to repeat the words of Trent as I asked you to do for the last year already - - if you did that, we would not be even having this discussion from opposite sides - - can we at least agree on that?
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
Read my footer.
Ambrose's footer is false. It is just not true that all taught BOD, but even if it was true, that does not make Baptism of Desire an infallible dogma, which is what Ambrose preaches.
The sources are all HERE (https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire)
Let him with ears hear, let him with eyes see.
I wonder how easy Luther would have fooled you to with his "great knowledge" if you lived in his time?
You fall for the Feeneyite propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
You keep wondering about that, meanwhile, you've been fooled hook, line and sinker by Cushing who preached much of what Luther taught.
Do yourself a favor and heed my exhortations to you about repeating the words of Trent - "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" over and over again until you believe it no matter how long it takes.
Yes, I am sticking with Trent, and it's clear teaching of Baptism of Desire.
You mean Trent's clear teaching condemning your prot version of a BOD, don't you?
Or are you still promoting your prot version that's in the prot video? - because that is protestant, might be the CMRI version too - I'm not sure, but it's not the Catholic version.
Best thing for you to do is to repeat the words of Trent as I asked you to do for the last year already - - if you did that, we would not be even having this discussion from opposite sides - - can we at least agree on that?
I knew the truth about Feeneyism long before I ever came into contact with CMRI, so you can leave them out of it.
You deny the clear teaching of Trent. It's heresy, get over it.
-
But Trent did not teach BOD no matter how many times Ambrose says it. Actually Trent emphasized the absolute need of the Sacraments for salvation and anathemized those such as Ambrose who deny it.
-
But Trent did not teach BOD no matter how many times Ambrose says it. Actually Trent emphasized the absolute need of the Sacraments for salvation and anathemized those such as Ambrose who deny it.
If you watched the video about a prot BOD, that is what he says Trent teaches.
I keep telling him to repeat what Trent actually does teach, but he is too far gone to be able to get himself to do any such thing.
-
But Trent did not teach BOD no matter how many times Ambrose says it. Actually Trent emphasized the absolute need of the Sacraments for salvation and anathemized those such as Ambrose who deny it.
Yes, Trent did teach Baptism of Desire. You apparently did not read the sources that I gave.
I can't cure your wilful ignorance, only you can.
-
But Trent did not teach BOD no matter how many times Ambrose says it. Actually Trent emphasized the absolute need of the Sacraments for salvation and anathemized those such as Ambrose who deny it.
Yes, Trent did teach Baptism of Desire. You apparently did not read the sources that I gave.
I can't cure your wilful ignorance, only you can.
Trent did not teach YOUR version of a BOD.
Best thing you can do is repeat what Trent actually did teach over and over every day until you believe it, as I suggested numerous times over this past year already.
-
But Trent did not teach BOD no matter how many times Ambrose says it. Actually Trent emphasized the absolute need of the Sacraments for salvation and anathemized those such as Ambrose who deny it.
Yes, Trent did teach Baptism of Desire. You apparently did not read the sources that I gave.
I can't cure your wilful ignorance, only you can.
Trent did not teach YOUR version of a BOD.
Best thing you can do is repeat what Trent actually did teach over and over every day until you believe it, as I suggested numerous times over this past year already.
You and all of your likeminded Feeneyites were asked months ago to give even one approved source, a Doctor, theologian, or other approved source that understands Trent according to your unapproved interpreation.
All we heard were crickets.
On our side, you were provided with numerous approved sources that all understood the obvious meaning of Trent as teaching Baptism of Desire.
Like every Protestant before you, you just ignore the facts, and love your private interpretations. Feeneyism resembles Catholicism, but it is grounded in private judgment, not authority.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
Read my footer.
Ambrose's footer is false. It is just not true that all taught BOD, but even if it was true, that does not make Baptism of Desire an infallible dogma, which is what Ambrose preaches.
The sources are all HERE (https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire)
Let him with ears hear, let him with eyes see.
I wonder how easy Luther would have fooled you to with his "great knowledge" if you lived in his time?
You fall for the Feeneyite propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
This is a biased compilation of quotes which mostly have NOTHING to do with the teaching on BOD / BOB and most certainly NOT with the Pelagian distorted idea that BOD could ever apply to someone who does not hold the Catholic Faith.
Who is Christopher P. Conlon anyway?
-
But Trent did not teach BOD no matter how many times Ambrose says it. Actually Trent emphasized the absolute need of the Sacraments for salvation and anathemized those such as Ambrose who deny it.
Yes, Trent did teach Baptism of Desire. You apparently did not read the sources that I gave.
I can't cure your wilful ignorance, only you can.
Trent did not teach YOUR version of a BOD.
Best thing you can do is repeat what Trent actually did teach over and over every day until you believe it, as I suggested numerous times over this past year already.
You and all of your likeminded Feeneyites were asked months ago to give even one approved source, a Doctor, theologian, or other approved source that understands Trent according to your unapproved interpreation.
All we heard were crickets.
On our side, you were provided with numerous approved sources that all understood the obvious meaning of Trent as teaching Baptism of Desire.
Like every Protestant before you, you just ignore the facts, and love your private interpretations. Feeneyism resembles Catholicism, but it is grounded in private judgment, not authority.
All you heard were crickets because you have ears but cannot hear (and eyes to see but you cannot see).
You have the prot video for your version of a living example of your BOD, so please, refrain from calling your a BOD a teaching of the Catholic Church from now on.
The proof your version is prot is recorded on that video for you.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.
Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.
Read my footer.
Ambrose's footer is false. It is just not true that all taught BOD, but even if it was true, that does not make Baptism of Desire an infallible dogma, which is what Ambrose preaches.
The sources are all HERE (https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire)
Let him with ears hear, let him with eyes see.
I wonder how easy Luther would have fooled you to with his "great knowledge" if you lived in his time?
You fall for the Feeneyite propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
This is a biased compilation of quotes which mostly have NOTHING to do with the teaching on BOD / BOB and most certainly NOT with the Pelagian distorted idea that BOD could ever apply to someone who does not hold the Catholic Faith.
Who is Christopher P. Conlon anyway?
Bias? The quotes are all sourced. Can you demonstrate which quotes are biased?
Baptism of Desire is the teahing of the Church. The proof has been presented to you, but you willfully reject it. This only increases your culpability. Do you care about your soul? Do you fear Hell? You don't seem like you do.
-
But Trent did not teach BOD no matter how many times Ambrose says it. Actually Trent emphasized the absolute need of the Sacraments for salvation and anathemized those such as Ambrose who deny it.
Yes, Trent did teach Baptism of Desire. You apparently did not read the sources that I gave.
I can't cure your wilful ignorance, only you can.
Trent did not teach YOUR version of a BOD.
Best thing you can do is repeat what Trent actually did teach over and over every day until you believe it, as I suggested numerous times over this past year already.
You and all of your likeminded Feeneyites were asked months ago to give even one approved source, a Doctor, theologian, or other approved source that understands Trent according to your unapproved interpreation.
All we heard were crickets.
On our side, you were provided with numerous approved sources that all understood the obvious meaning of Trent as teaching Baptism of Desire.
Like every Protestant before you, you just ignore the facts, and love your private interpretations. Feeneyism resembles Catholicism, but it is grounded in private judgment, not authority.
All you heard were crickets because you have ears but cannot hear (and eyes to see but you cannot see).
You have the prot video for your version of a living example of your BOD, so please, refrain from calling your a BOD a teaching of the Catholic Church from now on.
The proof your version is prot is recorded on that video for you.
I only heard crickets because you dodged the question. Are you saying now that you answered it?
-
Gee, all of this time, and the semi-universalists are still at it................
-
So Ambrose the Pelagian has returned.
-
So Ambrose the Pelagian has returned.
Apparently so, and seemingly with some collaborators...............
Approved collaborators of course.