Author Topic: Catholic (vs. Heretical) Baptism of Desire (Read 16474 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #150 on:** August 18, 2014, 08:42:59 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

They prey on innocent unsuspecting Catholics.

You've always been a self-righteous sanctimonious hypocrite, Ambrose.

Ambrose · « **Reply #151 on:** August 18, 2014, 10:39:41 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
They prey on innocent unsuspecting Catholics.

You've always been a self-righteous sanctimonious hypocrite, Ambrose.

Don't get a job at Hallmark.

Alcuin · « **Reply #152 on:** August 19, 2014, 12:49:11 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Ambrose
They prey on innocent unsuspecting Catholics.

You've always been a self-righteous sanctimonious hypocrite, Ambrose.

Don't get a job at Hallmark.

Is that where you work?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #153 on:** August 19, 2014, 05:46:49 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Ambrose
They prey on innocent unsuspecting Catholics.

You've always been a self-righteous sanctimonious hypocrite, Ambrose.

Don't get a job at Hallmark.

I should trademark that quote; it would actually make for a good card. They have those Demotivator posters to mock the Motivational Posters. I should create a line of Negative Greeting Cards

You stand up here constantly proclaiming how much YOU love the Catholic truth, how much you LOVE the papacy, and beat your chest like the Pharisee, thanking God that you are not like these others, yada yada yada. Perhaps you take yourself just a little bit too seriously and think too highly of yourself, no? We're having a theological dispute and have a disagreement about WHAT the Church actually teaches. You make these outrageous statements about how you love the Church more, and we hate the Church, etc. because we disagree on the WHAT of the Church teaches. Please gives us a break from constantly proclaiming your own virtue and at the same time hurling insults against your opponents.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #154 on:** August 25, 2014, 07:26:33 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Ambrose
They prey on innocent unsuspecting Catholics.

You've always been a self-righteous sanctimonious hypocrite, Ambrose.

Don't get a job at Hallmark.

I should trademark that quote; it would actually make for a good card. They have those Demotivator posters to mock the Motivational Posters. I should create a line of Negative Greeting Cards

You stand up here constantly proclaiming how much YOU love the Catholic truth, how much you LOVE the papacy, and beat your chest like the Pharisee, thanking God that you are not like these others, yada yada yada. Perhaps you take yourself just a little bit too seriously and think too highly of yourself, no? We're having a theological dispute and have a disagreement about WHAT the Church actually teaches. You make these outrageous statements about how you love the Church more, and we hate the Church, etc. because we disagree on the WHAT of the Church teaches. Please gives us a break from constantly proclaiming your own virtue and at the same time hurling insults against your opponents.

I didn't notice him beating his chest like a pharisee. You must have good eyesight.

APS · « **Reply #155 on:** December 04, 2014, 01:49:42 PM »

This ecclesiology IS in fact none other than the gnostic/Pelagian/Protestant "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II from which ALL the errors and heresies of Vatican II proceed. Yet LoT, Ambrose, and others -- quite ironically, mostly the sedevacantists -- hold the SAME FUNDAMENTAL HERESIES THAT THEY USE TO DECLARE JORGE BERGOGLIO TO BE A HERETIC AND TO HAVE VACATED THE HOLY SEE.

Laudislaus you are welcome to your opinion but it is unfounded. Lebfevre whom you would call a Chushingite was able to clearly fight these battles of subsistence and never acquiesced. When he needed to make bishops to continue his order and defend the Latin Mass and Modernism he found Bishops who agreed with, mainly those who fought against the modernists at Vatican II. When Feeney was excommunicated no major theolgian or clergy came to his defense (unless you count Avery Dulles). Lebfevre realised that the Post Conciliar Church was the problem and would not copmpromise. Feeney went back to the Meridios, Cushing's protege and reconciled and his SBC now says the New Mass.

I do not see why you mislabel these anti-modernists and criticize them on a different standard then Feeney?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #156 on:** December 05, 2014, 05:36:14 AM »

Quote from: APS

Laudislaus you are welcome to your opinion but it is unfounded.

It is perfectly well founded and quite easily proven, APS. All you do is say the opposite because of your devotion to Archbishop Lefebvre. But Archbishop Lefebvre openly taught that non-Catholics could be saved.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #157 on:** December 05, 2014, 11:07:19 AM »

No, Nado; you're wrong ... just as you are about every single issue. It's uncanny. Let me know if you ever bet on football games. I could make a fortune begging the exact opposite of all your picks.

In any case, unfortunately for Archbishop Lefebvre, the Church dogma is not there can be no salvation except by means of the Church (instrumental cause only) but that there can be no salvation except within the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre doesn't even bother to say that these people are within the Church invisibly ... just that they are saved by the instrumentality of the Catholic Church. Even a Monsignor Fenton would declare his formulation to be heretical. While I have no doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre was no formal heretic, his statement on the subject was patently heretical.

Cantarella · « **Reply #158 on:** December 05, 2014, 11:51:00 AM »

Yes, sadly even Archbishop Lefebvre believed that a "good willed" Moslem by being a "good willed" Moslem could be justified, in the state of grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church and heir to Heaven. How can the Baptism of desire, a hypothetical case be a known exception to the literal interpretation of EENS? The Archbishop unfortunately did not realize this. For him the Magisterium could not have made a mistake (Letter of 1949). However for him the Magisterium did make a mistake with Vatican II. He was correct the Magisterium was in error but so was he. The Vatican Curia as well as Archbishop Lefebvre were both interpreting Vatican II with the Cushinguite error. Get rid of the error, real restoration will follow. The mistake does not originate in Vatican II. Perhaps if the SSPX realizes this, they can gain canonical status.

Once "traditionalists" think this thing through maybe they will return to the Novus Ordo in time for the next Prayer Meeting at Assisi. For the ones that believe in Invincible Ignorance there is not real reason not to.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #159 on:** December 05, 2014, 03:21:40 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Once again completely ignoring my proof that the Holy Office, of the Catholic Church, officially has allowed priests to say Mass privately for a non-Catholic if good-will was perceived up until death.

Post your "proof", Pelagian.

2Vermont · « **Reply #160 on:** December 05, 2014, 03:54:23 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Nado
Once again completely ignoring my proof that the Holy Office, of the Catholic Church, officially has allowed priests to say Mass privately for a non-Catholic if good-will was perceived up until death.

Post your "proof", Pelagian.

Catholic Encyclopedia, SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

"For a deceased heretic the private and hypothetical application of the Mass is allowed only when the priest has good grounds for believing that the deceased held his error in good faith (bona fide. Cf. S.C. Officii, 7 April, 1875). To celebrate Mass privately for deceased catechumens is permissible, since we may assume that they are already justified by their desire of Baptism and are in purgatory. In like manner Mass may be celebrated privately for the souls of deceased Jews and heathens, who have led an upright life, since the sacrifice is intended to benefit all who are in purgatory. For further details see Göpfert, "Moraltheologie", III (5th ed., Paderborn, 1906)."

Joseph Pohle

So the only issue is whether it's public?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #161 on:** December 05, 2014, 06:09:18 PM »

As I suspected, the Holy Office did NOT say a priest could offer Mass privately for a deceased Jew or infidel. That's added by Pohle and some other loser he cites. Holy Office said that Mass could be offered privately for a HERETIC only if there was good reason to assume good faith. Heretics are by definition baptized. Material heretics are by definition Catholics. But even then it can't be done publicly due to risk of scandal.

That's why I wanted to see the quote. Typical Nado lie, attributing the Jew part to the Holy Office.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #162 on:** December 05, 2014, 06:15:07 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Ladislaus
As I suspected, the Holy Office did NOT say a priest could offer Mass privately for a deceased Jew or infidel. That's added by Pohle and some other loser he cites. Holy Office said that Mass could be offered privately for a HERETIC only if there was good reason to assume good faith. Heretics are by definition baptized.

That's why I wanted to see the quote. Typical Nado lie, attributing the Jew part to the Holy Office.

Ladislaus didn't see the actual legislation, yet he personally determines that the respectable theologian got it wrong.

Arrogant. Wrong. Expected of a heretic Feeneyite.

Looks at the citation, liar. It only puts the attribution to the Holy Office after the Heretic part, not the Jew part. You're the one who's attributing this to the Holy Office without any proof that it's in the Holy Office citation. Purely material heretics are actually Catholics by definition.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #163 on:** December 06, 2014, 12:15:54 PM »

Quote from: Nado

I trust the author/theologian.

The "author/theologian" cited the Holy Office in support of the first sentence only.

Quote

Once you see the actual legislation referenced, then you can legitimately comment.

YOU are the one who alleged that the Holy Office claimed that one can say Mass for Jews. So the burden of proof is on you, not me. I am not required to prove a negative, that the Holy Office did NOT say that one could say Mass for Jews and infidels.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #164 on:** December 06, 2014, 04:20:27 PM »

Quote from: Nado

And when you mention that Pohle cited some "other loser". Why do you say he is a loser other than he doesn't agree with you?

It has nothing to do with whether he agrees with ME. He blatantly rejects the Church dogma EENS. That dogma has been under attack since the 1600s at the instigation of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and most of the 19th and 20th century theologians don't believe in EENS anymore. Most of them are Pelagian heretics just like yourself. Pius IX in the mid 19th century had to condemn several times the growing religious indifferentism among Catholics even in his day, and it's only gained momentum since then.