Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: EternalKeys on August 26, 2024, 01:55:04 AM
-
Catechism of the Council of Trent (or Roman Catechism)
"On this class of persons, however, the Church was not accustomed to confer this sacrament immediately, but ordained that it should be deferred to a certain time, nor is the delay attended with the danger already noticed in the case of infants, for, should any unforeseen accident render it impossible for adults to be baptised, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness"
"In Dominico Argo" encyclical by Pope Clement XIII
"As our predecessors understood that that holy meeting of the universal Church was so prudent in judgment and so moderate that it abstained from condemning ideas which authorities among Church scholars supported, they wanted another work prepared with the agreement of that holy council which would cover the entire teaching which the faithful should know and which would be far removed from any error. They printed and distributed this book under the title of The Roman Catechism. There are aspects of their action worthy of special praise. In it they compiled the teaching which is common to the whole Church and which is far removed from every danger of error, and they proposed to transmit it openly to the faithful in very eloquent words according to the precept of Christ the Lord who told the apostles to proclaim in the light what He had said in the dark and to proclaim from the rooftops what they heard in secret."
Since the encyclical of Pope Clement XIII declared that there are no errors contained within the Roman Catechism, and since the Catechism teaches that which would typically be referred to as "baptism of desire", "baptism of desire" is not erroneous, but the teaching of the Church.
May all come to the truth of Catholicism and the Pope (see "Catholic Truth" on YouTube for more information).
-
Catechism of the Council of Trent (or Roman Catechism)
"On this class of persons, however, the Church was not accustomed to confer this sacrament immediately, but ordained that it should be deferred to a certain time, nor is the delay attended with the danger already noticed in the case of infants, for, should any unforeseen accident render it impossible for adults to be baptised, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness"
"In Dominico Argo" encyclical by Pope Clement XIII
"As our predecessors understood that that holy meeting of the universal Church was so prudent in judgment and so moderate that it abstained from condemning ideas which authorities among Church scholars supported, they wanted another work prepared with the agreement of that holy council which would cover the entire teaching which the faithful should know and which would be far removed from any error. They printed and distributed this book under the title of The Roman Catechism. There are aspects of their action worthy of special praise. In it they compiled the teaching which is common to the whole Church and which is far removed from every danger of error, and they proposed to transmit it openly to the faithful in very eloquent words according to the precept of Christ the Lord who told the apostles to proclaim in the light what He had said in the dark and to proclaim from the rooftops what they heard in secret."
Since the encyclical of Pope Clement XIII declared that there are no errors contained within the Roman Catechism, and since the Catechism teaches that which would typically be referred to as "baptism of desire", "baptism of desire" is not erroneous, but the teaching of the Church.
May all come to the truth of Catholicism and the Pope (see "Catholic Truth" on YouTube for more information).
You are assuming the Catechism teaches BoD, it doesn't. It's typical for people who believe BoD to read into it. God will bring a person baptism, that is what it means by "avail". Also the Catechism is not infallible and your second statement doesn't mean what you are implying because the Catechism teaches that souls are created some time after conception and not immediadtely which is an error.
-
You are assuming the Catechism teaches BoD, it doesn't. It's typical for people who believe BoD to read into it. God will bring a person baptism, that is what it means by "avail". Also the Catechism is not infallible and your second statement doesn't mean what you are implying because the Catechism teaches that souls are created some time after conception and not immediadtely which is an error.
Yes this^
The catechism first off states that there is no danger of death involved, if there were, then the adult must be be baptized asap like infants who are more prone shall we say, to die at any time. However, when there actually *is* the danger of death, the very next chapter teaches that "In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be Baptized At Once."
To continue with the first part where it says: "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
Note that "grace and righteousness" are attributes of the living, not the dead. Neither Trent nor it's catechism are talking about the attainment of salvation here, which is an attribute of the dead, not the living, which means quoting this part of the catechism to show it's contrariness to John 3:5 and Trent's application of it, is a non sequitur.
Also note that there is no mention of accidental death, only an "unforeseen accident," which could mean literally any unforeseen event *except death* that impedes the catechumen from receiving the sacrament as planned, anything from the priest having to reschedule due to an emergency, to the catechumen's car not starting, to whatever other "unforeseen accident" you can think of, except unforeseen accidental death.
-
You are assuming the Catechism teaches BoD, it doesn't. It's typical for people who believe BoD to read into it. God will bring a person baptism, that is what it means by "avail". Also the Catechism is not infallible and your second statement doesn't mean what you are implying because the Catechism teaches that souls are created some time after conception and not immediadtely which is an error.
Catechism of the Council of Trent:
Necessity of Baptism
If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no
less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
How do BODers understand this teaching of Trent?
-
How do BODers understand this teaching of Trent?
We don't INTERPRET it. The beauty of it is that we allow the (Church) Fathers, catechisms, canon law etc to interpret it...
St. Alphonsus Liguori "Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato' and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
1917 Code of Canon Law
On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
-
God makes things happen, not man.
Why does this become such a point of consternation? It only matters when we are talking about where we think dead people are. No true Catholic would tell a person, oh you are a good Lutheran, please stay a Lutheran. That is absurd.
The priests need to understand this maybe for proper burial, but us laity, what is the importance for us to discuss?
-
We don't INTERPRET it. The beauty of it is that we allow the (Church) Fathers, catechisms, canon law etc to interpret it...
St. Alphonsus Liguori "Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato' and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
1917 Code of Canon Law
On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
But you must interpret it as it says quite clearly that "unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism,... they are born to eternal misery and destruction."
We already refuted the OP's misinterpretation, but as for the great Moral (not dogmatic) theologian St. Alphonsus, in his commentary on Trent's necessity of the Sacraments, as regards the sacraments he states:
"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)."
As for Canon Law, post the whole thing....
§ 1. Those who die without baptism are not to be accorded ecclesiastical burial.
§ 2. Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be reckoned as baptized.
§ 3. All baptized are to be given ecclesiastical burial unless they are expressly deprived of same by law.
I will admit that CL 1239.2 confuses me somewhat, personally I think it's error, but whatever it is, it's not teaching a BOD, and in light of 1239.1 it's a far cry from teaching a BOD.
The only way a BOD is salvific, is if you altogether remove the Divine Providence from it.... "There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you. - Bread of Life by Fr. Feeney
-
God makes things happen, not man.
Why does this become such a point of consternation? It only matters when we are talking about where we think dead people are. No true Catholic would tell a person, oh you are a good Lutheran, please stay a Lutheran. That is absurd.
The priests need to understand this maybe for proper burial, but us laity, what is the importance for us to discuss?
I used to be real passionate about this subject, but because *only* those Catholic who are already sacramentally baptized argue for it, these days it's more of a leisurely way to pass time for me.
-
I used to be real passionate about this subject, but because *only* those Catholic who are already sacramentally baptized argue for it, these days it's more of a leisurely way to pass time for me.
I guess I just find it strange that this topic can push so many emotional buttons.
-
But hang on a minute. I must interpret it? I fear for my salvation too much to be interpreting something of such importance on MY own accord. I will always consult what the Church taught about it. If st Alphonsus is wrong, then please quote contemporary post-Trident APPROVED theologians who disagree with him. You downplay him as a fallible person (sure, he was no pope) but then you give me even more fallible priest of 20th century against him. Fr Feeney was no theologian, I must remind you.
This is one example how proponents of anti bob/bod can twist things:
"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." Jn 6,52
It then follows all except you eat flesh of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in them, no? You guys take one sentence, remove theologians, diminish the Fathers, throw away canon law and catechisms and hang on for the dear life based on what fr Feeney or brother Dimonds say it means. Why in the world would you do that? It's not like there was someone other than them 3 that started it/elevated it where this is today.
Error? So canon law of Church is in error? It is not a mere error than my friend. It is a hellish heresy which caused poisonous "error" that crept in the 1917 canon law promulgated by a valid pope? Excuse me?
-
Sorry did not meant to put all that in quotes, still learning how to use the forum.
-
God makes things happen, not man.
Why does this become such a point of consternation? It only matters when we are talking about where we think dead people are. No true Catholic would tell a person, oh you are a good Lutheran, please stay a Lutheran. That is absurd.
The priests need to understand this maybe for proper burial, but us laity, what is the importance for us to discuss?
First sentence: agreed completely. Second paragraph: Yes, but Lutherans do receive Trinitarian Baptism, so they're not the focus of BoD. Third paragraph: Yes again, but that latter part is the... six million dollar question....
-
Catechism of the Council of Trent (or Roman Catechism)
"On this class of persons, however, the Church was not accustomed to confer this sacrament immediately, but ordained that it should be deferred to a certain time, nor is the delay attended with the danger already noticed in the case of infants, for, should any unforeseen accident render it impossible for adults to be baptised, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness"
"In Dominico Argo" encyclical by Pope Clement XIII
"As our predecessors understood that that holy meeting of the universal Church was so prudent in judgment and so moderate that it abstained from condemning ideas which authorities among Church scholars supported, they wanted another work prepared with the agreement of that holy council which would cover the entire teaching which the faithful should know and which would be far removed from any error. They printed and distributed this book under the title of The Roman Catechism. There are aspects of their action worthy of special praise. In it they compiled the teaching which is common to the whole Church and which is far removed from every danger of error, and they proposed to transmit it openly to the faithful in very eloquent words according to the precept of Christ the Lord who told the apostles to proclaim in the light what He had said in the dark and to proclaim from the rooftops what they heard in secret."
Since the encyclical of Pope Clement XIII declared that there are no errors contained within the Roman Catechism, and since the Catechism teaches that which would typically be referred to as "baptism of desire", "baptism of desire" is not erroneous, but the teaching of the Church.
May all come to the truth of Catholicism and the Pope (see "Catholic Truth" on YouTube for more information).
No, it doesn't. I've posted @1friarminor twitter post on here. fillmore boys are wrong. Friarminor was exposing this before fillmore boys came along. For me, they ruin this important subject added with some of their goofy videos they make too. Caritas has an interesting account https://x.com/Caritas701/status/1404570564182765571
-
No, it doesn't. I've posted @1friarminor twitter post on here. fillmore boys are wrong. Friarminor was exposing this before fillmore boys came along. For me, they ruin this important subject added with some of their goofy videos they make too. Caritas has an interesting account https://x.com/Caritas701/status/1404570564182765571
-
But hang on a minute. I must interpret it? I fear for my salvation too much to be interpreting something of such importance on MY own accord. I will always consult what the Church taught about it. If st Alphonsus is wrong, then please quote contemporary post-Trident APPROVED theologians who disagree with him. You downplay him as a fallible person (sure, he was no pope) but then you give me even more fallible priest of 20th century against him. Fr Feeney was no theologian, I must remind you.
Yes, you misinterpret Trent's catechism, there is simply no other way to come up with a BOD from the catechism. Did you read the snip I posted from that catechism? If not, please read it, then use that teaching to support a BOD.
And please do the same with what I posted from St. Alphonsus.
And Fr. Feeney was indeed a theologian, well respected and was a well known priest and theologian.
Error? So canon law of Church is in error? It is not a mere error than my friend. It is a hellish heresy which caused poisonous "error" that crept in the 1917 canon law promulgated by a valid pope? Excuse me?
That's my opinion and nothing more. First it says those who die unbaptized cannot receive ecclesiastical burial, then it makes an exception for unbaptized catechumens. Something seems to me to be amiss there. Whether I am wrong or not means nothing, because either way it's not teaching a BOD.
-
.
-
.
https:/https://x.com/1Friarminor/status/1271176882101182464/x.com/1Friarminor/status/1271176882101182464
-
I guess I just find it strange that this topic can push so many emotional buttons.
I think maybe emotions come into play among a BOD proponents because like Scripture,, the Church teaches that so many die unbaptized and are lost forever, whereas a BOD gives it's proponents a hope that not so many are lost. As Fr. Wathen put it: "If this seems to you overly severe, I remind you, it truly *is* severe..."
-
I think maybe emotions come into play among a BOD proponents because like Scripture,, the Church teaches that so many die unbaptized and are lost forever, whereas a BOD gives it's proponents a hope that not so many are lost. As Fr. Wathen put it: "If this seems to you overly severe, I remind you, it truly *is* severe..."
Yes, I believe it all comes down to EMOTIONALISM! Who do these bod advocates think they are, telling Christ that he really didn't say what he meant in St. J0hn 3:5
https://https://x.com/1Friarminor/status/1355233388752367616x.com/1Friarminor/status/1355233388752367616
-
Yes, I believe it all comes down to EMOTIONALISM! Who do these bod advocates think they are, telling Christ that he really didn't say what he meant in St. J0hn 3:5
https://https://x.com/1Friarminor/status/1355233388752367616x.com/1Friarminor/status/1355233388752367616
More threads from Friarminor
https://x.com/1Friarminor/status/1281777220021710850
-
Yes, you misinterpret Trent's catechism, there is simply no other way to come up with a BOD from the catechism. Did you read the snip I posted from that catechism? If not, please read it, then use that teaching to support a BOD.
And please do the same with what I posted from St. Alphonsus.
And Fr. Feeney was indeed a theologian, well respected and was a well known priest and theologian.
That's my opinion and nothing more. First it says those who die unbaptized cannot receive ecclesiastical burial, then it makes an exception for unbaptized catechumens. Something seems to me to be amiss there. Whether I am wrong or not means nothing, because either way it's not teaching a BOD.
My friend, God forbid I misinterpret something and lead others in error. If i "misinterpret" it as you say, it is only because I enjoy the company of saints, doctors, catechisms and canon law that "misinterpret" it with me on this matter. It seems to me you guys only listen to what anonymous new york brothers say no matter what, as well as one rouge priest in the 50s. But let's belittle st Alphonsus, right?
If you have to step on necks of so many giants, what say you? Well, that they are in error, or contradiction because this what they said here or there. This is nothing short of sola scriptura method applied on canons, dogmas etc. In other words- hey Mother Church did not need to bother with approved theologians nor their unanimous teaching (as Ludwig Ott would say it for instance on this matter), right?. What nonsense.
Now hear this Mr Stubborn from the very same catechism YOU DARE TO INTERPRET how YOU please.
"Catechism of the Council of Trent, “Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once,” pg. 124-125: “But though these things may be thus, nevertheless to this class [or kind] of men [persons], the Church has not been accustomed to give the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has arranged that it should be deferred to a fixed time. Nor does this delay have connected with it the danger, as indeed threatens in the case of children, as stated above; for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the design and plan of receiving Baptism, and repentance of a badly led life, would be sufficient to grace and justification, if some unexpected event hinders so that they are unable to be washed by the saving water. On the contrary, this delay is seen to carry with it certain advantages."
Now go on, I dare you, consult the same catechism that mother Church gave us. Or will you only be able to get your answer if brothers Dimond give it to you? Maybe this part of catechism is in error to, aye?
Source:
https://dn790003.ca.archive.org/0/items/thecatechismofth00donouoft/thecatechismofth00donouoft.pdf
-
Sticking with Pope Clement XIII on this one.
-
I guess I just find it strange that this topic can push so many emotional buttons.
Because people want to make exceptions for the rule. Same thing with heresies like salvation outsi the church by the church, or salvation in the state of invincible ignorance, or claiming someone can have the soul of the church without being in the Body of Christ.
-
Sticking with Pope Clement XIII on this one.
It's wrong. Catechism certainly has the mistake regarding conception and the soul.
-
It's wrong. Catechism certainly has the mistake regarding conception and the soul.
Catechism of St. Pius X. In Part IV on the Sacraments, Chapter II on Baptism (§ 4), states:
Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire
I will stick with St.Pius X on this one as well.
-
It's wrong. Catechism certainly has the mistake regarding conception and the soul.
Is the canon law of 1917 in grievous error as well?
Canon 737 states, "Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire, is necessary for all for salvation..."
Canon 1239, section 2 :
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized."
-
"Pope Gregory XVI: "...The discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." (Mirari Vos, #9 ).
-
Yet another SV baboon making a fool of himself by grossly misinterpreting the evidence. Neither the Catechism of Trent nor the Code of Canon Law "teach" BoD, and the error regarding the Code is so amateurish as to be laughable.
-
Yet another SV baboon making a fool of himself by grossly misinterpreting the evidence. Neither the Catechism of Trent nor the Code of Canon Law "teach" BoD, and the error regarding the Code is so amateurish as to be laughable.
Gee, Ladislaus, you really nailed it there. I am convinced. C'mon pal, I know you are well respected elder of this forum. Your insights are great on some things, very weird on others- like cardinal Siri being this so called hidden "resistance" pope despite going with the flow of revolution later on (photo attached). And then here, you come back from sabbatical only to name me baboon. You can do better than that I'm sure. Let's start by "correcting" the 1917 code of canon law for start...
P.S here is a photo of your pope following the revolution. But let's stay on the topic..
-
Gee, Ladislaus, you really nailed it there. I am convinced. C'mon pal, I know you are well respected elder of this forum. Your insights are great on some things, very weird on others- like cardinal Siri being this so called hidden "resistance" pope despite going with the flow of revolution later on (photo attached). And then here, you come back from sabbatical only to name me baboon. You can do better than that I'm sure. Let's start by "correcting" the 1917 code of canon law for start...
P.S here is a photo of your pope following the revolution. But let's stay on the topic..
So you reveal your duplicity right out of the gate with this post, since you're obviously a former member under another name, given how much you know about what I post here. You are not some long-standing anonymous lerker who suddenly decided to create an account.
-
Let's start by "correcting" the 1917 code of canon law for start...
It is not the Code that requires correction, but you and your egregious misinterpretation thereof. And corrected you shall be. In the meantime, HINT: try reading the entirety of Canon 1239 and see what it's actually saying. Paragraph 2, which you and your ilk invariably take out of context, quite deliberately, is nothing more than a qualification of (or exception to) Paragraph 1.
But I've grown weary of wasting my time with fools such as yourself who come in here grinding an ax out of some bad will, and clearly not seeking the truth, forcing me to repeat myself over and over again. I shall refute your stupidity on my Substack page and merely link to it.
I have no problem engaging in disagreements with the intellectually honest, those clearly seeking the truth, but will no longer waste my time with the likes of yourself. I'll write my responses once and merely post the links. To give some examples of honest proponents of BoD here with whom I've had nothing but friendly exchanges: Arvinger, ByzCat3000. They didn't have an agenda but clearly had sincerely come to their beliefs and positions. Then there's your type ... Well, you're going to get back that which you try to dish out.
-
P.S here is a photo of your pope following the revolution. But let's stay on the topic..
Pathetic ad hominem and distraction. Of course, you go off topic with your absurd attack and then call for staying "on topic". I reject your absurd attempts to distract and your ad hominem fallacy out of hand.
-
So many Trads effectively hold Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" ecclesiology and soteriology that I find it ironic and providential that this latest rabid promoter of the V2 ecclesiology (which at the same time denouncing it as heretical, thereby condeming himself from his own mouth / keyboard) calls himself "Anonymous Catholic".
-
From time to time we get some new users with unorthodox ideas to come up with controversies and instigate disagreements. It is very strange. They must be somehow coordinated. They might be always the same three of four people with different usernames.
-
From time to time we get some new users with unorthodox ideas to come up with controversies and instigate disagreements. It is very strange. They must be somehow coordinated. They might be always the same three of four people with different usernames.
Quite possibly. They come in here on the attack and trolling. Despite my general rule of not posting here, I could not let this latest one stand.
I'll also post on why the Roman Catechism does NOT teach Baptism of Desire and provide a link (something I have also addressed here 100 times) ... but others have done a good job addressing that also. This language is lifted almost verbatim from St. Fulgentius and does not say more than what it actually says, despite how the desperate BoDers attempt to read BoD into it. It's simply saying that, unlike with the unbaptized infants, there isn't as much of a hurry to get adults baptized without delay because if they do have the proper dispositions, God will provide what it is they seek (a capacity that the infants lack). Nowhere does the Catechism say that "If they die in this state without having received the Sacraments, they would be saved." but leaves open how God would end up taking care of them. St. Fulgentius also used the expression that their "confession would avail to righteousness" ... but then completed the sentence with "because God would make sure they did not die without the Sacrament. There's a failure to interpret the subjunctive mood of the verb used in the Latin. But that too I've gone over 100 times before.
-
Ladislaus, you are projecting (which I noticed is your common MO when disagreeing with someone). I am not revelling my duplicity nor am I a baboon. Unless you want to call great saint Alphonsus who tells you this is de fide the same thing. As I simply hold on to what this saint has said.
I am a new member. I simply know as followed this forum for almost 10 years probably, I never joined before. Not of importance for this anyway.
You say- “Paragraph 2, which you and your ilk invariably take out of context, quite deliberately, is nothing more than a qualification of (or exception to) Paragraph 1.”
I agree my sir. Did anyone claim that BOB/BOD are rules rather than mere exceptions? Heck, most of the catholics are damned based on the Church Fathers and writers of previous centuries propose, so I never understood why you feenyites would think this to be some sort of safety net if all else fails. No, it is a mere unique gift Our Lord can bestow on people if He wishes.
It’s the principle of defending the Church teaching.
It is ironic that you call me intellectually dishonest. Your teachers, the Dimond brothers do not deny catechism of council of trident nor one of saint pius the tenth contain BOD. As a matter a fact they confirm it is in 1917 canon law too. I would say they are intellectually honest on that point.
What they do afterwards is belittle them as fallible creations where as you just cannot grasp it is there. You just ignore it.
C’mon Lad, you know that calling someone baboon is pathetic ad hominem and distraction. Calling you weird because you have some strange appeal to secrecy by calling a person pope who then signed all of the docuмents at Vatican II like Lumen Gentium, publicly recognised apostates as popes and used invalid/dubious sacraments even himself being validly ordained is a plain fact. Where does this weirdo theory leave us? Trying to determine at which point he lost the papacy? Or do you give him a free pass? You consider John Paul I false pope (so do I), but your pope gave homily on his funeral. You cannot make this stuff up. :facepalm:
Go for it lad if it makes you happy, but let’s stay on topic.
You are also projecting Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" theory on me. Where did I endorse that garbage?
Funny you mention Saint Fulgentius who spoke of baptism of blood:
“No one can, without the sacrament of Baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal." (The Rule of Faith 43).
Giovanni Berto, this is not unorthodox idea. It’s the idea unanimously thought by pre Vatican II theologians, contained in pretty much all manuals of moral theology I came across, commentaries, glossaries, catechisms, canon law etc. Well if they are all heterodox, I like that company over self proclaimed anonymous forum theologians.
Since your avatar is a picture of great saint, hear his story about it here: https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/st-john-vianney-fr-herman-cohen's-mother-was-saved-by-baptism-of-desire!/
-
My friend, God forbid I misinterpret something and lead others in error. If i "misinterpret" it as you say, it is only because I enjoy the company of saints, doctors, catechisms and canon law that "misinterpret" it with me on this matter. It seems to me you guys only listen to what anonymous new york brothers say no matter what, as well as one rouge priest in the 50s. But let's belittle st Alphonsus, right?
But I asked (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptism-of-desire-is-church-teaching/msg950120/#msg950120) how do you understand Trent's catechism teaching of John 3:5 and you never answered, nor do I expect you will because, as I pointed out with my first post, it contradicts your misinterpretation of the catechism's teaching in the OP, this obvious contradiction you altogether ignored after it was pointed out to you. This bespeaks of insincerity on your part.
Instead, you employ the same tired old tactic of completely ignoring the question(s) and quote lesser authorities as if they are Trent's superior.
So far, I've asked 3 things, one I linked above in the first sentence, and the other two are underlined in this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptism-of-desire-is-church-teaching/msg950143/#msg950143) that you have completely ignored. Same o same o with all BODers.
-
Funny you mention Saint Fulgentius who spoke of baptism of blood:
“No one can, without the sacrament of Baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal." (The Rule of Faith 43).
Giovanni Berto, this is not unorthodox idea. It’s the idea unanimously thought by pre Vatican II theologians, contained in pretty much all manuals of moral theology I came across, commentaries, glossaries, catechisms, canon law etc. Well if they are all heterodox, I like that company over self proclaimed anonymous forum theologians.
Since your avatar is a picture of great saint, hear his story about it here: https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/st-john-vianney-fr-herman-cohen's-mother-was-saved-by-baptism-of-desire!/
Saint XYZ said BoD, well Saints ZYX said no to BoD.
What matters is the Church's definitions.
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino", Council of Florence
"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
As you can see Baptism of Blood is a false doctrine directly refuted by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence.
-
But I asked (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptism-of-desire-is-church-teaching/msg950120/#msg950120) how do you understand Trent's catechism teaching of John 3:5 and you never answered, nor do I expect you will because, as I pointed out with my first post, it contradicts your misinterpretation of the catechism's teaching in the OP, this obvious contradiction you altogether ignored after it was pointed out to you. This bespeaks of insincerity on your part.
Instead, you employ the same tired old tactic of completely ignoring the question(s) and quote lesser authorities as if they are Trent's superior.
So far, I've asked 3 things, one I linked above in the first sentence, and the other two are underlined in this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptism-of-desire-is-church-teaching/msg950143/#msg950143) that you have completely ignored. Same o same o with all BODers.
I've advised you- I interpret it how the very same tridentine catechism interprets it. How st Alphonus interprets it, how unanimous theologians interpret it (prior to Vatican II), how instructions of moral theology interpret it, how canon law of 1917 iterprets it which you dare to call erroneous. Is that not sufficient? Or do you deny they say bob/bod is part of Church's teachings? You are posing a false dilemma here as if I have to interpret something based on one sentence alone. I am not a protestant my friend. Yes, you feenyites would be all correct if that was the case. Unfortunately for you, that's not how Church teaches. If it allows for BOB/BOD elsewhere it is not a contradiction nor did Church have nothing better to do then spill ink for the sake of filling in the gaps. There is a reason why this is almost always mentioned. How that goes over your head, I don't know.
I've asked you how you interpret John 5,54- " Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
See if we were to use feenyite tunnel vision logic here, then all who did not receive eucharist would perish, right?
-
I've advised you- I interpret it how the very same tridentine catechism interprets it. How st Alphonus interprets it, how unanimous theologians interpret it (prior to Vatican II), how instructions of moral theology interpret it, how canon law of 1917 iterprets it which you dare to call erroneous. Is that not sufficient? Or do you deny they say bob/bod is part of Church's teachings? You are posing a false dilemma here as if I have to interpret something based on one sentence alone. I am not a protestant my friend. Yes, you feenyites would be all correct if that was the case. Unfortunately for you, that's not how Church teaches. If it allows for BOB/BOD elsewhere it is not a contradiction nor did Church have nothing better to do then spill ink for the sake of filling in the gaps. There is a reason why this is almost always mentioned. How that goes over your head, I don't know.
I've asked you how you interpret John 5,54- " Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
See if we were to use feenyite tunnel vision logic here, then all who did not receive eucharist would perish, right?
Good post. I’ve used the same line of argument against them for years, to no avail. Their opinion is of higher “authority” than any pope, saint, or Doctor of the Church. While I agree with them that the EENS dogma has been watered down by the liberals misuse of the doctrine of BOD over the years, BOD has been taught universally and according to many theologians, including Saint Alphonsus, it is dogma.
-
I've advised you- I interpret it how the very same tridentine catechism interprets it. How st Alphonus interprets it,
Yes, you say St. Alphonsus interprets a BOD into Trent, yet here he roundly condemns the idea as heresy in the very first sentence while he teaches the necessity of the sacrament, as both Trent and it's catechism teaches:
"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)."
Yet you continue on as if both Trent and St. Alphonsus teach a BOD while completely and totally ignoring what he taught above. Again, this bespeaks a complete lack of sincerity on your part.
Note what he says at the end of the quote re: John 6:54.
-
Yes, you say St. Alphonsus interprets a BOD into Trent, yet here he roundly condemns the idea as heresy in the very first sentence while he teaches the necessity of the sacrament, as both Trent and it's catechism teaches:
"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)."
Yet you continue on as if both Trent and St. Alphonsus teach a BOD while completely and totally ignoring what he taught above. Again, this bespeaks a complete lack of sincerity on your part.
Note what he says at the end of the quote re: John 6:54.
Stubborn, the nickname suits you. Either we have a contradiction or we have two things that are not mutually exclusive, do we agree that much?
Again, answer the question plain and clear (correction it is 6,54 not 5,54). What is that you are trying to tell us here? Do all who not eat flesh and drink the blood of Our Lord perish?
And please don’t quote things elsewhere but just solely from this quote. Otherwise I will have to play a feenyite for a second and say to you - Yet you continue on as if there are exceptions to what are Lord said in 6,54 completely and totally ignoring what he taught in Jn 6,54? Would that then bespeak a complete lack of sincerity on your part?
Answer the question plain and clear please-those who did not receive eucharist perish, right? Don’t refer me to look at the same verse I have pointed to you, I don’t read your thoughts. What do you mean?
-
Stubborn, the nickname suits you. Either we have a contradiction or we have two things that are not mutually exclusive, do we agree that much?
We have the great saint contradicting himself - in my post(s) he echoes Trent and it's catechism. In your posts he contradicts Trent and it's catechism.
Do we agree on that much?
-
Again, answer the question plain and clear (correction it is 6,54 not 5,54). What is that you are trying to tell us here? Do all who not eat flesh and drink the blood of Our Lord perish?
Again, St. Alphonsus commentary on Trent's Canon 4 explains Trent and John 6:54:
TRENT:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
ST. ALPHONSUS:
"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)."
St. Alphonsus teaches that the famous so-called "dogma on a BOD" i.e. "desire thereof," applies strictly to The Holy Eucharist - this is what both Trent and St. Alphonsus teaches. That BODers misapply it to the sacrament of baptism is error, after all this time it might possibly be heresy.
-
We have the great saint contradicting himself - in my post(s) he echoes Trent and it's catechism. In your posts he contradicts Trent and it's catechism.
Do we agree on that much?
No, of course we do not. The great saint does not need to provide footnotes at the end of everything he says just to appease feenyites. He knows that children will listen to Mother Church. Rebellious feenyites on other had will put a death grip on one quote and drag anyone in the mud, even if that means st Alphonsus just so they defend the interpretations of rouge priest from 50s and 2 brothers from NY.
St Paul says (romans 3,4) - Est autem Deus verax : omnis autem homo mendax (But God is true; and every man a liar, as it is written)
Let’s play feenyites on this one for a second. That means that Our Lady, Joseph and plethora of all other saints were at least at some point liars.
All means all. I mean, we have a great St Paul clearly contradicting Church teaching here right? Of course not, but this is feenyite "logic". Do you get how ridiculous what you are saying is? You dare to disect approved doctors and theologians. You are the "recognise and resistors" of different rank.
-
No, of course we do not. The great saint does not need to provide footnotes at the end of everything he says just to appease feenyites. He knows that children will listen to Mother Church. Rebellious feenyites on other had will put a death grip on one quote and drag anyone in the mud, even if that means st Alphonsus just so they defend the interpretations of rouge priest from 50s and 2 brothers from NY.
You are the one being rebellious, also insincere.
In my last post to you, I have already indisputably proven that St. Alphonsus teaches that the famous so-called "dogma on a BOD" i.e. "desire thereof," applies strictly to The Holy Eucharist - this is what both Trent and St. Alphonsus teaches. That BODers misapply it to the sacrament of baptism is error, after all this time it might possibly be heresy. Until you admit as much, I have no reason to continue this discussion with you.
-
Again, St. Alphonsus commentary on Trent's Canon 4 explains Trent and John 6:54:
TRENT:
ST. ALPHONSUS:St. Alphonsus teaches that the famous so-called "dogma on a BOD" i.e. "desire thereof," applies strictly to The Holy Eucharist - this is what both Trent and St. Alphonsus teaches. That BODers misapply it to the sacrament of baptism is error, after all this time it might possibly be heresy.
You my friend need to consult the feenyite headquarters in NY. No serious feenyite is questioning that St Alphonsus was speaking about this in context of baptism.
St. Alphonsus Liguori "Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato' and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
What they do then like Stubborn is drag him through the mud, say that he is in error. Even heard one person call him heretic. Abisymal and shocking!
-
You my friend need to consult the feenyite headquarters in NY. No serious feenyite is questioning that St Alphonsus was speaking about this in context of baptism.
Yet another example of your ignorance, disqualifying you from this discussion. Dimond Brothers are not Feeneyites.
Please explain the precise nature of Father Feeney's "heresy", since Father Feeney did actually believe in what you claim Trent taught, justification by desire. He merely applied a distinction between justification and salvation, a distinction that was applied by various approved theologians after Trent, including Melchior Cano and others (with Cano opining that infidels could be justified but not saved).
You're conflating the position of Father Feeney with that of the Dimond Brothers ... showing that you have no earthly idea of what you're talking about, as is the case for nearly all the bad-willed EENS-haters such as yourself.
Irony for the moronic SVs who reject the V2 ecclesiology is that they condemn themselves from their own mouth/keyboard, in that they themselves actually adhere to the V2 ecclesiology but are simply too stupid to realize it.
-
I guess I can only be thankful you won’t be my judge one day Ladislaus. As far as you disqualifying me from the discussion. Thankfully you are not the owner of forum either, so don’t waste your breath.
I need not explain the varying degrees of attachments to this disorderly view as they all have one thing in common. Stepping on the neck of saints, doctors, catechism, canon law and universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church.
Just as there is many sede camps, I understand that fr Feeney and Dimonds differ, but for the sake of easier communication they all fall under the same umbrella. Gosh, you feenyites are sometimes proper semantic nαSιS.
Baboon, moron, keep them going brother. I’m not sure you are giving yourself heavenly points their bud. You used to be less bitter, cheer up man. Give me some counter-arguments instead.
-
Look at this hogwash my feenyite foes. From Dimonds -"THESE FACTS NOT ONLY PROVE THAT ST. ALPHONSUS’ PARTICULAR EXPLANATION OF BOD IS COMPLETELY UNTENABLE – AND THOSE WHO ADVANCE IT OBSTINATELY IN THE FACE OF SUCH FACTS SIN GRAVELY AND TEACH HERESY – BUT IT DEMONSTRATES THAT ‘BOD’ IS A FALSE THEORY; FOR, ACCORDING TO ITS MOST CELEBRATED DEFINITION, ‘BOD’ DOESN’T EVEN GIVE YOU WHAT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT DECLARES YOU MUST HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED (IN THE STATE OF GRACE)."
I like how Dimond brothers give st Alphonsus a pass, he is in mere error but ones who promote what he taught are heretics and mortal sinners. But this is the common Achilles heel in feenyite camp- INCONSISTENCY.
-
I've advised you- I interpret it how the very same tridentine catechism interprets it. How st Alphonus interprets it, how unanimous theologians interpret it (prior to Vatican II), how instructions of moral theology interpret it, how canon law of 1917 iterprets it which you dare to call erroneous. Is that not sufficient? Or do you deny they say bob/bod is part of Church's teachings? You are posing a false dilemma here as if I have to interpret something based on one sentence alone. I am not a protestant my friend. Yes, you feenyites would be all correct if that was the case. Unfortunately for you, that's not how Church teaches. If it allows for BOB/BOD elsewhere it is not a contradiction nor did Church have nothing better to do then spill ink for the sake of filling in the gaps. There is a reason why this is almost always mentioned. How that goes over your head, I don't know.
I've asked you how you interpret John 5,54- " Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
See if we were to use feenyite tunnel vision logic here, then all who did not receive eucharist would perish, right?
You're on the road to a bad reputation just like me, lol. For some reason people on here don't like me because I make comments about the fillmore boys. Anyways, the fillmore boys, Fr. Feeney don't own the baptism issue. There was St. Leo, St. Gregory nαzιanzen that held water baptism & of course Christ -John 3:5- which doesn't have the word desire. I don't agree with Fr. Feeney on justification anyways, so I'm not a "feeneyite" You mention about the "feeneyite" doesn't receive the eucharist, I do, I attend the SSPX. Check out this thread on X https://x.com/1_lauren28/status/1527768820449955843
-
You're on the road to a bad reputation just like me, lol. For some reason people on here don't like me because I make comments about the fillmore boys. Anyways, the fillmore boys, Fr. Feeney don't own the baptism issue. There was St. Leo, St. Gregory nαzιanzen that held water baptism & of course Christ -John 3:5- which doesn't have the word desire. I don't agree with Fr. Feeney on justification anyways, so I'm not a "feeneyite" You mention about the "feeneyite" doesn't receive the eucharist, I do, I attend the SSPX. Check out this thread on X https://x.com/1_lauren28/status/1527768820449955843
Ot maybe they just don't like me, that's fine. But I know that fillmore boys followers have a lot of accounts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv8NlgJYRQE
-
Look at this hogwash my feenyite foes. From Dimonds -"THESE FACTS NOT ONLY PROVE THAT ST. ALPHONSUS’ PARTICULAR EXPLANATION OF BOD IS COMPLETELY UNTENABLE – AND THOSE WHO ADVANCE IT OBSTINATELY IN THE FACE OF SUCH FACTS SIN GRAVELY AND TEACH HERESY – BUT IT DEMONSTRATES THAT ‘BOD’ IS A FALSE THEORY; FOR, ACCORDING TO ITS MOST CELEBRATED DEFINITION, ‘BOD’ DOESN’T EVEN GIVE YOU WHAT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT DECLARES YOU MUST HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED (IN THE STATE OF GRACE)."
I like how Dimond brothers give st Alphonsus a pass, he is in mere error but ones who promote what he taught are heretics and mortal sinners. But this is the common Achilles heel in feenyite camp- INCONSISTENCY.
The Augustinian position on Baptism of Desire is legitimate, and is held by St. Benedict's Centre. It was confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI as safe to hold. Here is Br. Andre Marie explain: "Saint Augustine taught, as is clear from this article’s epigram, that the providence of God would see to it that a justified catechumen would be baptized before death. God alone, in any event, knows which of those, with a votum for baptism and perfect contrition, He has justified. The Church can only assume, as the arm of Christ, the Principal Agent in baptism, that all are in need of receiving the sacramentin order to not only have all sin forgiven and abolished, but to be a member of the Church, the Body of Christ. Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith. The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized. This preserves the literal sense of Christ’s teaching in John 3:5: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can/not enter into the kingdom of God” and His apostolic mandate to preach and baptize all nations in Mark 16: 15-16." https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
Unlike Dimondite schismatics who need to attack ample Church teaching in order to sustain their erroneous and false position, the Indult Traditionalist Roman Catholics at SBC need do no such thing. Or, one can just agree with St. Thomas. Pope Leo XIII on St. Thomas: "to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: "His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error."(36)" https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris.html
You two seem like you are just here to troll. The Church has never taught BoD. She has made many infallible statements where baptism is required for salvation and so strongly to the point that there is no room for BoD to be possible.
The fact that you bring up the Dimonds here and call them schismatics (they aren't) shows your lack of integrity. Also St Augustine didn't hold BoD, he correctly taught (against Julian) that God would never allow any of the elect to die before receiving the sacrament of the mediator. BoD is not a sacrament, it lacks the matter and form. There is no way for you to say that xyz person received baptism of desire, it's simply nonsense. I can tell if someone was baptised because they actually had water flowing on them while the correct form was invoked. You cannot do this with BoD, it's nothing more than sentimental cope.
You two have a lot of conflation in your posts, drawing lines to things that aren't even relevant in order justify BoD which really ends as and attack on the necessity of baptism.
-
You two seem like you are just here to troll. The Church has never taught BoD. She has made many infallible statements where baptism is required for salvation and so strongly to the point that there is no room for BoD to be possible.
Sure, maybe it was the westboro baptist church teaching it through UOM, catechisms, consensus of theologians, doctors of the church and code of canon law of 1917.::)
-
Sure, maybe it was the westboro baptist church teaching it through UOM, catechisms, consensus of theologians, doctors of the church and code of canon law of 1917.::)
You will continue on your error, ignoring the proofs against a BOD already provided.
-
When I initially made this post, I did not expect it to get this many replies.
Anyway, I will address some of the objections some have had against my use of the Roman Catechism.
Firstly, the Roman Catechism, while not infallible, was still authoritative and binding for all Catholics at the time it was promulgated. In Catholicism, dogma does not have to come from infallible sources in order for it to be binding.
Secondly, the Roman Catechism states that one is able to attain some sacramental grace by the desire of baptism.
"Besides a wish to be baptized, in order to obtain the grace of the Sacrament, faith is also necessary"
Thirdly, if it is true that a desire for baptism will "avail them to grace and righteousness" for physical impediments, why would this not apply also to that of death? Given that many here acknowledge the truth that one may obtain the grace of baptism in the mere desire of it in the event of physical hindrances, why not also include death as an "unforeseen accident"?
To provide another quote from the Roman Catechism:
"But though these things may be thus, nevertheless to this class [or kind] of men [persons], the Church has not been accustomed to give the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has arranged that it should be deferred to a fixed time. Nor does this delay have connected with it the danger, as indeed threatens in the case of children, as stated above; for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the design and plan of receiving Baptism, and repentance of a badly led life, would be sufficient to grace and justification, if some unexpected event hinders so that they are unable to be washed by the saving water. On the contrary, this delay is seen to carry with it certain advantages"
-
Firstly, the Roman Catechism, while not infallible, was still authoritative and binding for all Catholics at the time it was promulgated. In Catholicism, dogma does not have to come from infallible sources in order for it to be binding.
So you're claiming that every word of the 500-600 pages of the Roman Catechism is infallible and tantamount to a dogmatic definition? That's ridiculous. As various theologians have commented, the theological note of anything expounded in the Catechism depends upon the theological note of the original source in the Magisterium from whence it derives. There's tons of material in the Catechism that falls short of "dogma".
-
Secondly, the Roman Catechism states that one is able to attain some sacramental grace by the desire of baptism.
"Besides a wish to be baptized, in order to obtain the grace of the Sacrament, faith is also necessary"
What? You have the logic completely reversed. This quotations teaches that the Sacrament does not conver its grace (apart from the character) without the intention of being baptized and without Catholic faith. Nowhere does it state that faith and the desire for Baptism suffice for receiving the grace of the Sacrament. In other words, this teaches that faith and intention to be baptized are necessary causes for the grace of the Sacrament, not sufficient causes on their own. Please review the grammar.
-
Thirdly, if it is true that a desire for baptism will "avail them to grace and righteousness" for physical impediments, why would this not apply also to that of death?
Whether it would or wouldn't, based on your option, is entirely irrelevant. This says nothing more than what it says and doesn't need your eading something into it. There's nothing more in this passage than that if someone has the proper dispositions, God will ensure that they end up receiving that which they desire and intend to receive. There's a nearly identical passage in St. Fulgensius (that I've cited before ... do a search) where he states that the "confession" (of the faith) would "avail for salvation" for somone who's prevented from receiving the Sacrament ... then finishes the passage with "... since God will keep him alive until he receives it." Whether the Catechism "means" to imply that someone who dies without the Sacrament can be saved is a matter of interpretation, something you're reading into it, but it only says that adults are not in the same need for immediate Baptism (weighed against the need for them to be properly prepared) since God will take care of them if they're properly disposed. That's it, and nothing more than that.
-
You will continue on your error, ignoring the proofs against a BOD already provided.
THIS^^^ ... the reason I've stopped posting much. People have already made up their minds, so it's pointless. I'll occasionally post for the benefit of a third-party lurker, but no more for those who have no interest in actually considering the responses.
-
How lucky are we, no one to correct saint Alphonsus' "error" for centuries until two youtubers from NY came along. No pope, no bishop, no theologian, no catechism, nor canon law to pick this "error" up. I mean this "devilish grave sin" was being promoted left right and center. How absurd are you!
-
How lucky are we, no one to correct saint Alphonsus' "error" for centuries until two youtubers from NY came along. No pope, no bishop, no theologian, no catechism, nor canon law to pick this "error" up. I mean this "devilish grave sin" was being promoted left right and center. How absurd are you!
This idiotic/monronic rant is filled with about a dozen logical fallacies and outright lies. This demonstrates clearly your malice and bad will. St. Alphonsus was not infallible. Theologians disagree with him on a fair number of points. St. Peter Canisius, who was actually AT Trent, has a different reading of Trent than St. Alphonsus. Majority of Church Fathers rejected (explicitly) Baptism of Desire, so, no, its rejection was not a novelty invented by the Dimond Brothers, you lying scuмbag. Then in the 12th century it remained a disputed question. Of course, obviously, long before the Dimond Brothers, Father Feeney was questioning it. Nevertheless, Fr. Feeney correctly pointed out that Trent was teaching about justification, not salvation. Several post-Tridentine theologians made the distinction between justification and salvation, including Melchior Cano, who held that infidels could be justified but not saved ... and so Father Feeney did not invent the distinction. Explain how exactly Fr. Feeney denies Trent when he held that people could be justified by the votum for Baptism ... when that is a verbatim re-statement of Trent's teaching (according to your reading of the grammar).
You're a lying dirtbag and this post here proves it.
-
Lad, lad, lad.. You poor man. Do you think Our Lord is happy when you call someone a lying scuмbag when you have zero evidence to substantiate such a calumny. You indeed might be better off forum, seems like you lost your patience and means of normally communicating with others when disagreeing. Or you have simply morphed with how your NY mentors normally communicate to others.
You Dimond cult followers do not understand the difference between explicitly rejecting the BOB/BOD (or as you say “Theologians disagree with him on a fair number of points”) and quoting what no one here disputes (namely the necessity of being baptised to be saved).
See, if in this case if you could quote one single theologian that says- Alphonsus teaches it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato' and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4” however he is in error because of a, b and c I would agree with you in a heartbeat, but of course you cannot do that.
That would be a true disagreement with this saint. When saint Thomas Aquinas argues something, he cites what the objection is or what he intends to dispute and then goes on to dispute it. When saint Alphonsus teaches moral theology and tells us this is mortal sin, he quotes the other side he disagrees with and goes on to dispute it.
If the so called majority of Church Fathers rejected it, you’d be quoting these “rejections” out of your sleeve which you of course cannot. All you can do is find what Dimond brothers have fed you to interpret or explain.
I don’t care to explain the actions of a rouge non theologian priest contra canon law of 1917 and consensus theological teaching at the time of canon law promulgation.
Canon 1239 declares that “Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without baptism are to be treated as baptized.” Now go on Lad, rip it apart. Go on explain (and don't forget to add insults while doing so) how code of canon law 1917 teaches grave sin and heresy. :facepalm:
-
How lucky are we, no one to correct saint Alphonsus' "error" for centuries until two youtubers from NY came along. No pope, no bishop, no theologian, no catechism, nor canon law to pick this "error" up. I mean this "devilish grave sin" was being promoted left right and center. How absurd are you!
The Council of Trent, Session Seven, Sacraments in General, Canon 4 states:
CANON IV.- "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."
Saint Alphonsus Commentary on Canon 4:
"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)."
It seems you do not understand that a BOD is not a sacrament, yet you wrongfully claim that the Church teaches that a BOD is salvific.
Per St. Alphonsus' beginning statement above, and him saying in no uncertain terms that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for all, how is it that you claiming a BOD saves does not make you a heretic?
-
Stubborn, we have a problem, don't we.
-St Alphonsus teaches the above quote.
-St Alphonsus teaches that BOD is de fide.
St Alphonsus was either forgetful (as to what he wrote), contradicted himself gravely or simply taught BOTH (which of course is the only possible answer).
Now for you mathematicians, logic professors etc.. it might come as a surprise that both can stand on its own without mutual contradiction and not everything can always be put through syllogism. That's why we have had Church approved theologians who unanimously taught on the subject, but to hell with their heresies too, right? We have forum members and NY bros to clarify instead right?
I will give you a very simple example:
-For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. (Rom 3, 23)
Now all of course does not mean Our Lord, Our Lady, St Joseph etc. Yet, if we follow your tunnel vision approach it would have to be all as all is all, isn't it? No ifs or buts.
Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation and all without it will perish. Church also teaches that there could be exceptional circuмstances through where person would be treated as baptised. (see Canon 1239)
If I am heretic because of it, guilty as charged. But don’t you dare not call st Alphonsus one and canon 1917 as well. Because as sure as the sun comes out, they have put those words out black on white.
Matter a fact, you might as well amp it up and blame all others for the sin of omission who had a duty of correcting this “grave heresy” in these writings for centuries and canon law for decades and did not. And we had valid popes in the period who allowed it to stand like that in canon law, didn't we?
-
Stubborn, we have a problem, don't we.
-St Alphonsus teaches the above quote.
-St Alphonsus teaches that BOD is de fide.
St Alphonsus was either forgetful (as to what he wrote), contradicted himself gravely or simply taught BOTH (which of course is the only possible answer).
No, we actually do not have a problem, you might, but "we" don't. We all know that even great saints can err and have erred in one or another of their teachings, it is something that happens to all humans.
As for St. Alphonsus' commentary, his commentary is all about Canon 4 which canon Trent put under the heading: "On the sacraments in general."
BOD proponents mis-use that canon as a proof that a BOD is de fide via the words: ""the desire thereof," apparently as if that canon is ignoring the sacraments and is rather teaching only about a BOD - which is not even a sacrament. This makes the whole idea of BODers using canon 4 to prove a BOD an error, St. Alphonsus calls them heretics.
What St. Alphonsus explains in his commentary is that the meaning of those words are actually referring only to the sacrament of the Eucharist, which we all know is the "Spiritual Communion," and he does this after saying that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for all. His commentary is in complete harmony with what Trent defines in canon 4 and what the Church has always taught.
We cannot say why in his writings that he goes contrary on this subject, but because of canon 4 we can agree with him in his commentary on canon 4 - again, because of canon 4.
-
Oh Stubborn, it seems you cannot decide what position you are holding in regards to Alphonsus’ writings. So which one is it? Did he err or did he explain everything according to your interpretation? Because if it is explained in your commentary vis-a-vis mentioned canon, he did not err, right? Why would you say he erred? Where did he err my friend?
Of course saints can err, normally before doctrine is defined or someone corrects them. Non of that applies in this case. This does not get left unattended for centuries to come. Get serious.
And if he did err, he did not merely err, he was spewing heresy (God forbid) that you are telling me I hold? Do you not get this? Stubborn, you have admitted in the past Dimonds twist truth? When did you lose the ability to see that? Sometime in the last year it seems. Because this “new revelation” or better yet interpretation which we lacked for centuries is mainly coming from no other source than them as much as you might claim the contrary.
No mis-use there, we rely on Church teaching, canon law, catechisms, unanimous theological writings, canon law, etc.
You already said canon law is in error there, so what chance do I stand do convince you if canon law can be in error. ::)
P.S What I find most striking with you fennyites (even more than ignoring what Church teaches) is how you give a light pass to Church giants, they are merely in slight "error", a slip up, maybe an incorrectly spilled ink on their paper. But when it comes to us worthless worms that try to follow it, well hey you get that Dimond full armour out, you don't forget to brush up on the insults and go on full attack with H-bombs. Very consistent, ey? :trollface:
-
Oh Stubborn, it seems you cannot decide what position you are holding in regards to Alphonsus’ writings.
I said:
"because of canon 4 we can agree with him in his commentary on canon 4 - again, because of canon 4."
Where he teaches contrary, whatever he says, is simply his opinion.
It's not complicated.
You do not accept his commentary on Canon 4, not surprising as that is a trait shared by all BODers far as I know.
-
Oh Stubborn, it seems you cannot decide what position you are holding in regards to Alphonsus’ writings.
So you're claiming that he's infallible or something? We disagree with St. Alphonsus on the matter. Various theologians have disagreed with him about one matter or another. He was clearly mistaken in his theory that initial justification by BoD does not necessarily remit all temporal punishment due to sin, since it contradicts Trent. Trent taught that there can be no initial justficiation without rebirth/regeneration, and then defines rebirth/regeneration explicitly as removing all temporarl punishment due to sin so that nothing remains to impede entry into Heaven.
You're some one-trick pony here just throwing out the name of St. Alphonsus. If you want to argue from actual Magisterium, go ahead ... but you're just being an idiot now.
-
Too bad even tridentine catechism did not manage to follow its dogmatic council of the same name it wished to call itsefl, but apparently failed miserably.
You are correct that we don’t have to hang on st Alphonsus alone. He is not the sole rule of faith, of course. Wish you could say same about Dimonds. I guess these great saints just wanted to make a fool of themselves knowing well what they wrote and just decided to give us their fallible heretical opinion so we can have something to talk about.
How about this:
Francisco Suarez, S.J. (1548-1617) cites St. Robert Bellarmine S.J. on Baptism of Desire in his 1602 work Opus de triplici virtute theologic, a Tractus de fide, Disp.XII, sect.4, n.22 : [As to] what is further added, that outside the Church there is no salvation, some say, as Cano, that this proposition is to be understood of the Church in general, as it always was, and not only of the Church, as it was specially instituted by Christ. But this response is unsatisfactory, both because the Church is always one, and also because the Councils really speak of this Church of Christ, and one must hold as true in some sense concerning it, that outside of it nobody is saved. Thus it is better to reply according to the distinction given between necessity in fact, or in desire [in re, vel in voto]; for thus nobody can be saved, unless he should enter this Church of Christ either in fact, or at least in will and desire. Bellarmine responds thus to a similar question. And it is manifest, that nobody is actually inside this Church, unless he is baptized, and yet one can be saved because the will to be baptized is sufficient, and likewise the will to enter the Church; thus we say the same of any faithful person who is truly penitent and is not baptized, whether he shall have come to explicit faith in Christ, or only to implicit faith : for by that faith he can have at least an implicit desire, which is sufficient with regard to baptism, as St. Thomas teaches in the aforesaid places.”
Is this good enough? All of them saints and doctors were just spilling ink giving us their erroneous fallible opinions, right? Lol
1917 Code of Canon Law
On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
"The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire."
Let me guess, first is opinion, second is wrong interpretation, and last 2 are fallible theologians. Maybe they even crept up as hidden modernists at the time?
But what else is new?
P.S. Lad, I wanted to say I’m proud of you. You almost managed the full post without an insult. Managed right there to the end. But improvement already. Keep it up.
-
1917 Code of Canon Law
On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
This doesn't prove they made it to heaven through BOD.
Let's remember what Christ told us in Scripture. "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. He who does not believe, shall be condemned."
So, this means there are 3 categories of people:
1) Believes and is baptized (i.e. Catholic)
2) Believes and is not baptized (i.e. catechumen)
3) Does not believe (i.e. non-catholic)
Neither Christ, nor Scripture, nor the Church Fathers, nor any Church Council, nor any Pope has definitely told us where those people in group #2 go. It is clear that they aren't damned. It is also clear that they can't be saved. So, where do they go? Some say they go to Limbo.
This is why Fr Feeney said: "I don't know, and neither do you."
-
Too bad even tridentine catechism did not manage to follow its dogmatic council of the same name it wished to call itsefl, but apparently failed miserably.
How about this:
1917 Code of Canon Law
On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
Better, but still false. Canon Law is not Magisterium but discipline. This is taken out of context. Feel free to post the entire Canon.
1) Only the baptized can receive Christian burial.
2) Catechumens ... are to be treated as baptized.
This legal language is the equivalent of saying ...
1) Only US citizens may hold jobs in the United States.
2) Holders of Green Cards are to be treated as US citizens.
This does not mean that Holders of Green Cards are US citizens broadly speaking and for all intents and purposes, just in this particular context, i.e. they're allowed to hold jobs in the US.
-
This doesn't prove they made it to heaven through BOD.
Let's remember what Christ told us in Scripture. "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. He who does not believe, shall be condemned."
So, this means there are 3 categories of people:
1) Believes and is baptized (i.e. Catholic)
2) Believes and is not baptized (i.e. catechumen)
3) Does not believe (i.e. non-catholic)
Neither Christ, nor Scripture, nor the Church Fathers, nor any Church Council, nor any Pope has definitely told us where those people in group #2 go. It is clear that they aren't damned. It is also clear that they can't be saved. So, where do they go? Some say they go to Limbo.
This is why Fr Feeney said: "I don't know, and neither do you."
Correct. As per my post above, the Church permits and has permitted Catholics to entertain hope for the salvation of Catechumens, but even that is merely only implied by the Canon. As I wrote, the notion that Catechumens "are to be treated as baptized" simply means that they are permitted to receive Christian burial.
There has always been some ambiguity regarding the status of the unbaptized Catechumen. In the early Church, they were allowed to call themselves "Christian", and could attend part of the Mass. They were considered partly in and partly outside the Church. St. Robert Bellarmine makes the analogy that they're "in the vestibule" of the Church. One could then debate what the implications of this were. Early in the Church, Christian burial was NOT permitted for Catechumens who died without Baptism. This was changed in 1917. Did Church doctrine change? We know that it doesn't. Church discipline merely changed, and Canon Law is discipline, not doctrine.
-
This doesn't prove they made it to heaven through BOD.
A new category for Feenyites? This is not in Dimond's handbook so I'm not sure what to think. :confused:
BOB/BODs are in hell as well as anyone who promote this "heresy" (according to Dimonds) but now we have a special place for them apart from Heaven and Hell? Where is st. Emerentiana? People pray to her but she is not in Heaven? Or is it another falsehood that crept up that she died as catechumen? Maybe we should remove her from calendar? Or as sspx simply have that prerogative to strip saints of their sainthood? The hoops you have to jump through, my oh my...
-
Shall we consult the Dimond's handbook - "For instance, in the case of St. Emerentiana – who was martyred while praying publicly at the tomb of St. Agnes during the persecution of Diocletian – one could point out that the account of her martyrdom provides a situation that, in itself, suggests she was already baptized; for she wouldn’t have endangered herself in that fashion during the persecution had she not been baptized. Or even if she wasn’t baptized before she was attacked (which is highly unlikely), she certainly could have been baptized after the attack by her mother who accompanied her (according to accounts) to the tomb to pray." :fryingpan: A lot of speculation if you ask me. But if all else fails you can always quote them on- " Besides, the Roman Martyrology is not infallible and contains historical errors.":jester:
-
Shall we consult the Dimond's handbook - "For instance, in the case of St. Emerentiana – who was martyred while praying publicly at the tomb of St. Agnes during the persecution of Diocletian – one could point out that the account of her martyrdom provides a situation that, in itself, suggests she was already baptized; for she wouldn’t have endangered herself in that fashion during the persecution had she not been baptized. Or even if she wasn’t baptized before she was attacked (which is highly unlikely), she certainly could have been baptized after the attack by her mother who accompanied her (according to accounts) to the tomb to pray." :fryingpan: A lot of speculation if you ask me. But if all else fails you can always quote them on- " Besides, the Roman Martyrology is not infallible and contains historical errors.":jester:
Apart from your moronic emoticons, they're 100% correct on every point. During times of persecution, the Church regularly mandated that all Catechumens be baptized, though they would continue to function as if they were catechumens until they completed their instruction, and there were a couple cases of those called "catechumen" who were know to have been baptized. Nor has anyone formally canonized "St. Emerentiana", and severa Popes and Doctors expressed reservations regarding the Roman Martyrology, saying that it shouldn't be given too much authority lest various errors undermine the Church's credibility. So are you now idiotically claming that the Roman Martyrology is infallible?
-
It really shows the state of your soul when you cannot make one counterargument without insults. I pity you, Lad.
Rather look what you claim. You are the ones that tear saints, theologians, canon laws, catechisms, roman martyrology. You are the ones that basically put blemish on popes for omissions, doctors for heresies as well as Holy Office who did not condemn “erroneous” writings of all these saints when going through canonisation process. That’s your kinfolk Lad, not mine.
-
It really shows the state of your soul when you cannot make one counterargument without insults. I pity you, Lad.
Rather look what you claim. You are the ones that tear saints, theologians, canon laws, catechisms, roman martyrology. You are the ones that basically put blemish on popes for omissions, doctors for heresies as well as Holy Office who did not condemn “erroneous” writings of all these saints when going through canonisation process. That’s your kinfolk Lad, not mine.
Still got nothing, eh?
You were the one who started out by mocking people who claim that Roman Martyrology is not infallible. So, are you implying that it's infallible? Answer the question or shut up with your idiotic comments. It's pretty simple. Either it is or it isn't. If it isn't, then why are you mocking someone for stating the obvious? If you claim that it is, then we can cite the evidence from Church authorities that it is not.
In terms of the Holy Office not condemning the errors, I've already stated that the Church has permitted the opinion. So what? That's not the same thing as saying it's right. They've canonized numerous people who held conflicting opinions. There is one opinion that the Holy Office condemned which St. Alphonsus wrongly stated was "probable" (obviously unaware of the HO decision that came before that time).
But you make these moronic/idiotic hit-and-run comments without the slightest bit of substance.
-
1917 Code of Canon Law
On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
Well you're all set then. Obviously you're not baptized so good for you! When you die unbaptized, no worries right? You will be treated as baptized. Hope it works out for you.
-
It can truly be said about feenyites: "And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead." (Lk 16, 31)
Prove to you what? Write to you what? This spiritual hardness is unlike other. There is no argument a proud heart like yours would receive.
Permitted? By whom? Lad and NY bros permitted it?
As Father Cekada said,
Vatican I (Dz 1792) obliges you to believe by divine and Catholic faith those things:
1. Contained in Scripture or Tradition, AND
2. Proposed for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s authority, either through:
(a) Solemn pronouncements (by ecuмenical councils, or popes ex cathedra) OR
(b) Universal ordinary magisterium (teaching of the bishops together with the pope, either in council, or spread throughout the world.)
B. Pius IX further specified (Tuas Libenter [1863], Dz 1683) that you must believe those teachings of the universal ordinary magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith.
Now let's see the following:
Dogmatic Brevior, ART.IV, Section I,II - 1945 (1024-1)
The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the opportunity offers, the obligation remains on one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.
Fr. Dominic Prummer, O.P.
Moral Theology, 1949:
· "Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire of Baptism by water";
· "Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by water";
· "Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire... both cause sanctifying grace. ...Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial and temporal punishment..."
Fr. Francis O'Connell
Outlines of Moral Theology - 1953:
- "Baptism of Desire ... is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition..."
- "These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood & Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament."
"...Even if an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith..."
Mgr. J. H. Hervé
Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) - 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
"The various baptisms: from the Council of Trent itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied, namely an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one as it were generic name; so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood)."
Fr. H. Noldin, S.J. - Fr. A. Schmit, S.J.
Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis); Bk 2 Quaestio prima - 1929:
"Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition however have the power to confer sanctifying grace."
Fr. Arthur Vermeersch, S.J.
Theologiae moralis (Vol. III, Tractatus II) - 1948:
"The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; ...but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: 'He who loves me, is loved by my Father.' (John 14:21)"
Fr. Ludovico Billot, S.J.
De Ecclesiae Sacramentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV - 1931:
"Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition includeing a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that, the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins."
Fr. Eduardus Genicot, S.J.
Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol II); Tractatus XII - 1902:
"Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected...
Both are called 'of desire' (in voto)...; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation."
Do you get it, you armchair self proclaimed theologian? There are countless others that said the same. Any manual of moral theology, any cathecism. You name it, it's there.
You reject the collective body of theologians who taught this in the past century prior to the council and therefore in direct breach of DZ 1683.
I dare any of you cult followers to produce me ONE SINGLE post tridentine statement which calls Bob/bod falsehood, nonsense, error or better yet a heresy as some of you audacious posters are allowing yourself to say, thinking NY bros' dispensation to do so will justify you before God.
-
Well you're all set then. Obviously you're not baptized so good for you! When you die unbaptized, no worries right? You will be treated as baptized. Hope it works out for you.
That's another thing for your Dimond larpers. You probably won't find one person in your life to whom you would even have to actually apply this doctrine, but hey you are willing to burn half of the sede world if that's the price Dimonds want you to pay.
-
Typical behavior from this dishonest clown.
When refuted on some point (1917 Code of Canon Law) or a direct question is put to him ("Are you asserting that the Roman Martyrology is infallible?"), refuses to answer, but then changes the subject and spams in something different.
This is a clear sign of malice and bad will. Probably time to ignore this unflushed turd.
-
Gee Lad, you got me again. Your graphic language is despicable. How learned you want to appear, but how foolish you must be if you think you are correct with that foul mouth (which absolutely you are not) and that Our Lord would be happy how you “defend” him against adversaries.
-
This guy keeps going DOWN the list, in terms of theological certainty.
First, he strongly implied the Roman Martyrology was infallible (which it isn't).
Then, he quotes canon law (which also isn't infallible).
Now, he's quoting theologians (who are far, far, FAR from infallible).
Just keep throwing spit balls at the wall, dude. :laugh1:
That approach doesn't work with dogma/theology. It may work in political debates, but not with the Faith, which has clearly defined tiers of Truth. BOD is part of the "non-dogma" tiers.
-
That's another thing for your Dimond larpers. You probably won't find one person in your life to whom you would even have to actually apply this doctrine, but hey you are willing to burn half of the sede world if that's the price Dimonds want you to pay.
I won't answer for your pals Fred and Bob, but you did not quote V1 correctly. Nor did you quote Pope Pius IX correctly and so on. You have the NO version down pat tho! I corrected it with capital RED letters and put a line through your errors and could go through the rest of your post and do the same......
obliges you to believe by divine and Catholic faith those things: BY DIVINE AND CATHOLIC FAITH ALL THOSE THINGS ARE TO BE BELIEVED WHICH ARE:
1. Contained in Scripture or AND Tradition, AND
2. Proposed for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s authority, either through WHETHER BY HER:
(a) Solemn JUDGEMENT pronouncements (by ecuмenical councils, or popes ex cathedra) OR
(b) IN HER Universal AND ordinary magisterium (teaching of the bishops together with the pope, either in council, or spread throughout the world.)
And on it goes, but you won't want to read the rest because if you could understand it, it disagrees with you.
-
Keep your restless Dimondide minds at ease. Unlike you, I don’t relay solely on one source. All I am trying to demonstrate here is how many hoops you have to jump through and how ridiculous your stance is while doing so.
You jump the gun as if roman martyrology was the only thing I mentioned. Let’s tell saint Ambrose he was hallucinating. From catholic encyclopaedia (1917)-"However, St. Ambrose has no doubt about the salvation of Valentinian the Younger, who has asked for baptism, but had died before the saint could reach him ("De Obitu Valentini.", n. 51, P.L. XVI, 1374)." Hence the common teaching was that the defect of baptism might be supplied by desire.
How absurd was this saint, doesn't he know? If only he was told by some of the "learned" from here. Valentinian the Younger was not real! Jokes on him.
While we are at it, let’s warn people about “heresies” in 1917 catholic encyclopaedia as well. How dare they say this was common teaching.
What modernists are to doctrine, what recognise and resistors are to papacy, feenyites are to theologians, doctors, canon law, & catechisms..
Pax & Stubborn, at least you keep it civil so I have no problem continuing with you too. If the foul mouther wants to contribute, hopefully he will keep his tongue in check.
Pax- of course theologians can be fallible. But good grief you feenyites paint them as useful as of gargoyles. They are just there to sit and scare people out of Church with their errors. When they casually spill ink. Not much use.. Riiight.
Stubborn, now let’s try this again. See if you can read this paragraph slowly with comprehension. If you cannot, just read the bolded.
"For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683
As Fr. Joachim Salaverri states, “The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus of theologians would necessarily lead the whole Church into error.”
But can you listen to the consent of theologians? Of course you cannot.
And why not? Well, it would crumble your feenyite theology in a second. Dimonds wouldn't allow it. You have to bow down to their interpretations. Very clever, very slick.
Once all theologians are out of the way, the room is open for the self appointed theologians.
Here is a short cheatsheet for Feenyites:
Cite the doctor and Father of Church when you like what they say.
If you don't like what he says- he errs of course. Or tell others he only gives his own opinion.
Canon law - not infallible (don't forget Eastern Churches were not notified)
Catechisms- ohh, very faiilible. Who reads those to instruct the faithful?
-->Roman catechism- defer to delayed ensoulment section. Diminish, diminish, diminish...
-->Saint Pius X cathecism- tell everyone it was only promulgated in Italy and pope Pius X had no clue what was in it, he had better things to do.
Theologians - for goodness sake, throw them under the bus any time you can. Very very fallible creatures. You have better chance of winning a lotto than get them to agree on the correct doctrine.
And by far my favourite one. If a saint teaches BOB/BOD he is in tiny error, no biggie it happens to the best of them. (Bonus points cite Aquinas and Immaculate Conception)
But if a laymen cite their writings, do not lose a good opportunity to call them heretics who will burn in hell and lead others there too.
-
You jump the gun as if roman martyrology was the only thing I mentioned. Let’s tell saint Ambrose he was hallucinating. From catholic encyclopaedia (1917)-"However, St. Ambrose has no doubt about the salvation of Valentinian the Younger, who has asked for baptism, but had died before the saint could reach him ("De Obitu Valentini.", n. 51, P.L. XVI, 1374)." Hence the common teaching was that the defect of baptism might be supplied by desire.
St. Ambrose: “For no one ascends into the Kingdom of Heaven except by the SACRAMENT of baptism” (De Abraham).
St. Ambrose did not have “no doubt” about the salvation of Valentinian. Valentinian likely killed himself. Do you really think that St. Ambrose, upon hearing the news that they found Valentinian hanging in his bedroom, would have “no doubt” that he was saved?
If you read the quote from St. Ambrose that you are referencing (and which the entire concept of BoD rests upon), he is simply hoping that Valentinian received “the gift” that he had always hoped for in life. That “gift” could simply just be the Sacrament of baptism.
Regardless, if we interpret St. Ambrose the way you want us to, then the Saint contradicts himself on his own authority.
You are spamming 6 million quotes at us without scrutinizing the foundation that they all rest upon.
-
Anonymous,
You can huff and puff all you want. BOD is not taught by the Church with a 'certainty of faith' (i.e. it is not dogma). No one has to believe BOD in order to get to heaven.
I can point to many Church Fathers who disagree with St Athanasius, who disagree with St Thomas and also disagree with your interpretation of Trent.
BOD is still in the 'theological opinion' tier. You can disagree with the Diamond Bros all you want, but their research (as well as Fr Feeney's and many others) show that this topic has just as many arguments for as against.
As Fr. Joachim Salaverri states, “The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus of theologians would necessarily lead the whole Church into error.”
:facepalm: There's not a "consent" of theologians on the matter. That's the whole point of the Diamond's excellent book. It's still a disputed topic.
In order for something to be a dogma of the Faith, the belief has to be shown to originate from Apostolic sources (i.e. Christ) either from Scripture or Tradition.
1. BOD is not in Scripture; in fact, Scripture says many things contrary to BOD.
2. BOD was not unanimously held by the Church Fathers (the fathers of Tradition); in fact, most Church Fathers spoke out against it.
3. Baptism of blood is not BOD, so please don't mix-n-match these 2, separate terms.
-
For about 700 years between the death of St. Augustine and the time of Abelard (who first challenged it), theologians were unanimous regarding the Augustinian opinion that unbaptized infants suffered (albeit mildly) in Hell. Abelard first challenged this 7 centuries of unanimity (he also, BTW, rejected BoD), and then St. Thomas agreed, and the theological consensus is quite the opposite now, rejecting the opinion of St. Augustine. Which of these near-universal consensuses of theologians was infallible and irreformable?
Catholic theologians who were evidently a rule of faith just before Vatican II suddenly were no longer such a rule of faith when they all universally accepted V2 and the NOM as Catholic ... a contradiction that none of the Cekadists has ever addressed (they ignore it, demonstrating once again their bad will).
Msgr. Fenton:
Unfortunately the tendency to misinterpret the function of the private theologian in the Church’s doctrinal work is not something now in the English Catholic literature. Cardinal Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (certainly the least valuable of his published works), supports the bizarre thesis that the final determination of what is really condemned in an authentic ecclesiastical pronouncement is the work of private theologians, rather than of the particular organ of the ecclesia docens which has actually formulated the condemnation. The faithful could, according to his theory, find what a pontifical docuмent actually means, not from the content of the docuмent itself, but from the speculations of the theologians.
As to the condemnation of propositions all she (the Church) tells us is, that the thesis condemned when taken as a whole, or, again, when viewed in its context, is heretical, or blasphemous, or whatever like epithet she affixes to it. We have only to trust her so far as to be warned against the thesis, or the work containing it. Theologians employ themselves in determining what precisely it is that is condemned in that thesis or treatise; and doubtless in most cases they do so with success; but that determination is not de fide; all that is of faith is that there is in that thesis itself, which is noted, heresy or error, or other like peccant matter, as the case may be, such, that the censure is a peremptory command to theologians, preachers, students, and all other whom it concerns, to keep clear of it. But so light is this obligation, that instances frequently occur, when it is successfully maintained by some new writer, that the Pope’s act does not imply what it has seemed to imply, and questions which seemed to be closed, are after a course of years re-opened.
If we were to apply this procedure to the interpretation of the papal encyclicals, we would deny, for all practical purposes at least, any real authority to these docuмents. We would be merely in a position to admit that the Holy Father had spoken on a certain subject, and to assent to his teaching as something which the theologians would have to interpret. In the final analysis, our acceptance of doctrine or truth as such would be limited to what we could gather from the interpretations of the theologians, rather than from the docuмent itself.
-
You jump the gun as if roman martyrology was the only thing I mentioned. Let’s tell saint Ambrose he was hallucinating. From catholic encyclopaedia (1917)-"However, St. Ambrose has no doubt about the salvation of Valentinian the Younger, who has asked for baptism, but had died before the saint could reach him ("De Obitu Valentini.", n. 51, P.L. XVI, 1374)." Hence the common teaching was that the defect of baptism might be supplied by desire.
How absurd was this saint, doesn't he know? If only he was told by some of the "learned" from here. Valentinian the Younger was not real! Jokes on him.
You put on display again what a bad-willed imbecile you are. St. Ambrose does not say that Valentinian entered the Kingdom. He stated that his hope was that through his piety and zeal he may have attained the same status as an unbaptized martyrs, which St. Ambrose describes as having been "washed but not crowned". This distinction between washing and crowning is precisely the distinction between the two effects of the Sacrament, the washing (remission of the punishment due to sin) and crowning (the character of Baptism), whereby one enters the KINGDOM of Heaven. St. Ambrose was hereby actually teaching a justification but now salvation position for Valentinian.
This and a youthful speculation by St. Augustine (that he later retracted and rejected, after his anti-Pelagian era, issuing some of the most anti-BoD statements in existence) are all that the BoDers care about and have to cite. They do so pretending that these represent some kind of consensus among the Fathers (even though they wrongly interpret both) ... and completely ignore the 7-8 Church Fathers who explicitly reject BoD. Yet another display of their bad will and intellectual dishonesty.
-
This idiotic and malevolent turd continues his tactic of never addressing each point as it's refuted but simply changing the subject and moving on to spam in the next collection of out-of-context and cherry-picked texts.
Show some intellectual honesty and we might take you seriously. Until then, his excrement should be ignored.
-
“Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”
Pope Saint Siricis decree to Himerius 385 AD
I'm sticking to Pope Saint Siricis on this 😉
-
Keep your restless Dimondide minds at ease. Unlike you, I don’t relay solely on one source. All I am trying to demonstrate here is how many hoops you have to jump through and how ridiculous your stance is while doing so.
Your attempt at demonstrating fails miserable, you would know this if you addressed replies to your posts.
But if I were you I would not depend on a BOD, I suggest that you get baptized by a priest in a church before you die.
-
Pax,
You deny Pope Pius IX Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683. Find one theologian of pre asteroid era that was not teaching this unanimously with others in the last century. Even Foul Mouther is aware of this, that’s why he is mentioning alleged consensus opinion of suffering infants.
Pax, if “BOD is still in the 'theological opinion' tier” then the cult leaders would not ever go to denounce anyone under the sun as heretics left, right and centre. Unfortunately, self proclaimed theologians get their ammo right from upstate NY and do inconceivable damage in trad world.
Foul Mouther,
“theologians were unanimous regarding the Augustinian opinion that unbaptized infants suffered (albeit mildly) in Hell.” & “Which of these near-universal consensuses of theologians was infallible and irreformable”
Another lie by you, Foul Mouther:
“And so also in those who fail to receive the gift [of baptism]…perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish…will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed [by baptism] and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honored; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honored is bad enough to be punished.”
-Saint Gregory nαzιanzus, Oration 40 on the Topic of Baptism, AD 329-390)
not punished=no suffering
Foul Mouther, would you care to give the list of these supposed 7 Fathers so I can destroy more of your lies?
“Catholic theologians who were evidently a rule of faith just before Vatican II suddenly were no longer such a rule of faith when they all universally accepted V2 and the NOM as Catholic”
Gee, Foul Mouther, let’s try this one shall we? Popes were the proximate rule of faith for 2 millennia and all of the sudden stopped being during Vatican II, so? Did something important maybe change?
But not to scandalise your hardened Dimondide heart, explanation is very simple. Ratzinger, Rahner, Counger et al were brought in for their 5 minutes of glory to strike a deathblow to catholicism. Or shall we count them catholic theologians? But let’s count them as proper theologians for the sake of the argument for a moment.
“With the advent of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's, Guérard des Lauriers became concerned with the events taking place in the Church. In 1969, he co-authored the Ottaviani Intervention which was a critical study of the New Mass. In 1970, Pope Paul VI made public a docuмent demanding the resignation of certain conservative professors at the Pontifical Universities of Rome, among them Guérard des Lauriers.”
Did Guérard des Lauriers flow with the current? Did he resist? So there is your unanimous consent out of the window.
Guérard des Lauriers put more fight against it than your pope (Siri) that went with the revolution. Does Guérard des Lauriers count?
Stubborn, as I said hardly you will come across a person in your life that would be in this position, I am baptised.
-
Pax,
You deny Pope Pius IX Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683. Find one theologian of pre asteroid era that was not teaching this unanimously with others in the last century. Even Foul Mouther is aware of this, that’s why he is mentioning alleged consensus opinion of suffering infants.
Pax, if “BOD is still in the 'theological opinion' tier” then the cult leaders would not ever go to denounce anyone under the sun as heretics left, right and centre. Unfortunately, self proclaimed theologians get their ammo right from upstate NY and do inconceivable damage in trad world.
Foul Mouther,
“theologians were unanimous regarding the Augustinian opinion that unbaptized infants suffered (albeit mildly) in Hell.” & “Which of these near-universal consensuses of theologians was infallible and irreformable”
Another lie by you, Foul Mouther:
“And so also in those who fail to receive the gift [of baptism]…perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish…will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed [by baptism] and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honored; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honored is bad enough to be punished.”
-Saint Gregory nαzιanzus, Oration 40 on the Topic of Baptism, AD 329-390)
not punished=no suffering
Foul Mouther, would you care to give the list of these supposed 7 Fathers so I can destroy more of your lies?
“Catholic theologians who were evidently a rule of faith just before Vatican II suddenly were no longer such a rule of faith when they all universally accepted V2 and the NOM as Catholic”
Gee, Foul Mouther, let’s try this one shall we? Popes were the proximate rule of faith for 2 millennia and all of the sudden stopped being during Vatican II, so? Did something important maybe change?
But not to scandalise your hardened Dimondide heart, explanation is very simple. Ratzinger, Rahner, Counger et al were brought in for their 5 minutes of glory to strike a deathblow to catholicism. Or shall we count them catholic theologians? But let’s count them as proper theologians for the sake of the argument for a moment.
“With the advent of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's, Guérard des Lauriers became concerned with the events taking place in the Church. In 1969, he co-authored the Ottaviani Intervention which was a critical study of the New Mass. In 1970, Pope Paul VI made public a docuмent demanding the resignation of certain conservative professors at the Pontifical Universities of Rome, among them Guérard des Lauriers.”
Did Guérard des Lauriers flow with the current? Did he resist? So there is your unanimous teaching of heresies out of the window.
Guérard des Lauriers put more fight against it than your pope (Siri) that went with the revolution. Does Guérard des Lauriers count?
Stubborn, as I said hardly you will come across a person in your life that would be in this position, I am baptised.
-
Check the dates, moron. I said from St. Augustine til about 1100 ... yet you paste something from St. Gregory nαzιanzen in the mid 300s ... ironic also because St. Gregory nαzιanzen explicitly rejects BoD. This is explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Limbo. Look it up where it details how it was universally held until first challenged by Abelard.
-
Check the dates, moron. I said from St. Augustine til about 1100 ... yet you paste something from St. Gregory nαzιanzen in the mid 300s ... ironic also because St. Gregory nαzιanzen explicitly rejects BoD. This is explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Limbo. Look it up where it details how it was universally held until first challenged by Abelard.
This saint Gregory nαzιanzen?
“…let us speak about the different kinds of Baptism, that we may come out thence purified. Moses baptized Leviticus xi but it was in water, and before that in the cloud and in the sea. I Corinthians 10:2 This was typical as Paul says; the Sea of the water, and the Cloud of the Spirit; the Manna, of the Bread of Life; the Drink, of the Divine Drink. John also baptized; but this was not like the baptism of the Jews, for it was not only in water, but also unto repentance. Still it was not wholly spiritual, for he does not add And in the Spirit. Jesus also baptized, but in the Spirit. This is the perfect Baptism. And how is He not God, if I may digress a little, by whom you too are made God? I know also a Fourth Baptism— that by Martyrdom and blood, which also Christ himself underwent:— and this one is far more august than all the others, inasmuch as it cannot be defiled by after-stains. Yes, and I know of a Fifth also, which is that of tears, and is much more laborious, received by him who washes his bed every night and his couch with tears; whose bruises stink through his wickedness; and who goes mourning and of a sad countenance; who imitates the repentance of Manasseh Ninevites Jonah 3:7-10 upon which God had mercy; who utters the words of the Publican in the Temple, and is justified rather than the stiff-necked Pharisee; Luke 18:13 who like the Canaanite woman bends down and asks for mercy and crumbs, the food of a dog that is very hungry. Matthew 15:27”
C'mon Foul Mouther, what are the other Fathers you have there that "explicitly" deny BOD or BOB. Let's see the list that NY bros hand out.
-
This saint Gregory nαzιanzen?
Wrong again, but then you continue to lie and distort. He's not referring to anything that can supply for Baptism in terms of permitting/enabling entry into the Kingdom. Many Fathers referred to various "Baptisms" in an analogous sense. He explicitly rejected that the desire/intention could lead to "glory" in the Kingdom, as do nearly all the Church Fathers (except for the retracted youthful speculation of St. Augustine). But keep lying, scuмbag.
Fathers who reject BoD (including St. Gregory nαzιanzen, despite your lies) have been listed myriad times here on this forum. In fact, even Rahner (who promoted "Anonymous Christian" theory and disagreed with the Fathers) had the intellectual honesty that you lack, and admitted that there was no Patristic support for BoD, listing a number of the Fathers who rejected it. I can find those quotes for others, or a link to them ... but not for your sake, since you're a bad-willed dirtbag.
And, of course, yet another subject change ... since I was referring to St. Gregory as coming before St. Augustine and therefore having nothing to do with my earlier statement (backed by Catholic Encyclopedia) that St. Augustine's opinion regarding unbaptized children was held universally for about 700 years after him.
-
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/st-gregory-nαzιanzen-baptism/
-
Wrong again, but then you continue to lie and distort. He's not referring to anything that can supply for Baptism in terms of permitting/enabling entry into the Kingdom. Many Fathers referred to various "Baptisms" in an analogous sense. He explicitly rejected that the desire/intention could lead to "glory" in the Kingdom, as do nearly all the Church Fathers (except for the retracted youthful speculation of St. Augustine). But keep lying, scuмbag.
Fathers who reject BoD (including St. Gregory nαzιanzen, despite your lies) have been listed myriad times here on this forum. In fact, even Rahner (who promoted "Anonymous Christian" theory and disagreed with the Fathers) had the intellectual honesty that you lack, and admitted that there was no Patristic support for BoD, listing a number of the Fathers who rejected it. I can find those quotes for others, or a link to them ... but not for your sake, since you're a bad-willed dirtbag.
And, of course, yet another subject change ... since I was referring to St. Gregory as coming before St. Augustine and therefore having nothing to do with my earlier statement (backed by Catholic Encyclopedia) that St. Augustine's opinion regarding unbaptized children was held universally for about 700 years after him.
Lol, of course I'm wrong. It only matters what Dimonds allow you to think. So cath encyclopedia is a valid source of info when you quote it, but when I quote that common opinion historically is that there is bob/bod, burn it. That's the consistency I'm talking about.
Early Fathers had split opinion (so no consensus). If you have these Fathers that have written on the topic after Augustine and Before Thomas Aquinas, quote them and I will look into. Who are they? Where is 700 years of writing about the topic?
St. Thomas Aquinas said children depravation of God involves no pain, and is such that the babies do not even know what they have missed (St. Thomas, De Malo q. 5, a. 3 ad 4).
You remind me of Luther with that snake's tongue, Mr Tourette. You just keep spitting poison every time you speak.
Now show us your famous anti-bod Fathers list... Who are those 8 Church Fathers you are talking about?
-
Check the dates, moron.
But keep lying, scuмbag.
since you're a bad-willed dirtbag.
This idiotic and malevolent turd
Why do you call our Lord names? Remember what we do to the least of brethren we do to Christ. That should cause us fear and trembling around others at the thought of offending our future judge. If anything, we should each call ourselves such names for our own foolishness, me included.
I don't know who started it, but now at least 2 are spewing hate (at least in word if not intent). "Good, good, let the hate flow through you" the devil is saying.
-
I don't know who started it, but now at least 2 are spewing hate (at least in word if not intent). "Good, good, let the hate flow through you" the devil is saying.
St Giles, please quote where I was spewing any hate (as you say at least 2 are spewing hate).
-
You remind me of Luther with that snake's tongue, Mr Tourette. You just keep spitting poison every time you speak.
I was thinking as I was posting that hate is too strong of a word, but it starts small. I said hate at least in word if not intention, because I knew you at least, probably Lad as well for the most part, had no real hate for the other. Just don't stoop to his level. Name calling can be contagious, which leads to I'll will, ect.
-
I was thinking as I was posting that hate is too strong of a word, but it starts small. I said hate at least in word if not intention, because I knew you at least, probably Lad as well for the most part, had no real hate for the other. Just don't stoop to his level. Name calling can be contagious, which leads to I'll will, ect.
Well, thank you for the fraternal correction if you think I overstepped. I will duly note it. That's how I genuinely feel. You are correct as well that I should not engage at his level. My reaction is strictly from the angle I see in his words as he cannot make one post without being vulgar.