Author Topic: BoD and justification (Read 29238 times)

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #45 on:** September 03, 2023, 08:58:27 AM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on September 03, 2023, 08:46:45 AM

Predicting the world will end by certain years isnt false prophecy?

You're twisting the word prophecy. They merely said that they believe that it is possible or likely that the NT Babylonian captivity will last as long as the OT one. Me and Ladislaus also think that a significant event in 2028 is likely because of the 70 years from 1958 and because of Our Lady's wish for the Pope to consecrate Russia which would parallel the French revolution 100 years after the consecration request timeline.

Maybe you could find the exact quote you're referring to if you still want to say they're claiming to actually know the future. Oh and btw, it still hasn't been demonstrated to be false.

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on September 03, 2023, 08:49:51 AM

It's not so much about him being uniquely uncharitable (he's not *that* uncharitable). If anything their followers online are more uncharitable. Though I haven't seen them in a while, either they are avoiding me or are starting to change. Hopefully the later

I'm glad we agree. I find most chronically online Dimond followers insufferable but those I've talked to in real life are quite normal.

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #46 on:** September 03, 2023, 09:00:31 AM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on September 03, 2023, 08:55:51 AM

Also I wish they would sort out their website. They have many useful articles that can only be found by searching, and if you don't know what to search for it can be difficult to find them.

If it was more organised/categorised and had less worldly news it would be a big improvement.

I wish most of the news was deleted from the site. Some materials are quite interesting and good to know but most of it is bothering me while searching just like you.

Actually I checked the latest batch of news and it was all interesting. None of those shootings...

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #47 on:** September 03, 2023, 09:05:59 AM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on September 03, 2023, 08:58:27 AM

You're twisting the word prophecy. They merely said that they believe that it is possible or likely that the NT Babylonian captivity will last as long as the OT one. Me and Ladislaus also think that a significant event in 2028 is likely because of the 70 years from 1958 and because of Our Lady's wish for the Pope to consecrate Russia which would parallel the French revolution 100 years after the consecration request timeline.

Maybe you could find the exact quote you're referring to if you still want to say they're claiming to actually know the future. Oh and btw, it still hasn't been demonstrated to be false.
I'm glad we agree. I find most chronically online Dimond followers insufferable but those I've talked to in real life are quite normal.

I admit I am probably wrong with the 'prophecy' thing, but they should be more careful in their exegesis of revelation.

I have also heard others mention the same thing about the Babylonian captivity. I am keeping eyes peeled and my hands together (in prayer because without God's help my eyes are closed). Who knows what is going to happen next..

I have started to wonder if the dimonds are fully aware about some of their 'fans'.

Stubborn · « **Reply #48 on:** September 03, 2023, 10:04:23 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 03, 2023, 07:19:31 AM

It's a rare thing to find a priest who isn't strongly FOR BoD/BoB. Some are so against it that if they find out you're a "Feeneyite" they'll deny you the Sacraments. There are others who tolerate it provided that you don't "prosletyze" your anti-BoD beliefs.

I'm actually not opposed to BoD/BoB per se. I don't believe in it, but I acknowledge that the Church has permitted the position and even at times seemed to favor it

I don't know about the Church permitting the idea, if anything I would say (imo) she has tolerated it but only to a certain extent, officially she has dogmatically condemned it ex cathedra at Trent referencing John 3:5.

I have softened my view on the idea and do not hold as heretics those who believe in it, except for when they profess it to be a de fide doctrine with a multitude of spam like posts re: LOT in the past, or that website, a bod.com which imo is indeed heretical.

But for all the priests who believe in it, I cannot remember in my lifetime it ever being mentioned in a sermon except maybe once.

I remember stories about sinners who were Catholic and died and went to heaven, not because of a BOD or anything of the sort, but because of something(s) they did whilst they lived that so touched Our Blessed Mother or Our Lord many years prior to their death that God made sure that before they died they went to confession and died in sanctifying grace. I could tell some beautiful stories here, but the jist is, St. Alphonsus et al were made saints in spite of the belief and preachings of a BOD, makes me think the idea is not a mortal sin, or is perhaps only a mortal sin to those obsessed with the idea who use it specifically to defend salvation for those outside of the Church.

Stubborn · « **Reply #49 on:** September 03, 2023, 10:17:34 AM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on September 03, 2023, 07:42:46 AM

Catholics are not supposed to prophercise... it does not help that the dimonds have changed their endtimes predictions multiple times and do not mention the 2 witnesses. It can also blind people to the real anti-christ when he comes, assuming that's in our lifetime.

If the jorge issue was only 1 person then I would not think too much of it, but there have been multiple people who have had bad experiences with their group. If the dimonds would address the issues themselves it would clear a lot of things up. There is also the issue with the so called sock puppet accounts.

They blocked me because I retweeted someone who pointed out that they failed to make the distinction that the Catholic faith is the supernatural faith (given in baptism)..
I have emailed the dimonds very few times. The first time they basically sent me an email package of links to their videos and articles. and for particular questions I got no response, so I assumed in charity that they were busy.

The bruthas should not be prophesying at all, laymen are not commissioned by the Church to preach, neither should they be publishing their theological works in any format whatsoever for the simple reason (which the two of them should be well aware of) that the Church, in her divine wisdom, has never permitted lay people to do any such a thing, least ways not without the nihil obstat and imprimatur of at least one bishop.

Good luck with that, but the bruthas are a fine example of why the Church has never permitted laymen to publish their theological ideas without permission.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #50 on:** September 03, 2023, 10:27:10 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on September 03, 2023, 10:04:23 AM

I don't know about the Church permitting the idea, if anything I would say (imo) she has tolerated it but only to a certain extent, officially she has dogmatically condemned it ex cathedra at Trent referencing John 3:5.

I have softened my view on the idea and do not hold as heretics those who believe in it, except for when they profess it to be a de fide doctrine with a multitude of spam like posts re: LOT in the past, or that website, a bod.com which imo is indeed heretical.

But for all the priests who believe in it, I cannot remember in my lifetime it ever being mentioned in a sermon except maybe once.

I remember stories about sinners who were Catholic and died and went to heaven, not because of a BOD or anything of the sort, but because of something(s) they did whilst they lived that so touched Our Blessed Mother or Our Lord many years prior to their death that God made sure that before they died they went to confession and died in sanctifying grace. I could tell some beautiful stories here, but the jist is, St. Alphonsus et al were made saints in spite of the belief and preachings of a BOD, makes me think the idea is not a mortal sin, or is perhaps only a mortal sin to those obsessed with the idea who use it specifically to defend salvation for those outside of the Church.

Or perhaps it is you who is misunderstanding what the Church teaches about BOD and not St. Alphonsus and every canonized saint, canonist, theologian, and pope for (at least) the last 450 years?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #51 on:** September 03, 2023, 02:10:02 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 03, 2023, 10:27:10 AM

Or perhaps it is you who is misunderstanding what the Church teaches about BOD and not St. Alphonsus and every canonized saint, canonist, theologian, and pope for (at least) the last 450 years?

Church doesn't teach anything about BoD, nor can it, as it's nothing more than sheer speculation, without any foundation in the Deposit of Revelation. Their opining in its favor doesn't supply for the Church's teaching.

Of course, you are the same types who think it's OK to claim that infidels can be saved when every Pope, Father, Doctor, and theologian taught the contrary for 1500 years. Then a Franciscan and some Jesuits come along and it's OK for them to question it? 90% of the SVs who foam at the mouth about Feeneyism being condemned by the Holy Office decision, and yet continue to plod along rejecting geocentrism, when the Holy Office declared the rejection of geocentrism to be proximate to heresy. 90% of the SVs claim that V2 ecclesiology is heretical, while holding the same ecclesiology ... in believing that non-Catholics can be saved (and are therefore in the Church). It's to the point of being ridiculous. Many SVs, while holding that the Church cannot produce a bad or harmful Mass, reject the 1955 Holy Week Rites as ... bad and harmful.

If there's any such thing as BoD, God didn't reveal it. This is the only go-to nonsense of the anti-Feeneyites ... "everyone for 400 years". So what? Everyone for 700 years believed in the erroneous opinion of St. Augustine that unbaptized infants suffered in hell. Until it was first questioned by Abelard, and St. Thomas eventually rejected it as well. Theologians sharing an opinion about a matter does not make it Church teaching, despite Fr. Cekada's nonsense (explicitly rejected by Monsignor Fenton).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #52 on:** September 03, 2023, 02:17:26 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on September 03, 2023, 10:04:23 AM

I don't know about the Church permitting the idea, if anything I would say (imo) she has tolerated it but only to a certain extent, officially she has dogmatically condemned it ex cathedra at Trent referencing John 3:5.

I have softened my view on the idea and do not hold as heretics those who believe in it, except for when they profess it to be a de fide doctrine with a multitude of spam like posts re: LOT in the past, or that website, a bod.com which imo is indeed heretical.

But for all the priests who believe in it, I cannot remember in my lifetime it ever being mentioned in a sermon except maybe once.

I remember stories about sinners who were Catholic and died and went to heaven, not because of a BOD or anything of the sort, but because of something(s) they did whilst they lived that so touched Our Blessed Mother or Our Lord many years prior to their death that God made sure that before they died they went to confession and died in sanctifying grace. I could tell some beautiful stories here, but the jist is, St. Alphonsus et al were made saints in spite of the belief and preachings of a BOD, makes me think the idea is not a mortal sin, or is perhaps only a mortal sin to those obsessed with the idea who use it specifically to defend salvation for those outside of the Church.

We have to keep the two issues somewhat separated, BoD and EENS. It's one thing for someone to hold that a Catechumen who dies before receiving the Sacrament can be saved, or someone else who has the Catholic faith, but quite another thing to use it to gut EENS dogma. It's a speculation, and when properly articulated, doesn't necessarily undermine EENS, nor does it necessarily undermine the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation. St. Robert Bellarmine was very careful to say that catechumens (he limited it to them only) could receive the Sacrament in voto. He would never say that non-catechumens could be saved by BoD nor would he say that the Sacrament isn't necessary, as Trent taught, but that it could be received in a different way. I disagree with him and think that he's wrong, but it's a speculation that doesn't reject any established Church teaching and has not been condemned by the Church. In fact, the Church declared him a Doctor of the Church, which would not have happened if they had found any egregious error in any of his works.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #53 on:** September 03, 2023, 06:29:58 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 03, 2023, 02:10:02 PM

Church doesn't teach anything about BoD, nor can it, as it's nothing more than sheer speculation, without any foundation in the Deposit of Revelation. Their opining in its favor doesn't supply for the Church's teaching.

Saint Alphonsus and nearly every pope, saint, theologian, and canonist (post Trent) disagrees with your interpretation of Trent. I feel *very* secure siding with them and not you.

Of course, you are the same types who think it's OK to claim that infidels can be saved when every Pope, Father, Doctor, and theologian taught the contrary for 1500 years.

Wrong. I firmly believe that Infidels, heathens, heretics, apostates, and Jews cannot be saved, period.

90% of the SVs claim that V2 ecclesiology is heretical, while holding the same ecclesiology ... in believing that non-Catholics can be saved (and are therefore in the Church). It's to the point of being ridiculous.

Not me.

Many SVs, while holding that the Church cannot produce a bad or harmful Mass, reject the 1955 Holy Week Rites as ... bad and harmful.

Not me, again.

You in red, me in black.

In case you missed my previous post, here it is again:

The other option (what I hold to be true and seems to me to be the actual teaching of the Church) is that there is absolutely no salvation outside of the Church AND non-Catholics can not be saved. Those who die *apparently* as non-Catholics actually, at some point before their demise, were incorporated into the Church. Has this ever happened? I don’t know, but if it did, it would be extremely rare. We don’t know what graces God gives at the last hour. As I’ve said before, BOD is reserved only for the catechumen who has been instructed minimally in the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption. We don’t know if the apparent non-Catholic was given instruction by a missionary, an angel, or by self education.

I agree with you that most traditional Catholics (including clergy) at least vocalize the error that non-Catholics can be saved. I don’t think they understand the ramifications entailed by such an erroneous belief.
It seems to me that it’s tantamount to heresy to believe that non-Catholics can be saved, but I think that those (traditional) Catholics who say such a thing, don’t actually believe that and if you were to press them on the position, most would be inclined to understand it in a way that I just described.

trad123 · « **Reply #54 on:** September 03, 2023, 06:46:22 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 03, 2023, 06:29:58 PM

I agree with you that most traditional Catholics (including clergy) at least vocalize the error that non-Catholics can be saved. I don’t think they understand the ramifications entailed by such an erroneous belief.

It seems to me that it’s tantamount to heresy to believe that non-Catholics can be saved, but I think that those (traditional) Catholics who say such a thing, don’t actually believe that and if you were to press them on the position, most would be inclined to understand it in a way that I just described.

I don't know about that, Bishop Fellay for example articulated the salvation of a Hindu in Tibet. There is no understanding from Fellay that such a person needs to cease to practice their Hinduism.

Fellay needs to form a mental image of what a Hindu is. I'm boggled he doesn't see that a Hindu violates the 1st commandment, and that they are inexcusable.

Fellay needs to re-read Romans chapter 1, assuming, I dare say, he ever read it.

If he finally understood it to be someone who offers to idols, then maybe the light bulb would click on in his head, and he would come to realize that a process of conversion is absolutely necessary.

The Hindu, the Muslim, the Jew, the Pagan, needs to cease to be such things and engaging in their particular practices, and turn to the Catholic faith.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #55 on:** September 03, 2023, 08:00:26 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 03, 2023, 10:27:10 AM

Or perhaps it is you who is misunderstanding what the Church teaches about BOD and not St. Alphonsus and every canonized saint, canonist, theologian, and pope for (at least) the last 450 years?

Do you believe that BoD remits sins? I.e it provides spirit rebirth?

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #56 on:** September 03, 2023, 08:02:25 PM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on September 03, 2023, 07:24:05 AM

Honestly, the framing of jorge and other mentally unstable people idolizing the Dimonds totally

I don't think mentally unstable is correct or charitable. Perhaps zealous to the point of blindness? It's understandable when you see how many other trad groups deny BoD/BoB/II... So they get drawn to the dimonds because there is no one else.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #57 on:** September 03, 2023, 08:41:32 PM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on September 03, 2023, 08:00:26 PM

Do you believe that BoD remits sins? I.e it provides spirit rebirth?

I believe what Saint Alphonsus considers de fide. And you?

trad123 · « **Reply #58 on:** September 03, 2023, 08:56:38 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 03, 2023, 08:41:32 PM

I believe what Saint Alphonsus considers de fide. And you?

Have you seen this thread?

Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptism-of-desire-not-defined-dogma-per-theological-consensus/

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #59 on:** September 03, 2023, 09:07:08 PM »

Quote from: trad123 on September 03, 2023, 08:56:38 PM

Have you seen this thread?

Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptism-of-desire-not-defined-dogma-per-theological-consensus/

All I said was that I believe in what *Saint Alphonsus considers* de fide. Regardless of whether it’s de fide or not, all of those listed believe that the Church teaches BOD and none deny it.

Author Topic: BoD and justification (Read 29238 times)

Marulus Fidelis

Re: BoD and justification

Marulus Fidelis

Re: BoD and justification

AnthonyPadua

Re: BoD and justification

Stubborn

Re: BoD and justification

Stubborn

Re: BoD and justification

Quo vadis Domine

Re: BoD and justification

Ladislaus

Re: BoD and justification

Ladislaus

Re: BoD and justification

Quo vadis Domine

Re: BoD and justification

trad123

Re: BoD and justification

AnthonyPadua

Re: BoD and justification

AnthonyPadua

Re: BoD and justification

Quo vadis Domine

Re: BoD and justification

trad123

Re: BoD and justification

Quo vadis Domine

Re: BoD and justification