Author Topic: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD? (Read 50820 times)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #30 on:** February 09, 2024, 09:48:10 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 09, 2024, 08:42:43 AM

Here it is.

With the first few minutes of the video I think there's a bit of a problem with the Dimond argument about the "paradise" the good thief, St. Dismas, entered into "this day" with Christ.

Dimond says it's the Limbus Patrum, not heaven. Well, Scripture says otherwise.

In the original Greek, the word in Luke 23:45 for paradise is παράδεισος (paradeisos), which, using the Strong reference system, is given this designation, G3857.

Here's the other uses of this word:

Quote

2 Co 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, G3857 and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Rev. 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise G3857 of God.

That's the King James translation because I'm using this handy site - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3857/kjv/tr/0-1/

As to their citation of Matthew 12:40 and Christ being three days in the "heart of the earth," yes, that is where His body remained.

Take the Dimonds with a grain of salt. They can be good, and they can be way off as well.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** February 09, 2024, 10:01:19 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 09, 2024, 09:48:10 AM

Dimond says it's the Limbus Patrum, not heaven. Well, Scripture says otherwise.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Certainly the Fathers in Limbo were not in Heaven, not in the Heaven of the Beatific Vision ... by definition. Sounds like semantics here, and the term "Paradise" is not Heaven of the Beatific Vision because we know that the Gates of Heaven weren't open to the OT Just until Our Lord's Resurrection, so the "Paradise" referred to by Our Lord was Limbo, and it was not Heaven. Indeed, it was probably a very pleasant place for the OT Just, and thus referred to as a paradise, but it was not Heaven.

With regard to St. Paul being taken up into "Paradise", he did not enter the Beatific Vision, but just entered into the Heavenly realm. There's a natural aspect of Heaven/Paradise, and the Supernatural (the Beatific Vision). We know that because Our Lord and Our Lady's bodies have some place to God, into this Paradise.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #32 on:** February 09, 2024, 10:26:45 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 09, 2024, 10:01:19 AM

I'm not sure what you mean here. Certainly the Fathers in Limbo were not in Heaven, not in the Heaven of the Beatific Vision ... by definition. Sounds like semantics here, and the term "Paradise" is not Heaven of the Beatific Vision because we know that the Gates of Heaven weren't open to the OT Just until Our Lord's Resurrection, so the "Paradise" referred to by Our Lord was Limbo, and it was not Heaven.

With regard to St. Paul being taken up into "Paradise", he did not enter the Beatific Vision, but just entered into the Heavenly realm. There's a natural aspect of Heaven/Paradise, and the Supernatural (the Beatific Vision). We know that because Our Lord and Our Lady's bodies have some place to God, into this Paradise.

St. Dismas went to the same place that the "tree of life" is, and that's not the Limbus Patrum. As to where the guy St. Paul is talking about was, it was the "abode of the blessed."

Quote

Haydock on 2 Cor. 12:4

Ver. 4. Caught up into paradise. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are of opinion that this third heaven and paradise are the same place, and designate the abode of the blessed.

St. Dismas went "immediately" to heaven, or at least "this day," the day he died. So say St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril of Jerusalem. If St. Dismas entered the Limbo of the Fathers, at the least it was when it was "made a paradise by our Lord's going thither."

Quote

Haydock on Lk 12:43

Ver. 43. I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise; i.e. in a place of rest with the souls of the just. The construction is not, I say to thee this day, &c., but, thou shalt be with me this day in the paradise. (Witham) — In paradise. That is, in the happy state of rest, joy and peace everlasting. Christ was pleased by a special privilege, to reward the faith and confession of the penitent thief with a full discharge of all his sins, both as to the guilt and punishment, and to introduce him, immediately after death, into the happy society of the saints, whose limbo (that is, the place of their confinement) was now made a paradise by our Lord’s going thither. (Challoner) — The soul of the good thief was that same day with Jesus Christ, in the felicity of the saints, in Abraham’s bosom, or in heaven, where Jesus was always present by his divinity. (St. Augustine) — St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, says he entered heaven before all the patriarchs and prophets. St. Chrysostom thinks that paradise was immediately open to him, and that he entered heaven the first mankind. (Tom. v. homil. 32.)

The Dimonds present their material as if it's a "done deal" and proof that others are in error, which is laughable here. They want it to seem that there was some sort of delay before St. Dismas entered "paradise," i.e. "the abode of the blessed." Far from it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** February 09, 2024, 10:28:47 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 09, 2024, 10:26:45 AM

St. Dismas went "immediately" to heaven, or at least "this day," the day he died.

He most certainly did not. Gates of Heaven were not opened until Our Lord rose from the dead.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #34 on:** February 09, 2024, 10:35:17 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 09, 2024, 10:28:47 AM

He most certainly did not. Gates of Heaven were not opened until Our Lord rose from the dead.

Lad,

You're slavishly following the Dimonds here, as if it's settled. The Patristic testimony, Haydock, and the language of Scripture at the very least indicate that it's not settled: there is much support for the argument that St. Dismas immediately "this day" entered heaven.

I think the evidence is contrary to the Dimond claim, but, again, I would think "at the very least" the Dimond's claim is disputable.

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #35 on:** February 09, 2024, 12:09:45 PM »

Quote from: Shrewd Operator on February 09, 2024, 12:07:18 AM

That goes to the next point, you have to qualify for BOD BEFORE you can qualify for BOB. You can't die a martyr without Faith and Grace. Such Faith and Grace would precede and follow from BOD. Therefore, all who qualify for BOB first obtain BOD.

Exactly, but in the Catholic order of things faith and grace are received through baptism, not before.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7, the Causes of Justification: “The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and only-begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one is ever justified… This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for faith which bestows life eternal…”

Also, the OP contains a deliberately false translation of 'sine' as 'except through' while everyone knows it means 'without'. This has been pointed out to the CMRI almost twenty years ago, yet they insist on deceiving good-willed people with their twisted translation.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215: “There is indeed one universal Church of the FAITHFUL (fideles), outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Catechumens are not part of the faithful.

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #36 on:** February 09, 2024, 12:26:13 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 09, 2024, 10:35:17 AM

Lad,

You're slavishly following the Dimonds here, as if it's settled. The Patristic testimony, Haydock, and the language of Scripture at the very least indicate that it's not settled: there is much support for the argument that St. Dismas immediately "this day" entered heaven.

I think the evidence is contrary to the Dimond claim, but, again, I would think "at the very least" the Dimond's claim is disputable.

It is settled. Everybody knows Christ was the first to enter Heaven, after three Days.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent: "...before His death and Resurrection Heaven was closed against every child of Adam."

MHFM:

Quote

John 20:17- “[On the Day of the Resurrection] Jesus saith to her; Mary. She turning, saith to him; Rabboni, (that is to say, Master). Jesus saith to her; Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father…”

Our Lord hadn’t even yet ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection. It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the Good Thief were not in heaven together on Good Friday; they were in the Limbo of the Fathers, the prison described in 1 Peter 3:18-19. Jesus called this place Paradise because He would be there with the just of the Old Testament.

Are you claiming that Christ ascended into Heaven to be with the good thief on the same day that he died, or that it is permissible to so hold, or not?

DecemRationis · « **Reply #37 on:** February 09, 2024, 12:34:23 PM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on February 09, 2024, 12:26:13 PM

It is settled. Everybody knows Christ was the first to enter Heaven, after three Days.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent: "...before His death and Resurrection Heaven was closed against every child of Adam."

MHFM: Our Lord hadn’t even yet ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection. It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the Good Thief were not in heaven together on Good Friday; they were in the Limbo of the Fathers, the prison described in 1 Peter 3:18-19. Jesus called this place Paradise because He would be there with the just of the Old Testament.

Are you claiming that Christ ascended into Heaven to be with the good thief on the same day that he died, or that it is permissible to so hold, or not?

Tell that to St. Cyril, St. Chrysostom, etc.

You do realize that Our Lord possessed a soul as well as a body, right? Think about the Scriptural use of the term "paradise," the testimony of the Fathers, and whether, perhaps, there's a way of understanding how they all fit together.

Don't be a Dimond flunky.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #38 on:** February 09, 2024, 12:42:40 PM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on February 09, 2024, 12:26:13 PM

It is settled. Everybody knows Christ was the first to enter Heaven, after three Days.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent: "...before His death and Resurrection Heaven was closed against every child of Adam."

MHFM: Our Lord hadn’t even yet ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection. It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the Good Thief were not in heaven together on Good Friday; they were in the Limbo of the Fathers, the prison described in 1 Peter 3:18-19. Jesus called this place Paradise because He would be there with the just of the Old Testament.

Are you claiming that Christ ascended into Heaven to be with the good thief on the same day that he died, or that it is permissible to so hold, or not?

I'm asserting that St. Dismas was in "paradise" with Our Lord "this day," the day he hung on the Cross next to Christ, as Scripture says.

Haydock:

Quote

The soul of the good thief was that same day with Jesus Christ, in the felicity of the saints, in Abraham’s bosom, or in heaven, where Jesus was always present by his divinity.

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #39 on:** February 09, 2024, 12:44:37 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 09, 2024, 12:34:23 PM

Tell that to St. Cyril, St. Chrysostom, etc.

You do realize that Our Lord possessed a soul as well as a body, right? Think about the Scriptural use of the term "paradise," the testimony of the Fathers, and whether, perhaps, there's a way of understanding how they all fit together.

Don't be a Dimond flunky.

You're trying to make this about the Dimonds and it's pathetic. Answer the question, please.

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #40 on:** February 09, 2024, 12:46:25 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 09, 2024, 12:42:40 PM

The soul of the good thief was that same day with Jesus Christ, in the felicity of the saints, in Abraham’s bosom, or in heaven, where Jesus was always present by his divinity.

I admit you were right, it's not definitively settled, but the latter view contradicts the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

It didn't really compute for me that this got around the problem of the good thief being with Christ, although in a pretty unconvincing way.

Still, the first explanation is way better and more common.

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #41 on:** February 09, 2024, 12:58:36 PM »

That it can be said that Christ is at the same time in Heaven and in Abraham's bosom sounds ridiculous, actually...

But anyway, the question of St. Dismas is irrelevant to the topic of BoD since he died under the Old Law, even though it keeps getting brought up.

songbird · « **Reply #42 on:** February 09, 2024, 01:43:33 PM »

This to me is the hottest subject, and best. I read the book of Fr. Muller, No Salvation Outside the Church". I am convinced, that this situation is in God's Hands. He judges and not for me. As we have been told by Saints, IF a catechumen dies, bury them as IF they are catholic.

I am happy with this. I can not make judgements. I pray for those in purgatory. Those on earth. BOD and BOB I am not comfortable with. They require judgement.

There are to many opinions, and add those without definitions. To me these are all works of the enemy. It is in the Hands of God.

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #43 on:** February 09, 2024, 01:47:42 PM »

In the book, Salt of the Earth: An Informal Portrait of Richard Cardinal Cushing by John Fenton, we find an interesting quote. Please remember that Cushing is the Arch-Heretic bishop who had no problem with birth control (a.k.a. Dr. Rock), and who "excommunicated" Fr. Feeney. In 1964 Abp. Cushing spoke before the Massachusetts Clerical Association. He said:

"Christians should recognize the differences in dogma, but we must not quarrel over them...We are told there is no salvation outside the Church-nonsense!"

If this is the heretic who condemned Fr. Feeney, then Fr. Feeney should count it a privilege, a great grace to be excommunicated.

As for St. Dismas, we do not not know if he was baptized, and St. Augustine in his Retractions said, "Formerly I said that the Good Thief was not baptized, but I do not know this." In between the Crucifixion and the Ascension many of the dead "came out of their graves" as we are told in Scripture, and we do not know if St. Dismas was baptized or not. I certainly think St. Joseph was both baptized and confirmed, because, as St. Francis de Sales says, St. Joseph was assumed into heaven at the Ascension, both body and soul.

songbird · « **Reply #44 on:** February 09, 2024, 01:52:05 PM »

I also keep in mind KAB. Knowledge=Attitude= behavior. I think I read this with how communism works/thinks? But I found this to be very important to note.
I apply it to what I read and think. IMO, I have noticed how some peoples behavior is with BOD. I noticed a few times how teaching adults and taking time. Now, I could be wrong. Everyone is different in their needs to be taught and etc. But, if baptism is slowed down, thinking it is ok, their desire is there, then IMO that is not a good attitude or behavior to wait for a sacrament. That is a fine line when it is someone else and we don't know the whole situation.

I have heard a phrase, " oh, don't worry, we believe in BOD." Again, that is an attitude showing. And I certainly frown upon that statement.

Author Topic: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD? (Read 50820 times)

DecemRationis

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

Ladislaus

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

DecemRationis

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

Ladislaus

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

DecemRationis

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

Marulus Fidelis

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

Marulus Fidelis

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

DecemRationis

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

DecemRationis

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

Marulus Fidelis

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

Marulus Fidelis

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

Marulus Fidelis

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

songbird

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

OABrownson1876

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

songbird

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?