Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Sneakyticks on May 04, 2014, 02:40:29 AM
-
Cekada said:
A few weeks after I circulated Home Alone? as a pamphlet, someone sent me the following passage from Pope Pius IV’s Bull Benedictus Deus (26 January 1564). The Bull, which confirms the decrees of the Council of Trent, imposes a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication on anyone who, without the approval of the Holy See, presumes “to publish in any form any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia on, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of this council.” The reason for this prohibition, the Bull stated, was to avoid the “perversion and confusion” arising from private commentaries on and interpretations of the Tridentine decrees.
:laugh2:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=55&catname=14
-
Here's the Wikipedia article on it:
Benedictus Deus is a papal bull written by Pius IV in 1564 which ratified all decrees and definitions of the Council of Trent. It maintains that the decrees of the Council of Trent can be interpreted solely by the Papal office itself; and enjoins strict obedience upon all Catholics, forbidding, under pain of excommunication, all unauthorized interpretation. This was seen by Church contemporaries of Pius IV as an attempt to strengthen the influence of the Papacy against the rise of Conciliarism exemplified by the Council of Trent itself.
There is a more minor bull written by Benedict XII in 1336.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedictus_Deus_(Pius_IV)
Your and Father Cekada's interpretation of Benedictus Deus only makes sense if dogmatic sedevacantism is, in fact, true, because if Pope Paul VI was, indeed, a valid Pope, then Father Feeney was fully reconciled to the Catholic Church through the auspices of Paul VI and received a public Mass of Christian Burial by his bishop. Therefore, "Feeneyism" can hardly be considered to be formal heresy, unless you want to say that Paul VI was not a valid Pope. And, as we have seen on this forum, dogmatic sedevacantism is no longer a viable theological option.
-
unless you want to say that Paul VI was not a valid Pope. And, as we have seen on this forum, dogmatic sedevacantism is no longer a viable theological option.
Paul VI was not a valid Pope, and my understanding of dogmatic sedevacantism is if I declared that no one can be save unless they embrace the sedevacantism position, that is dogmatic sedevacantism.
I believe that I can not be saved if I do not embrace the sedevacantism position, because that is the only avenue that makes any sense. The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 CANON 3 says, "We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of the heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, and patronize them, are excommunicated.
I also feel, in God's Mercy, if others honestly feel as some Traditionalist do while keeping the Faith have not the grace to understand, yet, and not just because it is convenient they hold on to the R&R or other flavors of Traditionlism. God will judge them accordingly.
If these conciLIAR "popes" were heretics before their so-called elections, and heretics elected them, they were never popes to begin with according to the Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 Canon therefore no one is judging a pope.
Father Feeney could not have been reconciled as you described.
-
Cekada said:
A few weeks after I circulated Home Alone? as a pamphlet, someone sent me the following passage from Pope Pius IV’s Bull Benedictus Deus (26 January 1564). The Bull, which confirms the decrees of the Council of Trent, imposes a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication on anyone who, without the approval of the Holy See, presumes “to publish in any form any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia on, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of this council.” The reason for this prohibition, the Bull stated, was to avoid the “perversion and confusion” arising from private commentaries on and interpretations of the Tridentine decrees.
:laugh2:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=55&catname=14
First, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience to his heretical superior Archbishop Cushing who, as one of the major modernist authorities who paved the way for V2, was preaching that via a BOD, there is salvation outside the Church.
Second, the the "Feeneyites" do not interpret Trent, they understand and preach it as it was meant to be preached and understood, i.e as Benedictus Deus dictates, "as it is written", so if anything, the title of this thread actually should read: "Benedictus Deus against all non-Feeneyites".
The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being intolerant and bigoted. If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient.
Same tactics as used these days by the NO, and they still work astoundingly well.
-
The Feeneyite private interpretation of Trent is strictly forbidden, and is heretical.
Baptism of Desire, taught by the the Council of Trent is de fide. This who deny this teaching of the Catholic Faith are professing heresy.
-
No. There is only one Baptism for the remission of sins and that is of water. That is De fide Catholic teaching. There is not interpretation of Trent. BOD is only a theological opinion accepted for cathechumens only.
-
No. There is only one Baptism for the remission of sins and that's of water. That is De fide. BODis only a ttheological opinion and for cathechumens only.
There is only one sacrament of Baptism. But that does not exclude Baptism of Desire.
You must accept the teaching of the Council of Trent and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. If you deny Baptism of Desire, you profess a heresy. If you do so culpably, you place yourself outside the Church.
-
There is absolutely no Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church.....but that does not exclude Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church.
Anyone who dissents from this is in heresy........... :facepalm:
-
Have any of you folks spotted that Sneakyticks is the latest avatar of Exurge/Pelele/Vinikias/Cathedra and several other trollish identities still undetected? Matthew keeps banning him, but because he has at least two or three CI handles at any given time, he is as hard to eliminate as basement mold on a Caribbean island.
-
There is absolutely no Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church.....but that does not exclude Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church.
Anyone who dissents from this is in heresy........... :facepalm:
Outside the Catholic Church means outside the Church. No one is saved outside the Church. Clear enough?
-
There is absolutely no Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church.....but that does not exclude Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church.
Anyone who dissents from this is in heresy........... :facepalm:
Outside the Catholic Church means outside the Church. No one is saved outside the Church. Clear enough?
One needs water baptism in order to be inside the Church.
-
The Feeneyite private interpretation of Trent is strictly forbidden, and is heretical.
Baptism of Desire, taught by the the Council of Trent is de fide. This who deny this teaching of the Catholic Faith are professing heresy.
There is no canon in Trent or any magisterial pronouncement anywhere proclaiming a BOD, Trent only infallibly condemns a BOD, as you've been shown umpteen times.
Novus Ordo Cushingites like yourself misinterpret Trent, then say Trent teaches a BOD - same old same old. Per Benedictus Deus, you are not permitted to interpret Trent - so I advise you to try hard as you can to not do that any more.
Trent explicitly binds us to believe the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation under pain of anathema.
A BOD is no sacrament at all - yet because you believe your own mis-interpretation, you consistently claim it is de fide that salvation is attained via no sacrament at all, aka a BOD.
So which is it that is de fide? Are the sacraments a necessity unto salvation as Trent teaches - or is salvation attainable with out any sacrament at all like you and Cushing and the NO teach?
Again, you're going on what, 6 months since you've been challenged (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60#p0) to defend the sacraments and you still cannot understand why it is that you are unable to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation? FYI, because thanks to your embracing the error of a BOD, you and Cushing and all other BODers do not believe the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation at all, that's right, not at all - per Trent, you are anathema for clinging to this belief that salvation is attainable via no sacrament at all.
Also, while you're ignoring doing the strictly Catholic thing defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, why not already come out and admit that the excommunication of Fr. Feeney was because of disobedience to his heretical BOD preaching superiors and NOT due to his adherence to the dogma EENS.
-
The Feeneyite private interpretation of Trent is strictly forbidden, and is heretical.
Baptism of Desire, taught by the the Council of Trent is de fide. This who deny this teaching of the Catholic Faith are professing heresy.
There is no canon in Trent or any magisterial pronouncement anywhere proclaiming a BOD, Trent only infallibly condemns a BOD, as you've been shown umpteen times.
Novus Ordo Cushingites like yourself misinterpret Trent, then say Trent teaches a BOD - same old same old. Per Benedictus Deus, you are not permitted to interpret Trent - so I advise you to try hard as you can to not do that any more.
Trent explicitly binds us to believe the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation under pain of anathema.
A BOD is no sacrament at all - yet because you believe your own mis-interpretation, you consistently claim it is de fide that salvation is attained via no sacrament at all, aka a BOD.
So which is it that is de fide? Are the sacraments a necessity unto salvation as Trent teaches - or is salvation attainable with out any sacrament at all like you and Cushing and the NO teach?
Again, you're going on what, 6 months since you've been challenged (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60#p0) to defend the sacraments and you still cannot understand why it is that you are unable to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation? FYI, because thanks to your embracing the error of a BOD, you and Cushing and all other BODers do not believe the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation at all, that's right, not at all - per Trent, you are anathema for clinging to this belief that salvation is attainable via no sacrament at all.
Also, while you're ignoring doing the strictly Catholic thing defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, why not already come out and admit that the excommunication of Fr. Feeney was because of disobedience to his heretical BOD preaching superiors and NOT due to his adherence to the dogma EENS.
I'd like to know what you think of recieving the sacraments from the sspx priest who believes in implicit faith, should we avoid him and stay home? Is he clearly a heretic or simply someone mistaken?
-
No. There is only one Baptism for the remission of sins and that's of water. That is De fide. BODis only a ttheological opinion and for cathechumens only.
There is only one sacrament of Baptism. But that does not exclude Baptism of Desire.
You must accept the teaching of the Council of Trent and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. If you deny Baptism of Desire, you profess a heresy. If you do so culpably, you place yourself outside the Church.
Denying Baptism of desire is not a heresy since Baptism of Desire is not dogma. Nowehere is there an anathema attached to the denial of Baptism of "Desire". It has never been defined, nor will it ever likely be defined. The subject is still open for discussion because it belongs to the realm of theological speculation. Given the way the concept has been abused by the modernists in their denial of "Extra Eclessiam Nula Sallus", a careful re-examination on it should take place.
-
No. There is only one Baptism for the remission of sins and that's of water. That is De fide. BODis only a ttheological opinion and for cathechumens only.
There is only one sacrament of Baptism. But that does not exclude Baptism of Desire.
You must accept the teaching of the Council of Trent and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. If you deny Baptism of Desire, you profess a heresy. If you do so culpably, you place yourself outside the Church.
Denying Baptism of desire is not a heresy since Baptism of Desire is not dogma. Nowehere is there an anathema attached to the denial of Baptism of "Desire". It has never been defined, nor will it ever likely be defined. The subject is still open for discussion because it belongs to the realm of theological speculation. Given the way the concept has been abused by the modernists in their denial of "Extra Eclessiam Nula Sallus", a careful re-examination on it should take place.
If you will not hear the Church, there is no much more I can tell you.
Baptism of Desire is de fide. To deny it is heresy. Heresy is a mortal sin and also has the effect of severing one from the body of the Church, meaning that it places one outside the Church.
When the Church reforms, the Pope and the bishops will teach this truth again clearly as they have for a very long time in Church history. I hope that you will hear the Pope and his bishops and accept Catholic teaching. Nothing is worth going to Hell for. Every day that God gives you is another day to embrace all of the Church's teaching and resist the temptation to doubt a point of Faith.
I will pray for you.
-
The Feeneyite private interpretation of Trent is strictly forbidden, and is heretical.
Baptism of Desire, taught by the the Council of Trent is de fide. This who deny this teaching of the Catholic Faith are professing heresy.
There is no canon in Trent or any magisterial pronouncement anywhere proclaiming a BOD, Trent only infallibly condemns a BOD, as you've been shown umpteen times.
Novus Ordo Cushingites like yourself misinterpret Trent, then say Trent teaches a BOD - same old same old. Per Benedictus Deus, you are not permitted to interpret Trent - so I advise you to try hard as you can to not do that any more.
Trent explicitly binds us to believe the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation under pain of anathema.
A BOD is no sacrament at all - yet because you believe your own mis-interpretation, you consistently claim it is de fide that salvation is attained via no sacrament at all, aka a BOD.
So which is it that is de fide? Are the sacraments a necessity unto salvation as Trent teaches - or is salvation attainable with out any sacrament at all like you and Cushing and the NO teach?
Again, you're going on what, 6 months since you've been challenged (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60#p0) to defend the sacraments and you still cannot understand why it is that you are unable to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation? FYI, because thanks to your embracing the error of a BOD, you and Cushing and all other BODers do not believe the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation at all, that's right, not at all - per Trent, you are anathema for clinging to this belief that salvation is attainable via no sacrament at all.
Also, while you're ignoring doing the strictly Catholic thing defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, why not already come out and admit that the excommunication of Fr. Feeney was because of disobedience to his heretical BOD preaching superiors and NOT due to his adherence to the dogma EENS.
I never said a canon of Trent taught it, I just said that Trent taught it. The Universal Ordinary Magisterium has also taught it. You must believe it. Read my post to Cantarella, the same applies to you. You are not allowed to adopt a heresy.
The Church is very clear on this, the Scriptures are clear on this, heresy is strictly forbidden, it is a mortal sin, and severs one from the Church. Every teaching of the Church must be believed, even if they are hard truths for you, you still must believe them.
-
When the Church reforms...
That's heresy!
-
The Feeneyite private interpretation of Trent is strictly forbidden, and is heretical.
Baptism of Desire, taught by the the Council of Trent is de fide. This who deny this teaching of the Catholic Faith are professing heresy.
There is no canon in Trent or any magisterial pronouncement anywhere proclaiming a BOD, Trent only infallibly condemns a BOD, as you've been shown umpteen times.
Novus Ordo Cushingites like yourself misinterpret Trent, then say Trent teaches a BOD - same old same old. Per Benedictus Deus, you are not permitted to interpret Trent - so I advise you to try hard as you can to not do that any more.
Trent explicitly binds us to believe the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation under pain of anathema.
A BOD is no sacrament at all - yet because you believe your own mis-interpretation, you consistently claim it is de fide that salvation is attained via no sacrament at all, aka a BOD.
So which is it that is de fide? Are the sacraments a necessity unto salvation as Trent teaches - or is salvation attainable with out any sacrament at all like you and Cushing and the NO teach?
Again, you're going on what, 6 months since you've been challenged (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60#p0) to defend the sacraments and you still cannot understand why it is that you are unable to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation? FYI, because thanks to your embracing the error of a BOD, you and Cushing and all other BODers do not believe the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation at all, that's right, not at all - per Trent, you are anathema for clinging to this belief that salvation is attainable via no sacrament at all.
Also, while you're ignoring doing the strictly Catholic thing defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, why not already come out and admit that the excommunication of Fr. Feeney was because of disobedience to his heretical BOD preaching superiors and NOT due to his adherence to the dogma EENS.
I'd like to know what you think of recieving the sacraments from the sspx priest who believes in implicit faith, should we avoid him and stay home? Is he clearly a heretic or simply someone mistaken?
I've received the sacraments from SSPX priests who believe in a BOD and from SSPX priests that do not believe in a BOD, so no, I would not advocate stay at home based on that.
It might be different if promoting salvation without any sacrament at all was the theme or topic of every sermon, or if the vestibule was full of pamphlets preaching salvation without any sacrament at all, if that were the case, then I would seek another priest and my drive would be longer.
If that were the case, I would say there is something seriously wrong with a priest, or any person really, who is so fixated on salvation via no sacrament at all, which is of course, heretical.
I remember what "stay at home" was like back when the TLM was non-existent in my area after they took it away, so personally, I have and will go to great lengths to avoid ever having to go that route again.
-
If you will not hear the Church, there is no much more I can tell you.
Baptism of Desire is de fide. To deny it is heresy. Heresy is a mortal sin and also has the effect of severing one from the body of the Church, meaning that it places one outside the Church.
When the Church reforms, the Pope and the bishops will teach this truth again clearly as they have for a very long time in Church history. I hope that you will hear the Pope and his bishops and accept Catholic teaching. Nothing is worth going to Hell for. Every day that God gives you is another day to embrace all of the Church's teaching and resist the temptation to doubt a point of Faith.
I will pray for you.
What type of "reformed church" are you waiting for.
The "reformed church" you speak of is here, it teaches a BOD, it's popes and bishops teach a BOD - so why do you say "*when* the church reforms" since the "reformed church" you speak of is here now, it already reformed 50 years ago - yet you do not even believe the popes have been popes - you're pretty messed up.
To correct this ailment you have that no sacrament at all is necessary unto salvation, you should repeat the teaching of Trent over and over again all day long until you believe it. Repeat the teaching; "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" until you firmly believe it - do that and you will cease believing the hopeless errors you posted above.
-
When the Church reforms...
That's heresy!
Yes, when the Church reforms, and that is not heresy. I am referring to her human elements, but that should have been obvious: the election of a Pope, filling episcopal vacancies, the enforcing of Her laws, the training of priests, etc.
-
If you will not hear the Church, there is no much more I can tell you.
Baptism of Desire is de fide. To deny it is heresy. Heresy is a mortal sin and also has the effect of severing one from the body of the Church, meaning that it places one outside the Church.
When the Church reforms, the Pope and the bishops will teach this truth again clearly as they have for a very long time in Church history. I hope that you will hear the Pope and his bishops and accept Catholic teaching. Nothing is worth going to Hell for. Every day that God gives you is another day to embrace all of the Church's teaching and resist the temptation to doubt a point of Faith.
I will pray for you.
What type of "reformed church" are you waiting for.
The "reformed church" you speak of is here, it teaches a BOD, it's popes and bishops teach a BOD - so why do you say "*when* the church reforms" since the "reformed church" you speak of is here now, it already reformed 50 years ago - yet you do not even believe the popes have been popes - you're pretty messed up.
To correct this ailment you have that no sacrament at all is necessary unto salvation, you should repeat the teaching of Trent over and over again all day long until you believe it. Repeat the teaching; "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" until you firmly believe it - do that and you will cease believing the hopeless errors you posted above.
For one thing, this movement that you have apparently joined will be dealt with and corrected. Doctrinal criminals will be brought to justice, and heresy will be stopped in its tracks, like it once was.
In the absence if authority, heresy and error have flourished. I urge you to abandon this idea you have embraced and believe Catholic teaching.
-
If you will not hear the Church, there is no much more I can tell you.
Baptism of Desire is de fide. To deny it is heresy. Heresy is a mortal sin and also has the effect of severing one from the body of the Church, meaning that it places one outside the Church.
When the Church reforms, the Pope and the bishops will teach this truth again clearly as they have for a very long time in Church history. I hope that you will hear the Pope and his bishops and accept Catholic teaching. Nothing is worth going to Hell for. Every day that God gives you is another day to embrace all of the Church's teaching and resist the temptation to doubt a point of Faith.
I will pray for you.
What type of "reformed church" are you waiting for.
The "reformed church" you speak of is here, it teaches a BOD, it's popes and bishops teach a BOD - so why do you say "*when* the church reforms" since the "reformed church" you speak of is here now, it already reformed 50 years ago - yet you do not even believe the popes have been popes - you're pretty messed up.
To correct this ailment you have that no sacrament at all is necessary unto salvation, you should repeat the teaching of Trent over and over again all day long until you believe it. Repeat the teaching; "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" until you firmly believe it - do that and you will cease believing the hopeless errors you posted above.
For one thing, this movement that you have apparently joined will be dealt with and corrected. Doctrinal criminals will be brought to justice, and heresy will be stopped in its tracks, like it once was.
In the absence if authority, heresy and error have flourished. I urge you to abandon this idea you have embraced and believe Catholic teaching.
The ones you accuse of being doctrinal criminals are the same ones preaching salvation is attainable without any sacrament at all - the exact same thing you preach. This makes you one of the doctrinal criminals - agreed?
You say that to reject the idea that salvation is attainable without any sacrament at all, is heresy, you even say the Church teaches that salvation is indeed attainable without any sacrament at all - but the only church that certainly teaches such heresy is the NO church - yet you are waiting for the church to reform so it can infallibly declare the heresy that salvation without any sacrament at all is a teaching of the Church. :facepalm:
Like I said, repeat the teaching of Trent; "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" - repeat it over and over again throughout the day until you believe it. Once you believe it, you'll be able to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation rather than defend the error that no sacrament at all is necessary unto salvation - until then, you will remain messed up.
-
The ones you accuse of being doctrinal criminals are the same ones preaching salvation is attainable without any sacrament at all - the exact same thing you preach. This makes you one of the doctrinal criminals - agreed?
No, Catholics must believe Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire can substitute for the sacrament, thus fulfilling its necessity. To reject Baptism of Desire is a heresy, and if done knowingly will separate you from the Catholic Church.
St. Alphonsus taught:
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church (18th century): Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "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 of 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.'"
Stubborn wrote:
You say that to reject the idea that salvation is attainable without any sacrament at all, is heresy, you even say the Church teaches that salvation is indeed attainable without any sacrament at all - but the only church that certainly teaches such heresy is the NO church - yet you are waiting for the church to reform so it can infallibly declare the heresy that salvation without any sacrament at all is a teaching of the Church. :facepalm:
No, it is not heresy. The teaching of the Church is clear, that the sacraments or the desire for them are necessary for salvation. You accept the first, but reject the second. Both must be believed.
Stubborn wrote:
Like I said, repeat the teaching of Trent; "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" - repeat it over and over again throughout the day until you believe it. Once you believe it, you'll be able to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation rather than defend the error that no sacrament at all is necessary unto salvation - until then, you will remain messed up.
The sacraments are necessary for salvation, in fact or in desire. The Council of Trent and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium has spoken. You must believe this teaching. To reject it is to place your own salvation into peril.
One last thing, some doctrines are harder to accept than others, but Catholics are not free to reject those which they find difficult. You seem to be having a hard time with this teaching, so why not just trust the Church, and just believe. Many others who claim to be Catholics are finding it hard to accept Church teaching on contraception, the indissolubility of marriage, the real presence, etc., but they are not free to disagree with the Church.
Catholics are not allowed to cherry pick which doctrines appeal to them, they must believe everything that the Church teaches. The teaching of the Church is not a menu that you can pick what appeals to you, you must accept everything and reject not one iota.
-
We have reduced the doctrine of exclusive salvation as found in the Catholic church to a meaningless formula.
This is certainly a proper subject for the Crisis in the Church forum.
The whole of the Vatican II revolution is based upon the corruption of this doctrine. It all stands upon the de-legitimization of the Dogma.
Father Leonard Feeney was more right in his assessment than he could ever
have imagined.
-
No, Catholics must believe Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire can substitute for the sacrament, thus fulfilling its necessity. To reject Baptism of Desire is a heresy, and if done knowingly will separate you from the Catholic Church.
Not even the SSPX goes this far. In fact, there are written agreements between Bishop Fellay and Feeneyite groups, which allow the latter to receive the Sacraments, the Holy Eucharist in particular, at SSPX chapels. The Holy Eucharist is, of course, the Sacrament of Unity.
-
Stubborn wrote:
Like I said, repeat the teaching of Trent; "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" - repeat it over and over again throughout the day until you believe it. Once you believe it, you'll be able to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation rather than defend the error that no sacrament at all is necessary unto salvation - until then, you will remain messed up.
The sacraments are necessary for salvation, in fact or in desire.
You blind yourself because Trent never adds any exception. The sacraments are necessary unto salvation - period. Whoever says otherwise is anathema.
YOU add "in fact or in desire" then claim the error is a part of Trent's teaching same as Cushing did, but in fact, Trent allowed for zero exceptions so read what is written without adding your own misinterpretations.
I asked you before and will ask you again to try hard as you can to stop doing that. Better that you repeat the teaching of Trent continuously as I suggested until you believe what Trent teaches than to add provisos and exceptions then claim these exceptions are a teaching of Trent.
A BOD is no sacrament at all, you say salvation is attainable without any sacrament at all - but Trent says that the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation. If you always remember this simple truth, you will abandon your whole error of a BOD, especially when combined with repeating Trent's teaching till you believe it.
-
No, Catholics must believe Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire can substitute for the sacrament, thus fulfilling its necessity. To reject Baptism of Desire is a heresy, and if done knowingly will separate you from the Catholic Church.
I tell you what - you be the guy defending the idea that salvation is attainable without any sacrament at all and I'll be the guy defending the teaching of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation.
:facepalm:
-
No, Catholics must believe Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire can substitute for the sacrament, thus fulfilling its necessity. To reject Baptism of Desire is a heresy, and if done knowingly will separate you from the Catholic Church.
I tell you what - you be the guy defending the idea that salvation is attainable without any sacrament at all and I'll be the guy defending the teaching of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation.
:facepalm:
This is what I mean about these people who start to deny one teaching of the Church, they begin make up stuff.
Show me where anyone said salvation is attainable without any sacraments at all, except for YOUR POPE FRANCIS, that is.
-
No, Catholics must believe Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire can substitute for the sacrament, thus fulfilling its necessity. To reject Baptism of Desire is a heresy, and if done knowingly will separate you from the Catholic Church.
I tell you what - you be the guy defending the idea that salvation is attainable without any sacrament at all and I'll be the guy defending the teaching of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation.
:facepalm:
The Church teaching is clear, the sacraments are necessary, meaning that they are not optional, but this does not negate Baptism of Desire as you falsely assert.
Baptism of Desire is a substitute for the sacrament of Baptism. This teaching is de fide.
-
Stubborn wrote:
Like I said, repeat the teaching of Trent; "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" - repeat it over and over again throughout the day until you believe it. Once you believe it, you'll be able to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation rather than defend the error that no sacrament at all is necessary unto salvation - until then, you will remain messed up.
The sacraments are necessary for salvation, in fact or in desire.
You blind yourself because Trent never adds any exception. The sacraments are necessary unto salvation - period. Whoever says otherwise is anathema.
YOU add "in fact or in desire" then claim the error is a part of Trent's teaching same as Cushing did, but in fact, Trent allowed for zero exceptions so read what is written without adding your own misinterpretations.
I asked you before and will ask you again to try hard as you can to stop doing that. Better that you repeat the teaching of Trent continuously as I suggested until you believe what Trent teaches than to add provisos and exceptions then claim these exceptions are a teaching of Trent.
A BOD is no sacrament at all, you say salvation is attainable without any sacrament at all - but Trent says that the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation. If you always remember this simple truth, you will abandon your whole error of a BOD, especially when combined with repeating Trent's teaching till you believe it.
You are wrong. The Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire, as noted by St. Alphonsus and many other theologians.
The Council of Trent taught:
Decree on Justification, Session VI, Chapter 4: "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
Session VII, Concerning the Sacraments in General, Canon 4 (Denz 847): "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
-
We have reduced the doctrine of exclusive salvation as found in the Catholic church to a meaningless formula.
This is certainly a proper subject for the Crisis in the Church forum.
The whole of the Vatican II revolution is based upon the corruption of this doctrine. It all stands upon the de-legitimization of the Dogma.
Father Leonard Feeney was more right in his assessment than he could ever
have imagined.
Father Feeney's teaching was corrected by the Holy Office and was erroneous.
So long as he stuck to defending EENS, he was a hero, when he turned and began attacking Baptism of Desire, he got off track. It's an unfortunate event in Church history.
-
No, Catholics must believe Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire can substitute for the sacrament, thus fulfilling its necessity. To reject Baptism of Desire is a heresy, and if done knowingly will separate you from the Catholic Church.
Not even the SSPX goes this far. In fact, there are written agreements between Bishop Fellay and Feeneyite groups, which allow the latter to receive the Sacraments, the Holy Eucharist in particular, at SSPX chapels. The Holy Eucharist is, of course, the Sacrament of Unity.
IMO, the SSPX is caught in a logical nightmare. Since the SBC is recognized by the Vatican II church, it puts them in an impossible situation. Can Bp. Fellay put himself above the Pope?
It may also be that Bp. Fellay is giving the SBC folks the benefit of the doubt that they may not be culpable due to their ignorance. I tend to support this interpretation personally, and have often believed that Baptism of Desire deniers should be allowed to receive Holy Communion, so long as they are not obviously pertinacious.
I think many of them think they are defending the Teaching of the Church, and are operating under an invincible ignorance as the lawful authorities of the Church have not censured them yet, and their minds are closed due to the persuasive propaganda of their sect.
When a Pope comes again, he will deal with them authoritatively, and at that point ignorance will no longer excuse them. "He who hears you, hears me."
-
The problem I see is, "they" BOD deniers think that God lives in a time zone.
They don't realize the BOD is ONLY when there is NO time to receive the Sacraments. Of course, we are all obligated to receive the Sacraments, but sometime things happen to people they have no control over, they die; without warning. Yes, good people, with good intentions do at times die.
Do they even consider how many catechism books the definition of Baptism of Desire is written about?
-
They don't realize the BOD is ONLY when there is NO time to receive the Sacraments. Of course, we are all obligated to receive the Sacraments, but sometime things happen to people they have no control over, they die; without warning. Yes, good people, with good intentions do at times die.
Nevermind that is the Lord the giver and taker of life :rolleyes:.
A person cannot just die before it is his time. God allows a person to die according to His Divine Providence.
If someone dies before receiving the Sacraments needed for Salvation is because God knew that this person had bad will and would have not accepted God's grace.
If God knew that a soul has good will, the right disposition and seek Him truly, he would send an angel if necessary, to proclaim the Gospel to that person and grant the Sacraments required for salvation. Water baptism being the very first one.
-
Those whom God has known all from eternity will be saved cannot be snatched from His hands and the Salvation unto which they are destined.
There is no unforeseen death under God, and those who fail to do what God has commanded and reject the graces and helps which he provides to all men, are lost.
-
A person can not just die before it is his/her time, so why then is murder a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance: murder (Gn 4:10).
Maybe because it interferes with God's plan?
Sounds like your theory leaves it wide open for judgement of souls. By that I mean, if your loved one was scheduled to be water Baptized on Sunday, but has a stroke on Saturday, and dies, you can with no doubt say, "Oh well my loved one just fell into Hell, I guess he/she was of bad will".
:scared2:
-
Those whom God has known all from eternity will be saved cannot be snatched from His hands and the Salvation unto which they are destined.
There is no unforeseen death under God, and those who fail to do what God has commanded and reject the graces and helps which he provides to all men, are lost.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent taught:
"...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."
-
No, Catholics must believe Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire can substitute for the sacrament, thus fulfilling its necessity. To reject Baptism of Desire is a heresy, and if done knowingly will separate you from the Catholic Church.
I tell you what - you be the guy defending the idea that salvation is attainable without any sacrament at all and I'll be the guy defending the teaching of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation.
:facepalm:
This is what I mean about these people who start to deny one teaching of the Church, they begin make up stuff.
Show me where anyone said salvation is attainable without any sacraments at all, except for YOUR POPE FRANCIS, that is.
You are among the people who denying a Church teaching - or do you now claim that a BOD is a sacrament?
No, of course not. A BOD is No Sacrament At All (NSAA)
You preach a BOD saves. You therefore preach salvation is attainable without any sacrament at all. You are as much of a NSAAer as the pope - and you won't even admit it.
Instead of calling it a BOD, all BODers should start calling it what it actually is, NSAA. You are among the NSAAers because you preach salvation is possible with NSAA.
-
No, Catholics must believe Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire can substitute for the sacrament, thus fulfilling its necessity. To reject Baptism of Desire is a heresy, and if done knowingly will separate you from the Catholic Church.
I tell you what - you be the guy defending the idea that salvation is attainable without any sacrament at all and I'll be the guy defending the teaching of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation.
:facepalm:
The Church teaching is clear, the sacraments are necessary, meaning that they are not optional, but this does not negate Baptism of Desire as you falsely assert.
Baptism of Desire is a substitute for the sacrament of Baptism. This teaching is de fide.
More dishonest, diabolical double talk.
The sacraments are necessary - you say.
They are not optional - you say.
(two steps forward)
NSAA is a substitute for the sacrament of baptism- you say.
(One step backwards)
This teaching is de fide - you say.
:facepalm:
-
You are wrong. The Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire, as noted by St. Alphonsus and many other theologians.
The Council of Trent taught:
Decree on Justification, Session VI, Chapter 4: "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
Session VII, Concerning the Sacraments in General, Canon 4 (Denz 847): "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
So Ambrose,
How is it that you post on a thread about the Church teaching via Benedictus Deus, that we are not permitted to interpret Trent - yet you post interpretations of the infallible canons which is not only in direct contradiction to Benedictus Deus, your misinterpretations themselves contradict the infallible teachings themselves.
You are misinterpreting the canons to teach that the sacrament of Baptism is an "Either / Or" proposition.
Since it's an EITHER ... OR, you're saying that one can be justified by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism even if you don't have the will for it ... which is patently false and reduces the entire infallible teaching (which, btw, is all about the necessity of the sacrament, not about the desire thereof) into a meaningless formula.
-
Those whom God has known all from eternity will be saved cannot be snatched from His hands and the Salvation unto which they are destined.
There is no unforeseen death under God, and those who fail to do what God has commanded and reject the graces and helps which he provides to all men, are lost.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent taught:
"...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."
Not sure which is more sad - the fact that you even dispute that there is no unforeseen death to God, or that you have upthumbs for your effort. I suppose both are equally disappointing.
Again, this teaching you misuse in your effort to demonstrate that there really are unforseen deaths to God, has already been explained to you umpteen times - the fact that you cling to the misuse of this teaching to further the error of salvation via NSAA demonstrates your serious dishonesty.
There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water.
If you do not believe and embrace this truth for what it is, you have no faith at all.
-
I had no doubt that you would set these distortions aright.
The Apostles of sentiment are indeed persistent.
-
The excommunication against Fr. Feeney was lifted on Nov. 22 1972 without his having to retract his literal interpretation of the teaching in salvation outside the Church.Today Saint Benedict Center is in full communion with Rome without having to compromise it's denial of Baptism of "Desire". To say that denying BOD is heretical is plainly silly.
Why would the Church allow that? A more reflective soul can realize that perhaps we should have listened to Fr. Feeney. He was right in his many teachings. Perhaps the great crisis of Faith would have been avoided having paid more attention to the EENS dogma.
-
Why don't you people take all these notes you post here and send them to YOUR pope Francis, he could use your education on NO Salvation OUtside the Church. Francis should hear also that IT IS ONLY THROUGH THE SACRAMENTS that Salvation is necessary, even for atheists, pagans, and non-Catholics to be saved. He seems to have forgotten these teachings. While your at it, tell him how important it is that a divorced person can not marry again and be in good standards with the Church.
Why is it you spend so much energy trying to convince us, but just over look what YOUR pope teaches?
Cantarella says, "Today Saint Benedict Center is in full communion with Rome," are you bragging or complaining about that, I wonder.
Stubborn just keeps repeating the same ol, same ol stuff, as if that is suppose to mean anything.
I think you might do a lot of good if you convert your "pope" before you convert others, maybe if Francis truly became a Catholic pope, and we had a pope, the pope would set you people straight on BOD once and for all.
-
You and the pope both agree that there is salvation without any sacrament at all - do you think we could convert him to believe the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation when even you refuse to believe it?
-
Stubborn, I finally figured out your problem. You can't read! This is why you are so mistaken about BOD, you see things that are not there.
Again...The Sacraments are our gifts from God, and yes, they are so necessary.
Take a deep breath and read slowly, S A C R A M E N T S are necessary for Salvation, so says, the Church. Now tell YOUR POPE that teaching. I have read he not only answers his email, but he might even visit you too.
-
Stubborn, I finally figured out your problem. You can't read! This is why you are so mistaken about BOD, you see things that are not there.
Again...The Sacraments are our gifts from God, and yes, they are so necessary.
Take a deep breath and read slowly, S A C R A M E N T S are necessary for Salvation, so says, the Church. Now tell YOUR POPE that teaching. I have read he not only answers his email, but he might even visit you too.
And can you admit that no one can be saved via a BOD, which is of course, no sacrament at all? (NSAA)
If I can't convince you, what makes you think I'd be able to convince the pope?
-
The fact that Father Feeney was fully reconciled with the Church without being required, as is by Canon Law, to make a formal Abjuration of Heresy, before any reconciliation could have achieved, it is proof that the denial of the theological opinion known as Baptism of "Desire" is not a heresy.
-
The fact that Father Feeney was fully reconciled with the Church without being required, as is by Canon Law, to make a formal Abjuration of Heresy, before any reconciliation could have achieved, it is proof that the denial of the theological opinion known as Baptism of "Desire" is not a heresy.
And to this the sedevacantists would reply: he wasn't reconciled with a true pope, he was reconciled with an anti-pope.
-
The fact that Father Feeney was fully reconciled with the Church without being required, as is by Canon Law, to make a formal Abjuration of Heresy, before any reconciliation could have achieved, it is proof that the denial of the theological opinion known as Baptism of "Desire" is not a heresy.
And to this the sedevacantists would reply: he wasn't reconciled with a true pope, he was reconciled with an anti-pope.
:facepalm:
Once one cross the fine line, every lunacy becomes possible.
-
The 1949 letter was the product of political and ecclesiastical influence and vindictiveness.
Father Feeney was excommunicated for his refusal to go to Rome when summoned.
The long and the short was that he was converting the wrong people, embarrassing a well connected liberal Archbishop, and most importantly he took to publically preaching against the Jews.
Just like Father Coughlin before him, (who was silenced by then Cardinal Pacelli), who was removed from public ministry for offending the children of Judah, when Father Feeney hit his stride in exposing Jєωιѕн perfidy and subversions, the crying and gnashing were heard in the Vatican and the rest is history. Another Catholic priest broken and put away leaving the faithful and all who would have listened to the wolves and precursors of Vatican II and the great and present apostasy.
Pius XII tried to close the gate in Humani Generis, but it was already far too late.
-
Father Feeney's teaching was corrected by the Holy Office and was erroneous.
So long as he stuck to defending EENS, he was a hero, when he turned and began attacking Baptism of Desire, he got off track. It's an unfortunate event in Church history.
How can anyone "stick" to defending the dogma EENS and leave a BOD out of it? Do you even realize that you just admitted that to defend the dogma EENS is to "go off track" and "an unfortunate event"?
Here, this below may as well be you posting this double talk, hopefully this heretical snip is clear enough to show the ridiculousness of your own thinking..........
36. Based on what has been said, no one can obtain salvation from Christ unless they do so through the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the visible Body of Christ. (C.C.C. # 846) For it is through the Sacraments of the Holy Catholic Church that is found the fullness of the grace of God that is absolutely necessary for salvation. Through faith in Christ and the Sacrament of Baptism, the believer receives his new heart, his new spirit and the indwelling Holy Spirit, all these being necessary to manifest a living faith in Christ prior to partaking in the Sacraments of Confession and the Holy Eucharist.
It should be noted that although the fullness of the means of salvation is only found through the Holy Catholic Church, there are exceptions where non-Catholics can obtain their salvation. These include Baptism of desire, Baptism of Blood and the death of catechumens prior to their baptism. Also, infants of other Christian faiths who die after having been baptized, and who have not reached the age of reason (age 8), are considered to be saved. For further details, please see the course, "Salvation and the Catholic Church."
The only difference between this heresy and the one you preach, is that at least this NO guy comes right out and admits he is making up exceptions, where as you cling to your story of the exceptions being de fide.
-
Father Feeney's teaching was corrected by the Holy Office and was erroneous.
If you look more closely you will see that it was Archbishop Cushing's heresy that was being protected against Father Feeney's inconvenient exposition of Catholic doctrine.
-
No, Catholics must believe Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire can substitute for the sacrament, thus fulfilling its necessity. To reject Baptism of Desire is a heresy, and if done knowingly will separate you from the Catholic Church.
Not even the SSPX goes this far. In fact, there are written agreements between Bishop Fellay and Feeneyite groups, which allow the latter to receive the Sacraments, the Holy Eucharist in particular, at SSPX chapels. The Holy Eucharist is, of course, the Sacrament of Unity.
IMO, the SSPX is caught in a logical nightmare. Since the SBC is recognized by the Vatican II church, it puts them in an impossible situation. Can Bp. Fellay put himself above the Pope?
It may also be that Bp. Fellay is giving the SBC folks the benefit of the doubt that they may not be culpable due to their ignorance. I tend to support this interpretation personally, and have often believed that Baptism of Desire deniers should be allowed to receive Holy Communion, so long as they are not obviously pertinacious.
I think many of them think they are defending the Teaching of the Church, and are operating under an invincible ignorance as the lawful authorities of the Church have not censured them yet, and their minds are closed due to the persuasive propaganda of their sect.
When a Pope comes again, he will deal with them authoritatively, and at that point ignorance will no longer excuse them. "He who hears you, hears me."
Well-stated, as are all your other posts on this thread. I believe in this regard our Lord well say "Well done good and faithful servant."
-
Ambrose,
I think many of them think they are defending the Teaching of the Church, and are operating under an invincible ignorance as the lawful authorities of the Church have not censured them yet, and their minds are closed due to the persuasive propaganda of their sect.
When a Pope comes again, he will deal with them authoritatively, and at that point ignorance will no longer excuse them. "He who hears you, hears me."
Well, while you are free to propose your opinions and prognostications and as fact, it is much more likely that a Pope coming, will reaffirm the immutable dogmas of the Church and deal authoritatively with the speculations and naturalism which challenge them.
-
Ambrose,
I think many of them think they are defending the Teaching of the Church, and are operating under an invincible ignorance as the lawful authorities of the Church have not censured them yet, and their minds are closed due to the persuasive propaganda of their sect.
When a Pope comes again, he will deal with them authoritatively, and at that point ignorance will no longer excuse them. "He who hears you, hears me."
Well, while you are free to propose your opinions and prognostications and as fact, it is much more likely that a Pope coming, will reaffirm the immutable dogmas of the Church and deal authoritatively with the speculations and naturalism which challenge them.
When a true Pope cones again, he will reaffirm Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Desire. The Church cannot contradict itself.
The next Pope will pick up where Pope Pius XII left off...
-
Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel necessary for all men, without exception, for salvation.
This is DE FIDE teaching stated in the Council of Trent.
The Cathechism of Trent gives the exact time water Baptism became obligatory on all men for salvation, with no exceptions. It states that: "from the time of Our Lord's Ascension into Heaven, it was then obligatory by law to be baptised for all those who weere to be saved".
Trent Canon 2 on Baptism (see my signature) actually anathemized those who say that water is to be understood methaphorically or find any "substitute" for water or turn real and true "water" into a "figure of speech".
Baptism of Desire is a clever denial of God's Own Word. That is exactly what Modernism promotes, a reinterpretation of the Word of God. The Devil always uses this approach since the beginning of time. He mocks God's word by explaining in a different sense what God clearly established it.
It is a sad fact that with all the statements of Scripture and solemn definitive pronouncements of the Church, there are still those who promote BOD and thus take advantage of the less informed, vulnerable souls that have sucuмbed to the modernist heresy and its misguided sentimentalism.
-
It would be wonderful that the next Pope, in being loyal to the Catholic Faith, would solemnly condemn Baptism of Desire for once and for all, even for cathechumens (which was the original opinion about), so there would not be further misinterprations that can be abused by the enemies of the Church.
-
Cantarella, my advice to you is you should be more concerned about all the heresy and Modernism YOUR POPE is teaching the world today! Yet, you call him a POPE?
-
Ambrose,
The next Pope will pick up where Pope Pius XII left off...
Indeed!
Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.
-
Ambrose,
The next Pope will pick up where Pope Pius XII left off...
Indeed!
Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.
And I believe every word of that, which by the way has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire.
-
Ambrose,
The next Pope will pick up where Pope Pius XII left off...
Indeed!
Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.
And I believe every word of that, which by the way has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire.
It has EVERYTHING to do with it since water baptism is the only entrance, (established by Christ Lord, under the New Law) to the membership of the Church. Nobody belongs to the Church, that is the Body of Christ, who alone enters Heaven, until he / she has been validly baptized (this is with water and the word).
No water baptism, no Heaven.
-
Heretics, NO Heaven.
-
Cantarella, my advice to you is you should be more concerned about all the heresy and Modernism YOUR POPE is teaching the world today! Yet, you call him a POPE?
I'd like to know what that says about you Mryna, when you say the pope teaches the same heresy you profess - namely, salvation without any sacrament at all.
Ambrose is waiting for a pope who teaches salvation via NSAA just like you, when in fact, we already have one that teaches it, yet you call him a heretic for it. How does that make any sense at all?
-
Cantarella, my advice to you is you should be more concerned about all the heresy and Modernism YOUR POPE is teaching the world today! Yet, you call him a POPE?
I'd like to know what that says about you Mryna, when you say the pope teaches the same heresy you profess - namely, salvation without any sacrament at all.
Ambrose is waiting for a pope who teaches salvation via NSAA just like you, when in fact, we already have one that teaches it, yet you call him a heretic for it. How does that make any sense at all?
No, I am not waiting for a Pope to teach this, Baptism of Desire is already settled, the Church has already taught it.
I am only waiting for the next Pope teach the Feeneyites and Dimond followers so they will stop professing heresy and error against the Faith.
When the Pope intervenes, there will be order again, and this heresy will come to an end. Those that will not submit will then go their own way into a sect formally outside the Church. I hope for your sake that you will submit and obey the Pope when he reaffirms Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Desire.
-
Ambrose,
I hope for your sake that you will submit and obey the Pope when he reaffirms Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Desire.
Nothing to worry about, there is always implicit submission by desire.
-
I'd like to know what that says about you Mryna, when you say the pope teaches the same heresy you profess - namely, salvation without any sacrament at all.
Ambrose is waiting for a pope who teaches salvation via NSAA just like you, when in fact, we already have one that teaches it, yet you call him a heretic for it. How does that make any sense at all?
Again, you either can't read, or you don't understand what words mean, or you are just a deliberate liar about what I believe. May God have mercy on your soul, and the soul of others here and everywhere who ignore Church teachings. We live in a time when the Chair of Peter is empty, but we have all the encyclicals and traditions of a True Pope to adhere to. We better hang on to every word including the Mercy of God, and Our Blessed Mother, the White Lily of the Holy Trinity.
-
Ambrose,
I hope for your sake that you will submit and obey the Pope when he reaffirms Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Desire.
Nothing to worry about, there is always implicit submission by desire.
Will you plead that at your judgment before God?
-
Ambrose,
I hope for your sake that you will submit and obey the Pope when he reaffirms Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Desire.
Nothing to worry about, there is always implicit submission by desire.
Will you plead that at your judgment before God?
I shall not have to.....remember invincible ignorance..........
-
Ambrose is waiting for a pope who teaches salvation via NSAA just like you, when in fact, we already have one that teaches it, yet you call him a heretic for it. How does that make any sense at all?
Correct.
BOD is the loophole the modernists have used to justify Invincible Ignorance and Universal Salvation. All conciliar Popes have adhered to this heresy anyway.
-
Cantarella, my advice to you is you should be more concerned about all the heresy and Modernism YOUR POPE is teaching the world today! Yet, you call him a POPE?
I'd like to know what that says about you Mryna, when you say the pope teaches the same heresy you profess - namely, salvation without any sacrament at all.
Ambrose is waiting for a pope who teaches salvation via NSAA just like you, when in fact, we already have one that teaches it, yet you call him a heretic for it. How does that make any sense at all?
No, I am not waiting for a Pope to teach this, Baptism of Desire is already settled, the Church has already taught it.
I am only waiting for the next Pope teach the Feeneyites and Dimond followers so they will stop professing heresy and error against the Faith.
When the Pope intervenes, there will be order again, and this heresy will come to an end. Those that will not submit will then go their own way into a sect formally outside the Church. I hope for your sake that you will submit and obey the Pope when he reaffirms Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Desire.
You already have your pope who intervenes for you - he and his concilliar mob all live and preach that salvation awaits everybody without any sacrament at all - same as you.
So again, what is it that you are waiting for?
You seem to think that a holy pope will come along and set the world straight and solemnly declare that there indeed is salvation without any sacrament at all - yet the reality is that can never happen because the Church has already defined, decreed and infallibly teaches that salvation is impossible without the sacrament of baptism.
Because you deny the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, you think that a holy pope will agree with you - but the truth is that you have the kind of pope who agrees with you, but because admitting that truth would screw up your whole charade, you keep saying you will wait for a holy pope to teach the same heresy as the NO popes teach.
Again, that does not even make any sense at all.
-
I'd like to know what that says about you Mryna, when you say the pope teaches the same heresy you profess - namely, salvation without any sacrament at all.
Ambrose is waiting for a pope who teaches salvation via NSAA just like you, when in fact, we already have one that teaches it, yet you call him a heretic for it. How does that make any sense at all?
Again, you either can't read, or you don't understand what words mean, or you are just a deliberate liar about what I believe. May God have mercy on your soul, and the soul of others here and everywhere who ignore Church teachings. We live in a time when the Chair of Peter is empty, but we have all the encyclicals and traditions of a True Pope to adhere to. We better hang on to every word including the Mercy of God, and Our Blessed Mother, the White Lily of the Holy Trinity.
I'm not the liar - YOU ARE.
1) You preach salvation via a BOD. TRUE
2) All the concilliar popes live and preach salvation via a BOD. TRUE
3) You KNOW that a BOD is No Sacrament At All. TRUE
4) You preach salvation via No Sacrament At All. TRUE
5) The entire NO and all the concilliar popes preach salvation via No Sacrament At All. TRUE
You keep saying that I'm the deliberate liar Myrna, but it is you who cannot admit the truth even when it is absolutely indisputable - so please admit your false accusation and admit you are wrong - or reply with which one of my above 5 indisputable truths do you say is a deliberate lie?