Author Topic: BODer vs. Feeneyite Debate in Short (Read 9958 times)

Desmond · « **Reply #45 on:** January 08, 2016, 08:14:24 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Pope Pius IX taught that it is an absolute necessity to use the dogmatic decrees to refute error - hence the reason for the question.

And also what MyrnaM peddles is the condemned error of the Jansenists #30.

Binechi · « **Reply #46 on:** January 08, 2016, 08:31:21 AM »

PPXII on Theologians

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (#21, Aug. 12. 1950:

“This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church .”

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26 1749: “The Church s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

==========================================

Pope Pius XII, Allocution at the Gregorian, Oct, 17, 1953 said:

The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but, by divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures and depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation, she alone by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the source of truth.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #47 on:** January 08, 2016, 11:08:19 AM »

Quote from: Desmond

Quote from: Stubborn
Pope Pius IX taught that it is an absolute necessity to use the dogmatic decrees to refute error - hence the reason for the question.

And also what MyrnaM peddles is the condemned error of the Jansenists #30.

Suffice it to say that the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Yes, the Baptism of Water impresses a character and is a Sacrament. Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Furthermore since you all want DOCTRINE, would the Bible satisfy you. We read in Hebrews 6;2 about Baptism it is described as in plural. “of the doctrine of baptismS …”

Stubborn · « **Reply #48 on:** January 08, 2016, 11:44:30 AM »

Quote from: Binechi

PPXII on Theologians

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (#21, Aug. 12. 1950:

“This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church .”

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26 1749: “The Church s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

==========================================

Pope Pius XII, Allocution at the Gregorian, Oct, 17, 1953 said:

The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but, by divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures and depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation, she alone by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the source of truth.

Unfortunately, the BODers reject the authority of dogmatic decrees because the decrees do not agree with their interpretation.

So unless you can supply a saint to interpret the above decrees to agree with their doctrine of salvation via No Sacrament At All, you'll remain just another heretic feeneyite to the BODers.

Desmond · « **Reply #49 on:** January 08, 2016, 11:56:23 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

(...)
Furthermore since you all want DOCTRINE (...)

MyrnaM, I only meant the option of taking a Saint/Doctor (expressely St.Augustine in the condemnation) above the teaching of the Church, only.

Not saying you are wrong or anything.

Quote:

1320 30. When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.

sword of the Spirit · « **Reply #50 on:** January 08, 2016, 12:56:56 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Desmond
Quote from: Stubborn
Pope Pius IX taught that it is an absolute necessity to use the dogmatic decrees to refute error - hence the reason for the question.

And also what MyrnaM peddles is the condemned error of the Jansenists #30.

Suffice it to say that the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Yes, the Baptism of Water impresses a character and is a Sacrament. Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Furthermore since you all want DOCTRINE, would the Bible satisfy you. We read in Hebrews 6;2 about Baptism it is described as in plural. “of the doctrine of baptismS …”

In light of the clear evidence in regards to the DEFINITION of "the grace of baptism" per Trent, MyrnaM read this passage again

Of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. Hebrews 6:2

The plural is used because more than ONE person will be baptized, as with the imposition of hands....

If there were more then one kind of baptism, wouldn't it read Of the doctrine of baptisms' with an apostrophe?

Cantarella · « **Reply #51 on:** January 08, 2016, 02:25:10 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Suffice it to say that the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Yes, the Baptism of Water impresses a character and is a Sacrament. Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Furthermore since you all want DOCTRINE, would the Bible satisfy you. We read in Hebrews 6;2 about Baptism it is described as in plural. “of the doctrine of baptismS …”

Is this what you learn from heretical CMRI?

It is a heresy to say there are "three" Baptisms. There are NOT "three baptisms" and never have been. As St. Paul said it: we have one Faith and one Baptism. We attest to the same thing in the Nicene Creed at every Mass.

The three Baptism lie began in America with the introduction of the the Baltimore Catechism by notorious Americanist Cardinal Gibbons. In 1899 Pope Leo XIII issued his encyclical entitled "Testem Benevolenciae" to correct the errors of "Americanism." You should read this.

Here is a link to it: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm. From the beginning, our American Catholic forefathers were weak and accommodating, starting with Bishop Carroll.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #52 on:** January 08, 2016, 03:00:04 PM »

Cantarella if I agreed with you we would both be wrong.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #53 on:** January 08, 2016, 04:50:32 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: MyrnaM
Furthermore since you all want DOCTRINE, would the Bible satisfy you. We read in Hebrews 6;2 about Baptism it is described as in plural. “of the doctrine of baptismS …”

There is only one Baptism...

Quote from: Saint John Chrysostom, Homily on Hebrews - Discussing 6:2
But what is the doctrine of baptisms? Not as if there were many baptisms, but one only. Why then did he express it in the plural? Because he had said, not laying again a foundation of repentance. For if he again baptized them and catechised them afresh, and having been baptized at the beginning they were again taught what things ought to be done and what ought not, they would remain perpetually incorrigible.

It is not open to them to say, If we live slothfully we will be baptized again, we will be catechised again, we will again receive the Spirit; even if now we fall from the faith, we shall be able again by being baptized, to wash away our sins, and to attain to the same state as before. You are deceived (he says) in supposing these things.

See this link:
http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-plural-of/baptism.html

Stubborn · « **Reply #54 on:** January 08, 2016, 05:03:12 PM »

Commentary by St. Alphonsus Liguori:

Quote

12. The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #55 on:** January 08, 2016, 05:09:21 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Commentary by St. Alphonsus Liguori:

Quote

12. The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)

Well thanks, however know that CMRI does not say that, but YOUR POPE does.

AJNC · « **Reply #56 on:** February 03, 2016, 04:49:21 AM »

Isn't it a bit ironical that a person who is destined to be saved via BOD may sincerely believe that one cannot be saved in the Catholic religion?

Stubborn · « **Reply #57 on:** February 03, 2016, 06:40:27 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Stubborn

Commentary by St. Alphonsus Liguori:

Quote

12. The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)

Well thanks, however know that CMRI does not say that, but YOUR POPE does.

Myrna, fyi, you champion the heresy every single time that you post on the subject that no sacrament is necessary - and hold that man is justified / saved by faith alone, same as all CMRI and BODers - just the exact same as all the conciliar popes.

Desmond · « **Reply #58 on:** February 03, 2016, 09:09:12 AM »

Quote from: AJNC

Isn't it a bit ironical that a person who is destined to be saved via BOD may sincerely believe that one cannot be saved in the Catholic religion?

I think it's just perverse.

The Penny Catechism · « **Reply #59 on:** February 06, 2016, 06:51:41 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

BODers - believes that Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuudists, Hindus, ect can be saved.

Feeneyites – Do not believe that Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect can be saved.

Protestants and E.O. are already Baptized.

Maybe they can be saved via a “True Faith” of desire (T.F.O.D.) as a distinction...albeit unknowingly (aka anonymous Christian)???

Perhaps as long as they’re invincibly ignorant, because if they figure out it happens to be the Catholic Faith; they can’t hold the space too long before they have to actually convert (days? weeks?) or else they’ll lose their status as ‘invincible’ and instead become ‘culpable.’ …Ehhh; never-mind. Crazy times.