The 'ol "Cekada scare tactic"

Yep ... engaging "Cekadism" regarding "consensus of theologians" ... something which an actual theologian, Monsignor Fenton, rejected as absurd.

Of course, he ignores the fact that 99.999% of theologians all accepted Vatican II and the NOM, with +des Lauriers having been the only exception I know of.

Or he'll trumpet the authority of "Superma Fake" ... while rejecting the Holy Week Rites of Pius XII as contaminated with Modernist liturgical practices and principles.

Fr. Cekada like stirring up excrement also ... where he got rid of the Leonine prayers after Low Mass.  Why?  Well, he made a brain-dead blunder, where he said that Pius XI had designated that the intention of those prayers be specified for freedom of the Church in Russia.  So, because he asserted that the intention had been achieved, he decided that the Leonine prayers should be omitted.  But Pius XI did NOT establish the Leonine prayers (hint:  they're not called the Piine prayers), but merely modified the intention (slightly, from general to more specific).  Once the intention had been met, his law would cease and the law would rever to the previous, the Leonine prayers with the original (broader intention).  It's clear from the language of the Pope that he wasn't creating or mandating the Leonine prayers, but just designating an intention for them, where if the law ceased, the only thing that ceased was the intention he designated.

Then he went on to justify the murder of Terri Schiavo because ... it would cost him too much, where his share might be 15 cents, so he'd have to downgrade his $100 bottle of wine to the pathetic $99.49 bottle.  He thereby caused grave scandal.

I could go on and on about his blunders, but many of them were caused by the fact that he enjoyed getting attention (like some child) and stirring the pot, causing controversy ... almost like Bergoglio.  He almost relished sticking it to Traditional Catholics and their general piety for things like the Leonine prayers, or when he wrote this screed calling people idiots who believed the story about Pope Leo XIII's vision regarding a dialog between Satan and Christ, leading to the St. Michael prayers.  He made a terrible blunder there again, actually two of them ... but enough for now.

While I have not the entirety of this stupid thread, he's likely referring to the fact that St. Alphonsus' explanation of BoD does in fact contradict Trent, AND, ironically, he contradicts a letter that's almost identical in authority to the one he cites for BoD as making it de fide

St. Alphonsus cites Innocent II de presbytero non baptizato for one source making it de fide.  Well, not only is the authenticity and authorship of it disputed, maybe Innocent II, maybe III, to some unknown bishop where, relying on the "authority of Augustine and Ambrose" (mistakenly, and then not on the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul, what's usually invoked when defining a doctrine with papal authority).

But then St. Alphonsus asserts that in BoD some temporal punishment usually remains and such a one would almost invariably end up in Purgatory.  Well, irony of ironies, a letter by Innocent III, of an almost identical authority, a letter to a bishop, regarding an invalidly baptized Jews, says that his BoD powers would result in his rushing to heaven immediately and without delay, which contradicts St. Alphonsus' claim that they would normally be detained in Purgatory.

BUT ... what's more, St. Alphonsus contradicts Trent.  Trent teaches that the initial justification at Baptism (vs. re-justification at Confession if one lost the state of grace) is in fact a rebirth (as Sacred Scripture teaches clearly in referring to the baptized being "born again").  But then Trent DEFINES "rebirth" as (which the name itself clearly implies) a complete restoration of the soul to innocence where not only no Original Sin or guilt of actual sin remains, but also not any temporal punishment due to sin, so that someone who died immediately after rebirth would in fact go immediately to Heaven without any delay ... similar to what Pope Innocent III said.  So initial justification = a rebirth = a complete cleansing of sin and all punishment due to sin, which precludes any type of delay in Purgatory.  Otherwise, those who are justified by BoD could never be said to be "born again" or enter into an initial justification.  Trent explicitly states that there cannot be an initial justification without rebirth.  So St. Alphonsus is claiming precisely what Trent denies, namely a justification that does not entail a rebirth.

So, St. Alphonsus contradicts BOTH of the authorities that he claimed made BoD de fide, both Trent and a papal letter by Innocent III (almost identical to the one he cited, and some sources believe Innocent III had written also the one St. Alphonsus cited, and not Innocent II).

Yeah, I posted what St. Alphonsus taught and what Trent teaches to Friend several times. All he could come up with is the usual baloney: "are you saying St. Alphonsus denied a Dogma?!?" "Are you suggesting he called into question the teachings of Trent?!??"

Personally I believe Trent is teaching justification cannot occur without both the laver and the desire..because you have Pope St. Leo the Great teaching the same in his Letter to Flavian, and because of the "as it is written [John 3:5]" Trent includes at the end of the description.

If one receives baptism yet does not desire it, he is not justified. You are "born again", as Our Lord says, with water and the Holy Ghost. Water [the sacrament] alone does not suffice, you must be properly disposed and desire it in order to receive Justification from the Holy Ghost.

Take note, EENS-deniers, that EENS is most certainly de fide, since it's been defined.  There's no definition ever of BoD.

So those of you who deny EENS, you are in fact heretics, and it's also heretical to be a Pelagian and to deny that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation ... which nearly all BoDers do.  Most of you therefore hit the Trifecta of heresy.

Of course, if you believe non-Catholics can be saved, which is distinct from BoD per se, but again few BoDers do not believe this, since it's the very point of their clinging to BoD with cold / dead brains, not because they're concerned about the rare case of a Catechumen who dies in a car crash on the way to his Baptism ... if you believe non-Catholics can be saved, you're a schismatic also, since every purported error of Vatican II depends on and derives from the ecclesiology that derives from this error, so in rejecting Vatican II, you're in schism, as it only teaches what you yourselves believe.

St. Alphonsus was wrong about the theological note, citing one source that was just a letter to a bishop, before Vatican I had made the necessary definition, and in a similar letter Pope Innocent also declared that Mass was valid if the priest merely thought the words of consecration, an error for which St. Thomas Aquinas took him to task.  Father Cekada also did a survey of theologians and found that of about 27 or so that he could find at all, few of the sources agreed with St. Alphonsus that it was de fide.

But what is meant by "Baptism of Desire" (a term that appears nowhere in any Magisterial source)?

Finally, explain how Feeneyites deny Trent, you dunce.  Trent teaches that justification cannot happen without the laver or the votum.  "Feeneyites" believe this.  They merely distinguish between justification and salvation.

Please explain where this distinction is "heretical", since, well, the respected Dominican theologian Melchior Cano, writing after Trent, made the exact same distinction, where he held that infidels could be justified but not saved.

So please produce the condemnation of Melchior Cano for teaching heresy.

Until then, shut your arrogant trap, ya moron.  None of you can refute anything, but you regurgitate the same talking points that have been refuted a thousand times, even after it's demonstrated to you that it's false.

And 95% of you are in fact heretics who deny the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church.

Apparently I hit a nerve. You really did not address the OP. Telling.

Apparently I hit a nerve. You really did not address the OP. Telling.

Would you like to discuss St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD and what Trent actually taught, or no?

Take note, EENS-deniers, that EENS is most certainly de fide, since it's been defined.  There's no definition ever of BoD.

So those of you who deny EENS, you are in fact heretics, and it's also heretical to be a Pelagian and to deny that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation ... which nearly all BoDers do.  Most of you therefore hit the Trifecta of heresy.

Of course, if you believe non-Catholics can be saved, which is distinct from BoD per se, but again few BoDers do not believe this, since it's the very point of their clinging to BoD with cold / dead brains, not because they're concerned about the rare case of a Catechumen who dies in a car crash on the way to his Baptism ... if you believe non-Catholics can be saved, you're a schismatic also, since every purported error of Vatican II depends on and derives from the ecclesiology that derives from this error, so in rejecting Vatican II, you're in schism, as it only teaches what you yourselves believe.

St. Alphonsus was wrong about the theological note, citing one source that was just a letter to a bishop, before Vatican I had made the necessary definition, and in a similar letter Pope Innocent also declared that Mass was valid if the priest merely thought the words of consecration, an error for which St. Thomas Aquinas took him to task.  Father Cekada also did a survey of theologians and found that of about 27 or so that he could find at all, few of the sources agreed with St. Alphonsus that it was de fide.

But what is meant by "Baptism of Desire" (a term that appears nowhere in any Magisterial source)?

Finally, explain how Feeneyites deny Trent, you dunce.  Trent teaches that justification cannot happen without the laver or the votum.  "Feeneyites" believe this.  They merely distinguish between justification and salvation.

Please explain where this distinction is "heretical", since, well, the respected Dominican theologian Melchior Cano, writing after Trent, made the exact same distinction, where he held that infidels could be justified but not saved.

So please produce the condemnation of Melchior Cano for teaching heresy.

Until then, shut your arrogant trap, ya moron.  None of you can refute anything, but you regurgitate the same talking points that have been refuted a thousand times, even after it's demonstrated to you that it's false.

And 95% of you are in fact heretics who deny the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church.

What would it mean if someone was justified and died justified but not saved?  Would they go to Limbo, or something like that?

What would it mean if someone was justified and died justified but not saved?  Would they go to Limbo, or something like that?

The Church's canon law recognizes that catechumens studying before entering the Church could die before baptism, and if they do, they are afforded a requiem Mass for their souls. This is an official recognition of baptism of desire. It means they could have gone to purgatory, and the Mass is to help them get to heaven.

What would it mean if someone was justified and died justified but not saved?  Would they go to Limbo, or something like that?

Sortof, I think.  Father Feeney, when asked, said "I don't know.  Neither do you."  I'll agree with that, but am speculating.

I think there's not only a "Limbo" of perfect natural happiness, where there are infants, but there's something of a continuum in this entire Limbo-like border region, with varying degrees of happiness vs. unhappiness depending on how you lived your life.  Even the EENS definitions say that there are greatly different degrees of suffering.

Unbaptized Martys end up perfectly happy, and likely enjoy even a greater happiness than the infants who die without baptism.

I believe that the greatest motivation for wanting to reject EENS dogma is that some Jєωιѕн or Lutheran grandmother who lived a virtuous life, kept natural law, possibly even made a heroic sacrifice by giving her life for her children, that she ends up in the same monolithic cauldron of fire as Satanists, serial killers, blasphemers, etc.

Most people have that binary idea, where it's either unbridled joy in Heaven or eternal tortures in Hell.

This is where the distinction between natural reward / punishment /justice and the unmerited supernatural gift of the Beatific Vision, the distinction that St. Thomas first articulated eloquently comes into play, and not just for infants who die unbaptized.  No, as Pius IX teaches, those who haven't committed actual sins do not receive eternal punishmetns for those.

So, just as everyone says that there are degress of happiness and glory in Heaven, and then degrees of suffering in Hell, why wouldn't there also bed degrees of natural happiness in Limbo, from perfect happiness, to more happiness than sorrow, to the opposite, etc.  I think it's a sliding scale of happiness and unhappiness, and not just two monolithic places:  Heaven or Hell.  Either you're a saint next to the Cherubim or playing checkers with Joe Stalin and Judas Iscariot.

Then, because of this binary construct people tend to have in their brains, they reject EENS, since that Lutheran grandmother I mentioned before ... she doesn't really deserve to be cruelly tortured fo eternity just because she grew up in Lutheranism, so then they try to get her into Heaven somehow, to prevent that consequence of EENS dogma.

But if you realized that Heaven is an unmerited free gift that nobody deserves, and that our nature cannot even imagine what it's like since it's so beyond us ... then there's no punishment in not receiving the Beatific Vision.

St. Gregorn nαzιanzen, in rejecting BoD, said that there are some who are not good enough to be glorified but not bad enough to be punished.  Somewhere between the punishment (of Hell) and the glory (of Heaven and the Beatific Vision, there's another Limbic type of realm, where unbaptized infants go, but quite possbily others.  St. Ambrosed said that martyrs are "washed but not crowned".  That's clearly a reference to having their sins washed (at least in terms of their punishment), but not entering the supernatural Kingdom, with the Crown, and the Beatific Vision.

From St. Augustine and for about 7-8 centuries it was ... there's either the glory of Heaven, Beatific Vision, etc. ... or else the fires of Hell.  Eastern Fathers were a little more mysical or enigmatic about some speculative other place, such as St. Gregory's statement above.  Even Our Lord said that those who believe and are baptized will be saved.  But those who do not believe will be condemned.  That leaves a logical middle area, where you believe (and so are not in the condemned group), but are not saved (are not baptized).  So if not saved and not condemned ... where do you go?