Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 19

Author Topic: BoD and justification  (Read 34916 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 4750
  • Reputation: +2897/-667
  • Gender: Male
Re: BoD and justification
« Reply #135 on: September 06, 2023, 08:07:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Yep, every single theologian missed that for 450 years. Luckily you people came along and straightened out the mess! 

    I’m done with this nonsense. :facepalm:
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #136 on: September 06, 2023, 08:11:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Sorry for my sarcasm, but I’m really bothered by the amount of self trust in some of the posters here.
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline In Principio

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 48
    • Reputation: +32/-3
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #137 on: September 06, 2023, 08:35:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: AnthonyPadua on September 05, 2023, 07:01:29 PM
    ...
    If Trent really taught BoD then the theologian who attended and spoke at Trent would have mentioned it. Instead he disproves it.
    Quote from: In Principio on September 05, 2023, 10:54:02 PM
    If a theologian who attended and spoke at Trent taught that the council taught BOD, would it affect your view?
    Quote from: AnthonyPadua on September 05, 2023, 11:36:01 PM
    No because I cannot put anything fallible above an infallible statement (Pope Siricius). There is much more evidence against BoD than for it.

    I understand your point, I could have worded my previous statement better.

    Either you or the theologian at the council would be misunderstanding infallible statements.  Who is more likely to have misunderstood what the council's infallible statements meant; you or the theologian that was there and participating in it?
    Logged
     "The faithful should obey the apostolic advice not to know more than is necessary, but to know in moderation." - Pope Clement XIII, In Dominico Agro (1761) 

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2533
    • Reputation: +1302/-281
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #138 on: September 06, 2023, 08:40:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 06, 2023, 08:11:13 AM
    Sorry for my sarcasm, but I’m really bothered by the amount of self trust in some of the posters here.
    Unbelievable.

    Please really consider the facts;

    1. Pope Siricius' infallible statement
    2. Aut despite being translated as or means both and or (as shown by Pope Leo the Great and scripture)
    3. St Alphonsus and many others contradicting Trent on initial justification
    4. Saints and theologians being wrong for 700 years regarding unbaptised infants going to hell
    5. The lack of clear positive definitions on BoD
    6. The unsoundness of BoD as a doctrine

    Honestly 1. should be enough for any Catholic as infallibility is to be understood as TRUTH. However considering how much brainwashing BoD has around it the other information is good supporting evidence.


    Also I forgot to mention. That most Fathers did not teach BoD and many even rejected it, so BoD doesn't have patristic support.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47124
    • Reputation: +27928/-5206
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #139 on: September 06, 2023, 08:43:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 06, 2023, 08:11:13 AM
    Sorry for my sarcasm, but I’m really bothered by the amount of self trust in some of the posters here.

    That's fine, but my point is that you just keep posting "450 years" and "St. Alphonsus".  We know all this and don't need to see it with every post.  Perhaps try your hand at rebutting the arguments we've made about how Trent should be read.  St. Alphonsus isn't infallible, and he made some obvious mistakes about BoD / BoB, especially in his theory that temporal punishment can remain after justification by BoD.  If I believed in BoD, I would have to reject this theory because of Trent's clear teaching that there can be no initial justification without rebirth, and then defining rebirth as being in a state where nothing remains that would impede one's entry into Heaven.

    So if you want to refute the arguments made, go ahead, but it's becoming tiresome to see "450 years" and "St. Alphonsus" on every post.  I could just post all the quotations from the anti-BoD Church Fathers, St. Siricius, etc. with every one of my posts also.
    Logged

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2533
    • Reputation: +1302/-281
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #140 on: September 06, 2023, 08:43:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: In Principio on September 06, 2023, 08:35:02 AM
    Either you or the theologian at the council would be misunderstanding infallible statements.  Who is more likely to have misunderstood what the council's infallible statements meant; you or the theologian that was there and participating in it?
    Yet St Peter who was there taught against it in his catechism...

    Regardless of how theologians think and interpret things we must all hold to infallibility as above all else in regards with what to believe.

    Pope Siricius' statement is more than enough for me, everything else is just icing on the cake.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47124
    • Reputation: +27928/-5206
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #141 on: September 06, 2023, 08:48:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: AnthonyPadua on September 06, 2023, 08:40:31 AM
    Unbelievable.

    Please really consider the facts;

    1. Pope Siricius' infallible statement
    2. Aut despite being translated as or means both and or (as shown by Pope Leo the Great and scripture)
    3. St Alphonsus and many others contradicting Trent on initial justification
    4. Saints and theologians being wrong for 700 years regarding unbaptised infants going to hell
    5. The lack of clear positive definitions on BoD
    6. The unsoundness of BoD as a doctrine

    Honestly 1. should be enough for any Catholic as infallibility is to be understood as TRUTH. However considering how much brainwashing BoD has around it the other information is good supporting evidence.

    Right.  This is what I'm talking about.  If Quo wanted to address any of the points above, go for it.  But it's nothing but "450 years" and "St. Alphonsus" peppered with various ad hominems about how we're "self-assured", etc.  If we're wrong, then show where we're wrong.

    You could add the majority of Church Fathers rejecting BoD to your list, and then I always bring up, in addition to point #4 above, where for 1500 years all Catholics believed and the Church taught, that explicit knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for salvation ... and yet some thought it OK to just reject that and introduce the "Rewarder God" innovation.  Rewarder God was also rejected by the Holy Office, but these Trad clergy think it's OK to ignore that one but then beat us over the head with so-called "Suprema Haec" (which is suspicious at best and doesn't even appear in AAS).
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47124
    • Reputation: +27928/-5206
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #142 on: September 06, 2023, 08:53:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 06, 2023, 08:07:18 AM
    Yep, every single theologian missed that for 450 years. Luckily you people came along and straightened out the mess!

    I’m done with this nonsense. :facepalm:

    What are you talking about?  As I've pointed out, Father Cekada could only find about 25 or so who even mentioned the subject in the past 450 years, and most of them just mention it in passing.  Apart from St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, there's no serious treatment of the subject out there, and St. Robert Bellarmine's reasoning was based on "it would seem too harsh".  I see ZERO theological proof for BoD anywhere.

    For 700 years EVERY SINGLE THEOLOGIAN "missed" the fact that St. Augustine may have been mistaken about the fate of infants who die without Baptism.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47124
    • Reputation: +27928/-5206
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #143 on: September 06, 2023, 08:58:33 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • If I were Pope, at the very outset, I would order that BoD and BoB are never to be mentioned by Catholics again, and that it be expunged from the works of theologians who opined in favor of it.  Then I would pray and study about condemning it outright.  I would at the very least declare that it was not revealed by Our Lord and due to the harm that the speculation causes (and that no good comes from it), the speculation is to be completely banned.  BoD is pernicious speculation, as it has served no good purpose, and its fruits tell me everything I need to know about it.  Its fruits have been gradual erosion and ultimately outright denial of EENS and ultimately religious indifferentism.  If some Catechumen might be saved this way, then glory be to God, but talking about it serves no good purpose.  As Father Feeney famously pointed out, this BoD theory only helps undermine the possibility that anyone might actually receive BoD, since people become complacent and less ardently desire Baptism, and are content to hope that the desire might save them.  This dovetails with St. Gregory nαzιanzen's rejection of BoD, where he says that the desire for glory is not to be accounted as supplying for glory itself.  So in desiring the desire for Baptism, you're no longer desiring Baptism.

    Please explain the good that has come of BoD.  In fact, if it were not for BoD, there could never have been a Vatican II ... which is why I believe God allowed it, since God willed to allow Vatican II.  It was invented, as St. Augustine admitted, as a consolation to people who knew or were related to Catechumens who died without the Sacrament.  But we don't invent doctrine for consolation purposes.  It's similar to how the Modernists have invented that aborted babies could be saved or that people who commit ѕυιcιdє have good hope of salvation, etc. ... all to "console" people.  Sure, if I tell someone that their relative who committed ѕυιcιdє is "in a better place now," as I heard one NO priest declare at the funeral of a ѕυιcιdє, it might bring some emotional comfort, but then what of the people who hear this and believe it if their lives become miserable?  They might be inspired to go seek that "better place" themselves.  Emotional Comfort is not the Church's primary mission.
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #144 on: September 09, 2023, 03:34:33 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 06, 2023, 07:41:55 AM
    We're not interpreting Trent here, but St. Peter Canisius.

    You gratuitously dismissed it, and you haven't made a single argument about the text of Trent nor attempted to refute the argument I make for the non-BoD reading.

    If you're just going to keep spamming in ... "450 years" and "St. Alphonsus" (who was demonstrated to be in serious error on the matter), then there's really no point in your continuing on the thread.

    We all know St. Alphonsus interpreted Trent a certain way.  I'm arguing about why he was wrong.  If you don't want to attempt to refute that, you're just wasting everyone's time.  Until you have something substantial to post, there's no point in responding to you.

    As for your stupid closing ad hominem, obviously I could be wrong, so prove me wrong.  You simply saying it doesn't make it so.

    "Every theologian and Canonist" barring perhaps the sole exception of a +Guerard des Lauriers all approved of, accepted, and promoted Vatican II also.  So, unless they all somehow defected from the faith before Vatican II, that by itself undercuts your "Cekadist" position.  See, as an SV you claim that pretty much the entire Church could defect outside of a few pockets, all the bishops (minus a number you can count on one hand), theologians (except +des Lauriers) could all universally embrace the errors and heresies of Vatican II.  So what's to stop them from being wrong about a matter of speculative theology?

    It's one contradiction after another from the pro-BoD crowd, and that alone exposes the position as dishonest and motivated by an (anti-EENS) agenda.


    News flash, you aren’t qualified in the least to say that a Saint and Doctor of the Church is wrong unless you have authorities who are *post Trent* to back you up. You base your claim on what *YOU* believe is the correct interpretation of Trent *NOT* based on *ANY* source post Trent. Because of this you are dead from the get go. What bothers me most is the fact you will not recognize that your opinion carries absolutely no weight. My arguments are based on authorities and references, you base your argument on your opinion coupled with pre Trent sources. Do you understand what I am saying?
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2533
    • Reputation: +1302/-281
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #145 on: September 09, 2023, 08:20:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 09, 2023, 03:34:33 PM

    News flash, you aren’t qualified in the least to say that a Saint and Doctor of the Church is wrong unless you have authorities who are *post Trent* to back you up. You base your claim on what *YOU* believe is the correct interpretation of Trent *NOT* based on *ANY* source post Trent. Because of this you are dead from the get go. What bothers me most is the fact you will not recognize that your opinion carries absolutely no weight. My arguments are based on authorities and references, you base your argument on your opinion coupled with pre Trent sources. Do you understand what I am saying?
    Trent - Initial justification leaves no obstacles for entry to heaven
    St. Alphonsus - BoD leaves guilt so a person goes to purgatory

    This contradiction is not hard to see...
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #146 on: September 09, 2023, 08:49:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: AnthonyPadua on September 09, 2023, 08:20:24 PM
    Trent - Initial justification leaves no obstacles for entry to heaven
    St. Alphonsus - BoD leaves guilt so a person goes to purgatory

    This contradiction is not hard to see...

    Please explain to me how it’s remotely possible that this supposed contradiction wasn’t caught until the 21st century by a few laymen? Could it just possibly be that you are mistaken?
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12637
    • Reputation: +8037/-2491
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #147 on: September 09, 2023, 09:09:17 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Please explain to me how it’s remotely possible that this supposed contradiction wasn’t caught until the 21st century by a few laymen?
    Because before the 1800s (which is why the *original* Baltimore catechism didn't mention it, except in later editions), people didn't talk about BOD all that much.  Since then, people starting fixating on BOD and the liberals of the day used the idea to push sentimental salvation for American protestants and "good willed indians".  The pre-Modernists in the Church (who had already started infiltrating Her ranks, 50+ years before the early 1900s when Pope St Pius X exclaimed that the Church was "filled with wolves"), used BOD to water down EENS, in preparation for their planned V2, which almost happened with Pope Pius IX in the late 1800s (but who converted from liberalism after his election...which is why he was imprisoned by the masons).  And again, except for Pope St Pius X's miraculous election, we would've had V2 and its "universal salvation" heresies in the early 1900s.

    The preparation for V2 started in the 1800s, right after the French Revolution in 1789 kicked off the wave of marxism all over Europe.  The common notion of BOD (except for the *very strict* theory for formal catechumens) is pelagianism and a precursor to V2's errors.
    Logged

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2533
    • Reputation: +1302/-281
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #148 on: September 10, 2023, 03:15:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Just happened to chance (God's will/providence) upon this 2019 article from the dimonds.

    https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/all-true-justice-trent-refuting-baptism-of-desire/

    Council of Trent, Sess. 7,
    Proem.

    For the completion of the salutary doctrine on Justification, which was promulgated with the unanimous consent of the Fathers in the last preceding Session, it hath seemed suitable to treat of the most holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired.



    Quote
    This is one of the many arguments that refute the false position of ‘baptism of desire’.  The Council of Trent here declares that all true justice (sanctifying grace) either begins or is increased or is restored at the sacraments.  This means that all true justice must be at least one of the three: begun at the sacraments, increased at the sacraments or restored at the sacraments.


    Quote
    But ‘baptism of desire’ is not a sacrament, as its proponents typically admit.  Thus, the ‘baptism of desire’ theory is that some people can have a true justice (sanctifying grace) that is 1) not begun at the sacraments, but before; and 2) not increased at the sacraments (since the person dies before getting to the sacraments); and 3) not restored at the sacraments (for the same reason as # 2).  Therefore, the ‘baptism of desire’ theory posits a true justice that is neither begun nor increased nor restored at the sacraments.  Such an idea is contrary to the above statement of Trent.  Hence, the ‘justice’ posited by the theory of ‘baptism of desire’ cannot be true justice.  ‘Baptism of desire’ is a false doctrine.


    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47124
    • Reputation: +27928/-5206
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #149 on: September 10, 2023, 06:41:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 09, 2023, 08:49:49 PM
    Please explain to me how it’s remotely possible that this supposed contradiction wasn’t caught until the 21st century by a few laymen? Could it just possibly be that you are mistaken?

    This is the same nonsense you keep spewing.  You are unable to refute the actual argument and explain why this is wrong, as with every other issue, but you keep pulling the old "hundreds of years" junk.  Nobody questioned St. Augustine's opinion about the fate of infants who died without the Sacrament of Baptism for about 700 years either.

    Of the 25 or so theologians Father Cekada could find who even mention the subject of BoD, more than half simply mention it in passing.  There's absolutely zero time spent or theological analysis of BoD pretty much since St. Robert Bellarmine and then St. Alphonsus.  There's been no time spent or theological "ink" spilled on this subject.

    Instead of these lame posts, address the actual problem here:

    MAJOR:  There can be no initial justification without rebirth (taught by Trent).
    MINOR:  Rebirth puts the soul into a completely pristine state wherein no sin or stain of sin remains that might impede the soul from immediate entry into Heaven (also taught by Trent).
    CONCLUSION.  There's no such thing as an initial justification after which temporal punishment for sin remains.

    In addition, St. Alphonsus cites a letter from Pope Innocent II as contributing to why BoD is de fide.  Well, in another similar letter, Innocent III also states that someone who died in a state of BoD would rush immediately to his heavenly home.  So, by St. Alphonsus' own standards, that opinion would be heretical.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 19
    « previous next »