Author Topic: A Reply to Fr. Hartnett (Read 8227 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #15 on:** March 24, 2015, 10:04:04 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Post less, pray and read more fella.

You of all people need to take your own advice. In your case, however, I would amend "Post less" to "Post none."

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #16 on:** March 24, 2015, 10:37:12 AM »

2 Timothy Chapter 2: 22 - 26

But flee thou youthful desires, and pursue justice, faith, charity, and peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

And avoid foolish and unlearned questions, knowing that they beget strifes.

But the servant of the Lord must not wrangle: but be mild towards all men, apt to teach, patient,

With modesty admonishing them that resist the truth: if peradventure God may give them repentance
to know the truth,

And they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil, by whom they are held captive at his will.
_____

I apologize for any lack of charity I have shown to others.

misericordianos · « **Reply #17 on:** March 24, 2015, 11:58:11 AM »

LoT,

Quote

Imagine a Eucharist Feeneyite who insisted the no one at all can be saved unless he has received the Eucharist worthily as Christ taught in John VI. Such people do to John III what they could easily do with John VI if they got the itch to do so or if there was a Feeney or Dimond to lead the charge on the issue. It comes down to the fact that God does not insist on the impossible and does not damn to eternal pain one for a sin or omission one is not culpable of. God is not an arbitrary tyrant more concerned about the exterior than the heart. In fact quite the reverse is true as He is most concerned about the heart and good will of a person above how they project themselves exteriorly as we can tell regarding His analogy of the white-washed tomb.

That God does not damn one to the sufferings of hell without personal sin says absolutely nothing about the conditions requisite for entrance to the Beatific vision in heaven.

As to your speculations on John VI and the Eucharist: we have nothing in the infallible Magisterium which states that there cannot be salvation or justification without reception of, or the desire for, the Eucharist, do we?

You can accuse the “Feeneyites” of private interpretation of Magisterial statements (unjustly I would say, but you could), but you cannot accuse them of private interpretation of Scripture as the foundation of their objections.

You can imagine all you want, but your imaginations would have no relevance to the case at hand.

You can also imagine that God saves Muslims, Jєωs, Buddhists and what not who - in the face of divine Providence and Predestination - because of circuмstances presumably beyond God’s control, "can’t come" to explicit faith in Christ.

Can’t they? LOL

And if not, why not? Mere chance of birth and place? Or failure of will, and therefore denial of what comes to all who seek from the heart, who will find Christ?

God disposes of His elect, whose very hairs are numbered.

Your position inevitably ends up in a denial of the truths of Providence or Predestination, as we have seen.

Man becoming God, and God watching. God the passive watcher in the stadium of man. As if the commandment was, “eat the apple of the forbidden tree, and become gods.”

Good grief.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** March 24, 2015, 12:30:13 PM »

LoT has been rebuked many times for these errors and for his contempt of the Sacraments and the Incarnation.

Quote from: LoT

It comes down to the fact that God does not insist on the impossible and does not damn to eternal pain one for a sin or omission one is not culpable of. God is not an arbitrary tyrant more concerned about the exterior than the heart. In fact quite the reverse is true as He is most concerned about the heart and good will of a person above how they project themselves exteriorly as we can tell regarding His analogy of the white-washed tomb.

1) Heretical Premise ("insist on the impossible") -- that anything can be "impossible" for God; there's nothing that could render it "impossible" for God to bring the SACRAMENT of Baptism to any of His elect if God has commanded that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

2) Impious Premise ("arbitrary tyrant") -- LoT making himself judge of what would or would not be fair or merciful for God to do. We know not, as St. Augustine taught, why God withholds the Sacrament and salvation from some who appear to be devout but grants it to someone who might appear not to deserve it. If God doesn't live up to LoT's standards, then He would be considered an "arbitrary tyrant".

3) Heretical Premise ("does not damn to eternal pain one for a sin or omission one is not culpable of") -- LoT refuses to recognize that salvation (i.e. the beatific vision) is a perfectly free gift from God that is not deserved by nor owed to anyone. No natural goodness can merit the beatific vision. Thus LoT promotes the heresy of Pelagianism. This is related to the point made by misericodianos. God does not inflict pain of sense for non-culpable sin. But LoT thereby extrapolates from this that one who has not committed actual sin (but Original Sin only) somehow deserves the beatific vision; consequently LoT is an open Pelagian heretic.

4) Blasphemous Premise ("exterior") -- LoT has repeatedly expressed open contempt for the Sacraments by reducing Baptism to what he disparagingly called mere "water and words". He thereby shows contempt for the form and matter of the Sacraments which Our Lord instituted as requiring matter and form and consequently for the Incarnation.

He's been called out on this many times and pertinaciously continues to promote his heresies and blasphemies.

Cantarella · « **Reply #19 on:** March 24, 2015, 12:31:16 PM »

Quote

It comes down to the fact that God does not insist on the impossible and does not damn to eternal pain one for a sin or omission one is not culpable of. God is not an arbitrary tyrant more concerned about the exterior than the heart.

It is an infallible dogma that Original Sin only suffices for damnation. Original Sin is only remitted through Baptism.

Quote from: Florence

"The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every sin, original and actual"

Modernists use the "sentimental" version of everything in order to obliterate dogma. Here, the focus is on the word "mercy", instead of Justice. God is merciful but also just, and more importantly, capable of bringing a worthy soul who truly seeks salvation to the knowledge of the Gospel and the entrance to the Church.

Quote from: Infallible Magisterium

Pope St. Zosimus:
"No one of our children is held not guilty until he is freed through Baptism".

Council of Lyons:
"The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments"

Council of Florence:
" It is likewise defined that the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into Hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds".

Pope Innocent III:
" The punishment of original sin is the loss of the vision of God; the punishment for actual sin is the torments of everlasting Hell".

We know of no one who is in Hell, except for Judas; so it is not our place to be indiscriminately condemning anyone to Hell or obsessing with an exclusivist pride. Our crusade should be an invitation, not an arrogant exclusion. BUT what we DO KNOW is the parameters established for salvation taught by Christ Our Lord Himself and through the infallible Magisterium of the Church and we, in all charity, must focus on those in order to bring more souls into the Church.

Cantarella · « **Reply #20 on:** March 24, 2015, 12:39:13 PM »

Quote from: Pope Innocent III

" The punishment of original sin is the loss of the vision of God; the punishment for actual sin is the torments of everlasting Hell".

Notice that it is also a dogma that Hell has different levels and that the punishment for original sin only, as in unbaptized babies, is the loss of the vision of God (not torments), but they enjoy a state of natural happiness in Limbo; as well as the just did in the Old Testament, before Christ opened the gates of Heaven.

Only actual sins bring in torments in Hell, and even so, these torments are not the same for everyone so an invincible ignorant would NOT be punished the same way as an assassin, for example. That wide spread belief that everyone in Hell us suffering the same, even the innocent unbaptized babe, is another sentimental inaccuracy. In 2015, we know of no one, not a single non - Catholic that can enter Heaven. We only know what is has been revealed by Almighty God, which is that all the Elect die a Catholic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** March 24, 2015, 12:57:52 PM »

So we see how the Cushingite position invariably reduces to a "theology" rooted in the principles of what they would consider to be fair or unfair for God to do. This has nothing to do with taking revealed doctrine, applying reason to it, and implicitly deriving other truths via syllogism; no, it has everything to do with sentimental emoting, using that to throw speculative theology out there, and then attempting to elevate the speculation to the level of dogma.

I have thrown down the gauntlet MANY times to the Cushingites that they demonstrate how BoD derives from revealed dogma either by demonstrating universal consensus of the Church Fathers (therefore that it was directly taught to the Apostles by Our Lord) or else by deriving BoD by way of syllogism implicitly from other revealed doctrine.

No one has ever attempted to do this. Why? Because it can't be done.

Consequently, they rely on "authority", simply peppering the board with various authorities who happen to hold the same speculative opinion, as if that suffices to constitute doctrine or dogma; all it shows is that the speculative opinion of BoD has become widely embraced.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #22 on:** March 24, 2015, 01:00:18 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Pope Innocent III

" The punishment of original sin is the loss of the vision of God; the punishment for actual sin is the torments of everlasting Hell".

Notice that it is also a dogma that Hell has different levels and that the punishment for original sin only, as in unbaptized babies, is the loss of the vision of God (not torments), but they enjoy a state of natural happiness in Limbo; as well as the just did in the Old Testament, before Christ opened the gates of Heaven.

Only actual sins bring in torments in Hell, and even so, these torments are not the same for everyone so an invincible ignorant would NOT be punished the same way as an assassin, for example. That wide spread belief that everyone in Hell us suffering the same, even the innocent unbaptized babe, is another sentimental inaccuracy. In 2015, we know of no one, not a single non - Catholic that can enter Heaven. We only know what is has been revealed by Almighty God, which is that all the Elect die a Catholic.

Once man reaches the age of reason he goes to Heaven or Hell. He does not go to Hell through no fault of his own.

But it is good you bring up this point. This was my main objection if favor of Feeneyism. If God prevents innocent babies from obtaining the Beatific Vision why would he not condemn to Hell men who have sinned. The answer is because babies do not have the ability to merit or demerit and their eternity in Limbo is perfectly just and merciful. The rational soul can chose for or against God and so obtain eternal life within the Church or be damned within or outside of it.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #23 on:** March 24, 2015, 01:32:22 PM »

Quote from: misericordianos

LoT,

Quote
Imagine a Eucharist Feeneyite who insisted the no one at all can be saved unless he has received the Eucharist worthily as Christ taught in John VI. Such people do to John III what they could easily do with John VI if they got the itch to do so or if there was a Feeney or Dimond to lead the charge on the issue. It comes down to the fact that God does not insist on the impossible and does not damn to eternal pain one for a sin or omission one is not culpable of. God is not an arbitrary tyrant more concerned about the exterior than the heart. In fact quite the reverse is true as He is most concerned about the heart and good will of a person above how they project themselves exteriorly as we can tell regarding His analogy of the white-washed tomb.

That God does not damn one to the sufferings of hell without personal sin says absolutely nothing about the conditions requisite for entrance to the Beatific vision in heaven.

As to your speculations on John VI and the Eucharist: we have nothing in the infallible Magisterium which states that there cannot be salvation or justification without reception of, or the desire for, the Eucharist, do we?

You can accuse the “Feeneyites” of private interpretation of Magisterial statements (unjustly I would say, but you could), but you cannot accuse them of private interpretation of Scripture as the foundation of their objections.

You can imagine all you want, but your imaginations would have no relevance to the case at hand.

You can also imagine that God saves Muslims, Jєωs, Buddhists and what not who - in the face of divine Providence and Predestination - because of circuмstances presumably beyond God’s control, "can’t come" to explicit faith in Christ.

Can’t they? LOL

And if not, why not? Mere chance of birth and place? Or failure of will, and therefore denial of what comes to all who seek from the heart, who will find Christ?

God disposes of His elect, whose very hairs are numbered.

Your position inevitably ends up in a denial of the truths of Providence or Predestination, as we have seen.

Man becoming God, and God watching. God the passive watcher in the stadium of man. As if the commandment was, “eat the apple of the forbidden tree, and become gods.”

Good grief.

To start, their is nothing to laugh out load about here. Further the phrase "good grief" would seem to indicate that you are dealing with a mental retard which, even if true, does not betoken Catholic charity.

To address your points outside the above discretions:

The condition requisite for entrance to the Beatific Vision is sanctifying grace. Nothing more, nothing less.

Trent taught BOD unless you go with Feeney over Bellarmine, Alphonsus and Pius XII along with all the orthodox theologians who spoke to the issue. Pray to Pope Paul III, Pope Julius III and Pope Pius IV to give you the grace to accept their de fide teaching or by some miracle admit to the world they were wrong or that Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius XII, etc. misinterpreted it but Feeney did not.

John 3: 3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

The Feeneyites point again and again to the above verse as if Aquinas, Bellarmine, Alphonsus, etc. never read or understood it. If you go against them you have private interpretation.

John 6: 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

I do not speculate about John 6. I simply ask where is the consistency with the Feenyites? Why don’t you cry about the above verse as you do John 3: 3? Because Feeney didn’t?

I present an authoritative letter approved by Pope Pius XII with infallible teaching in it. Your beef is with the Catholic Church and not with me. Or do you agree with all that is stated in this authoritative letter and in the de Fide teaching of Trent?

Cantarella · « **Reply #24 on:** March 24, 2015, 01:39:37 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Trent taught BOD unless you go with Feeney over Bellarmine, Alphonsus and Pius XII along with all the orthodox theologians who spoke to the issue. Pray to Pope Paul III, Pope Julius III and Pope Pius IV to give you the grace to accept their de fide teaching or by some miracle admit to the world they were wrong or that Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius XII, etc. misinterpreted it but Feeney did not.

John 3: 3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

The Feeneyites point again and again to the above verse as if Aquinas, Bellarmine, Alphonsus, etc. never read or understood it. If you go against them you have private interpretation.

John 6: 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

I do not speculate about John 6. I simply ask where is the consistency with the Feenyites? Why don’t you cry about the above verse as you do John 3: 3? Because Feeney didn’t?

This has been discussed before, but here it goes again for whoever is reading this for the first time (LoT does not read these posts, but only dailycatholic and novusordowatch).

The words of Our Lord in John 6:54 are not taken literally by the Church because infants don't need to receive the Eucharist to be saved. On the other hand, John 3:5 is to be taken literally. Look at the two passages:

Quote

John 6:54 : “Amen, amen I say to you: EXCEPT YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”

John 3:5 : "Amen, amen I say to thee, UNLESS A MAN be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Notice how in the first passage Our Lord addresses directly the people hearing Him. His words are intended for the people to whom He was speaking, not every man. These people He was speaking to could eventually receive the Eucharist, and they had to in order to be saved. This still applies to all who can receive the Eucharist, that is, all who hear that command and can fulfill it, which is what the Church teaches. But in John 3:5, Our Lord unequivocally speaks of every man. This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is written.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #25 on:** March 24, 2015, 01:48:19 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Trent taught BOD unless you go with Feeney over Bellarmine, Alphonsus and Pius XII along with all the orthodox theologians who spoke to the issue. Pray to Pope Paul III, Pope Julius III and Pope Pius IV to give you the grace to accept their de fide teaching or by some miracle admit to the world they were wrong or that Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius XII, etc. misinterpreted it but Feeney did not.

John 3: 3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

The Feeneyites point again and again to the above verse as if Aquinas, Bellarmine, Alphonsus, etc. never read or understood it. If you go against them you have private interpretation.

John 6: 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

I do not speculate about John 6. I simply ask where is the consistency with the Feenyites? Why don’t you cry about the above verse as you do John 3: 3? Because Feeney didn’t?

This has been discussed before, but here it goes again for whoever is reading this for the first time (LoT does not read these posts, but only dailycatholic and novusordowatch).

The words of Our Lord in John 6:54 are not taken literally by the Church because infants don't need to receive the Eucharist to be saved. On the other hand, John 3:5 is to be taken literally. Look at the two passages:

Quote

John 6:54 : “Amen, amen I say to you: EXCEPT YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”

John 3:5 : "Amen, amen I say to thee, UNLESS A MAN be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Notice how in the first passage Our Lord addresses directly the people hearing Him. His words are intended for the people to whom He was speaking, not every man. These people He was speaking to could eventually receive the Eucharist, and they had to in order to be saved. This still applies to all who can receive the Eucharist, that is, all who hear that command and can fulfill it, which is what the Church teaches. But in John 3:5, Our Lord unequivocally speaks of every man. This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is written.

Why did Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus misunderstand John 3: 3 according to the Feeneyites.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #26 on:** March 24, 2015, 01:50:54 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The condition requisite for entrance to the Beatific Vision is sanctifying grace. Nothing more, nothing less.

bzzzzzt. Circular argument. Question is whether sanctifying grace can be had without the Sacrament of Baptism.

Hang up the keyboard already, would you, before you sink deeper into heresy?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #27 on:** March 24, 2015, 01:51:45 PM »

To clarify I more occupy myself with theology manuals than post V2 internet. Again I am dealing with what is supposed to be considered an insult that does not address the issue at hand. But this is par for the course as I mentioned before. Admittedly I take more of an interest in Novus Orodo watch than what is posted by those who reject the infallible and authoritative teaching of the magisterium. I try to utilize my time efficiently, but again I'm not sure why my personal reading habits are brought into the the discussion.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #28 on:** March 24, 2015, 01:59:21 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Why did Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus misunderstand John 3: 3 according to the Feeneyites.

These Doctors speculated that the Sacrament of Baptism could be received in voto. We respectfully disagree. I do not consider it an error to follow their opinion.

These Doctors did NOT keep claiming that the Sacrament of Baptism was not required for salvation, as you heretically maintain (cf. the dogmatic teaching of Trent on the subject).

So stop trying to hide behind these Doctors to justify your Pelagian heresy and your denial of Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.

You are a heretic, LoT. You keep talking about "sanctifying grace alone" without the Sacraments. THAT PROTESTANT HERESY WAS CONDEMNED DOGMATICALLY BY TRENT.

I have repeatedly told you how you could reformulate your position so that it wasn't heretical and wasn't contemptuous of the Sacraments ... but in your hubris and your contempt for EENS you REFUSE TO CORRECT YOURSELF.

Nishant CORRECTLY formulates the position and I have never once called him a heretic for his views on BoD.

Stubborn · « **Reply #29 on:** March 24, 2015, 01:59:28 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Why did Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus misunderstand John 3: 3 according to the Feeneyites.

Seems your new twist is being stuck on John 3:3 instead of John 3:5, which is the Scripture Trent quotes and decrees to be understood "as it is written".

Why the sudden twist there LoE?