Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on May 12, 2016, 02:18:10 PM
-
Baptism of Desire and Blood
MATER DEI SEMINARY newsletter "Adsum" (January, 2004)
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent,
the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology,
Church Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church
1. Council of Trent 1545-1563
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
-
The non-Catholic Feenyite heretics have no regard for the Council of Trent!
-
The non-Catholic Feenyite heretics have no regard for the Council of Trent!
Correct. Or the pretend it does not really teach what it teaches.
-
The non-Catholic Feenyite heretics have no regard for the Council of Trent!
The invincibly ignorant Muslims and Jews who, according to most of the BoDers, can be in the Church and be saved by "implicit desire" or believing in Rewarder God, have no regard not only for the Council of Trent, but also Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity.
Once again: no one opposes the Thomistic BoD, we oppose the heretical understanding of BoD according to whch people can be saved in any religion without faith in Christ and the Trinity.
-
The non-Catholic Feenyite heretics have no regard for the Council of Trent!
The invincibly ignorant Muslims and Jews who, according to most of the BoDers, can be in the Church and be saved by "implicit desire" or believing in Rewarder God, have no regard not only for the Council of Trent, but also Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity.
Once again: no one opposes the Thomistic BoD, we oppose the heretical understanding of BoD according to whch people can be saved in any religion without faith in Christ and the Trinity.
Where have we taught one can be saved by implicit Faith? Why do you make false accusations and then not admit your error?
-
Where have we taught one can be saved by implicit Faith?
Fancy yourself a teacher now, do you? Perhaps a Doctor title awaits you upon your canonization. But you have a little brushing up to do first -- you can start by learning what a syllogism is.
-
Baptism of Desire and Blood
MATER DEI SEMINARY newsletter "Adsum" (January, 2004)
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent,
the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology,
Church Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church
1. Council of Trent 1545-1563
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
Don't you think it is interesting that Trent begins Canon 4 by decreeing the condemnation with anathema, for anyone who shall say that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation?
Also of interest is that the decree on the "Justification of a sinner" somehow always gets misread as if it says, "Salvation of a sinner".
-
Notice how they don't answer the question? Where have we taught that you can be saved by implicit Faith. Instead the come up with accusations (look he proclaims himself a teacher so he can't be right) because the are more concerned with perception than reality. They are dishonest. Otherwise they would show where we teach implicit faith saves or admit we have not taught it.
-
Where have we taught that you can be saved by implicit Faith.
I will not answer your question until you stop claiming that you "teach" things. You used that word three times in your previous post. You have taught nothing ... if you don't count heresy.
-
Please show me where I have taught that implicit faith saves. Will will never answer my question because it will make you look bad and you care more about perception than reality.
-
Please show me where I have taught that implicit faith saves. Will will never answer my question because it will make you look bad and you care more about perception than reality.
Again, I will answer your question if you stop arrogantly claiming that you "teach" anything. You have indeed repeatedly claimed that it's possible for someone to be saved by implicit faith. You have, on the other hand, taught nothing.
You are such an incredibly arrogant bastard that you persist in using the word "teach" instead of simply admitting that you misspoke. You absolutely refuse to accept any correction whatsoever, even on minute points like this. Unless of course you actually believe that you have some kind of teaching authority.
-
Baptism of Desire and Blood
MATER DEI SEMINARY newsletter "Adsum" (January, 2004)
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent,
the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology,
Church Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church
1. Council of Trent 1545-1563
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
Don't you think it is interesting that Trent begins Canon 4 by decreeing the condemnation with anathema, for anyone who shall say that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation?
To further expand.......since Trent decreed that whoever says that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation is anathema, does this decree exclude anyone from repeatedly saying that one can be saved by BOD as though a BOD is dogma that must be spread throughout the whole world?
Since Trent's decree clearly states that whoever says the sacraments are not necessary for salvation is anathema, and since a BOD is not a sacrament, isn't it correct to conclude that Trent is condemning with anathema anyone who says that a person can be saved without any sacrament at all?
-
Won't answer the question. Falsely accuse us of believing in implicit faith for salvation then don't own up to the false accusation.
-
Won't answer the question. Falsely accuse us of believing in implicit faith for salvation then don't own up to the false accusation.
Refuses to retract the statement that he "teaches" things. You're a pathetic little excuse for a man really.
-
Won't answer the question. Falsely accuse us of believing in implicit faith for salvation then don't own up to the false accusation.
At least you didn't use the word "teach" here. You've prevaricated several times on what you yourself actually believe, but you have repeatedly stated that it's possible that people can be saved without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, i.e. through mere belief in a Rewarder God. You have cited Pius IX and the fraudulent Suprema Haec in defense of your opinion. In case you weren't aware, "implicit faith" is shorthand here on CI for Rewarder God theory (vs. "explicit faith" including at least belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation). To my knowledge, no pre-V2 theologian ever proposed the notion that there need not be explicit faith even in the Rewarder God, so that's clearly not what's under discussion here.
You yourself have prevaricated because we've exposed your own self-serving contradiction many times. You claim that it's impious not to follow St. Thomas' opinion. But then you would go on about Rewarder God theory. Until we point out that St. Thomas taught explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation and cite your own statements regarding St. Thomas' authority. At which point you'll backtrack momentarily and claim that you PERSONALLY believe in explicit faith but continue to say the opposite is possible. When that thread has been forgotten you resume promoting Rewarder God (="implicit faith") theory. You're a slimly snake ... reminding me of those politicians who claim that they are PERSONALLY opposed to abortion.
-
Plus you're an arrogant bastard who refuses to admit he's wrong about anything, not even the most trivial matter, not even to own up to a simple misstatement.
-
Just to set the record straight I never claimed the Church teaches that one can be saved by implicit Faith which would be a heresy. I hope that is settled now.
-
Just to set the record straight I never claimed the Church teaches that one can be saved by implicit Faith which would be a heresy. I hope that is settled now.
No, it's not settled. So implicit faith is a heresy despite the fact that you have stated otherwise? How do you define implicit faith?
-
I never claim implicit Faith can save anyone. I thought we agreed. You disagree?
-
Baptism of Desire and Blood
MATER DEI SEMINARY newsletter "Adsum" (January, 2004)
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent,
the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology,
Church Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church
1. Council of Trent 1545-1563
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
As we can see, the first part of Canon 4 decrees the necessity of the sacraments for salvation: "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous....let him be anathema."
Keeping in mind that a BOD is not a sacrament, Trent decrees that a BOD, since it is no sacrament at all, can never save anyone. Trent also decrees if anyone shall say it can, we are to let them be anathema.
Onto the second part of Canon 4, we learn the sacraments or the desire for the sacraments can put us in the state of justification - and whoever says otherwise, is anathema.
...and [if anyone shall say] that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone, men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
So why does rabid BODer LoT keep anathematizing himself spamming the internet with salvation via a BOD which is not a sacrament? Can anyone answer why one who says he loves the truth keeps anathematizing himself? .....Anyone? Can LoT himself or can anyone answer this question?
Don't get me wrong, I would love to make a perfect act of contrition and be in heaven, or upon the words of absolution from the priest in the confessional be rewarded heaven, or upon having some desire for the sacrament find myself in heaven. Who wouldn't?
I think it's safe to say that whoever wouldn't has something seriously wrong with them. The thing is, Holy Mother the Church decreed something more substantial is necessary. That something is the actual reception of the sacrament, as decreed in the first part of Canon 4.
-
Trent teaches to opposite of what you wish it would teach. Have you and Ladislaus got to the bottom of what you disagree on concerning Trent?
-
All you need to do is read it as it is written to understand that a BOD, that is, no sacrament at all, cannot save anyone.
So why is it that you keep spamming the internet with salvation via NSAA when Trent decrees without them there can be no salvation?
Do you purposely anathematize yourself or do you simply not care?
-
Why is it that you understand Trent better than Bellarmine and Liguori?
-
Why is it that you do not answer the clear question with an actual answer?
Trent decrees: "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous....let him be anathema."
A BOD is not a sacrament.
Do you purposely anathematize yourself or do you simply not care?
-
No offense but I take Bellarmine and Ligouri over you.
-
Sorry, but the truth for those who love the truth is that you take your own opinion over Trent.
-
I never claim implicit Faith can save anyone. I thought we agreed. You disagree?
Define what you mean by implicit faith. You called it heresy a few posts ago.
-
Implicit faith would be a desire to have the faith without actually having it.
In a sense, IMO, it is not even a legitimate term in the sense that "implicit faith" is no faith at all. You either have the faith or you do not.
-
It is heresy to believe that implicit Faith saves. Implicit faith does nothing of the sort.
-
Implicit faith would be a desire to have the faith without actually having it.
In a sense, IMO, it is not even a legitimate term in the sense that "implicit faith" is no faith at all. You either have the faith or you do not.
That's not what anyone here is talking about. And your definition simply doesn't even make sense. What you mean is faith of desire. So you are correct that implicit faith is not a legitimate description for what you mean.
That is NOT what anyone here has accused you of promoting. I defined how everyone else means implicit faith several posts ago, but you ignored that post. Implicit faith is shorthand for explicit faith in Rewarder God (with implicit faith in the supernatural revealed truths such as the Holy Trinity and Incarnation).
-
It is a term someone else came up with and I had to address the term as they stated it as they falsely accused me of believing this when it is a term I have never used.
-
It is a term someone else came up with and I had to address the term as they stated it as they falsely accused me of believing this when it is a term I have never used.
Nonsense. You've been around here long enough to know what everyone means by that term. Nobody accused you of believing in that non-existent notion you defined. You have never used the term, but regarding the substance of what they accuse you, you stand guilty as charged. Your having redefined the term to suit your own purposes means nothing. As I mentioned, I know of NO pre-V2 theologians who did not believe that someone had to at least believe explicitly in Rewarder God in order to have faith.
-
I don't read all your nonsense I merely post the truth. Show me in some official teaching where the term "implicit faith" is used in any sense whatsoever. Go away and keep looking and don't come back until you find it.
-
THE INSUPERABLE PROBLEM FOR ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’
Do you see the problem for baptism of desire?
The Council of Trent dogmatically teaches (based on Scripture and apostolic Tradition) that one cannot even be put into a state of grace without the rebirth in Christ, and the rebirth in Christ removes everything: the guilt of sin and the temporal punishment due to sin.
But according to the very definition of ‘baptism of desire’ supplied by its most celebrated defenders, and consistently explained by theologians in the 20th century who taught it, it doesn’t provide the grace of rebirth because it doesn’t take away the temporal punishment due to sin.
Baptism of desire is therefore infallibly false. It must be rejected. It’s a false theory of man. It denies Catholic and scriptural teaching on the absolute necessity of being born again to be saved. That’s why the Church never taught it. When people receive doctrines from God, as infallibly taught by the Church, those doctrines are true and consistent. However, when a theological view is the product of the opinions and speculations of men, as ‘baptism of desire’ was, it will have flaws and inconsistencies. In the case of baptism of desire, which is merely a doctrine of men, not a doctrine of the Church or of God, there is a huge, massive, gaping hole at the heart of the theory. It is the one we have just exposed.
For the idea of ‘baptism of desire’ to even begin to be in any way consistent with Catholic teaching, it would have to posit that baptism of desire grants the grace of Baptism and rebirth. But it doesn’t teach that, as the explanation of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and others on the matter proves. God allowed the false idea of baptism of desire to contain this massive problem and inconsistency at its core so that people could eventually see it for what it is: a false doctrine. The facts we’ve considered prove that the theory of baptism of desire is over. It’s false.
-
"By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God". Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Fourth Chapter, A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
-
You can find the full text in my thread ,,
"The Death Noll of Baptism of Desire/Blood
Or go to the Original by Peter Diomond, at MHFM.com under , Articles,
"The Best Refutation Against Baptism of Desire"
For the idea of ‘baptism of desire’ to even begin to be in any way consistent with Catholic teaching, it would have to posit that baptism of desire grants the grace of Baptism and rebirth. But it doesn’t teach that, as the explanation of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and others on the matter proves. God allowed the false idea of baptism of desire to contain this massive problem and inconsistency at its core so that people could eventually see it for what it is: a false doctrine. The facts we’ve considered prove that the theory of baptism of desire is over. It’s false.
-
I don't read all your nonsense I merely post the truth. Show me in some official teaching where the term "implicit faith" is used in any sense whatsoever. Go away and keep looking and don't come back until you find it.
You are either a pathological liar or else schizophrenic. Cut to the chase:
It is really very simple, all that a BODer has to say is that they believe in explicit baptism of desire as taught by St. Thomas, and they reject the teaching that a non-believer in Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, and the Holy Trinity can be saved.
It is as simple as that. Yet, you will never answer that.
-
I don't read all your nonsense I merely post the truth. Show me in some official teaching where the term "implicit faith" is used in any sense whatsoever. Go away and keep looking and don't come back until you find it.
You are either a pathological liar or else schizophrenic. Cut to the chase:
It is really very simple, all that a BODer has to say is that they believe in explicit baptism of desire as taught by St. Thomas, and they reject the teaching that a non-believer in Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, and the Holy Trinity can be saved.
It is as simple as that. Yet, you will never answer that.
One must have a supernatural Faith for salvation to be possible. That is that must actually have it not merely desire it. There is no such thing as "implicit Faith" which is a term I have not read in any theology book.