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

Author Topic: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences  (Read 58655 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Freind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 470
  • Reputation: +56/-101
  • Gender: Male
  • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
« Reply #135 on: December 19, 2025, 05:54:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: WorldsAway on December 19, 2025, 05:44:56 PM
    Was it useless to forbid it?

    I asked you a question first.
    Logged

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 470
    • Reputation: +56/-101
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #136 on: December 19, 2025, 05:56:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on December 19, 2025, 05:49:48 PM
    Why do you condemn St. Alphonsus, Freind?

    I do not condemn anything, or anyone, but fyi, Canon Law is not the Church. It can be argued that there is still time for theological debate regarding the whole issue because the Church has not officially and explicitly condemned the whole idea of a BOD yet.

    You can't even answer "yes" that "the Church" gave us the New Testament. What do you know, then?

    You can't even say when "the Church" does something. Go ahead if you think you can, give us a list of examples.
    Logged

    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +931/-131
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #137 on: December 19, 2025, 06:07:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Freind on December 19, 2025, 05:54:29 PM
    I asked you a question first.
    But the forbiddance came before the permittance  :popcorn:
    Logged
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 470
    • Reputation: +56/-101
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #138 on: December 19, 2025, 06:13:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: WorldsAway on December 19, 2025, 06:07:32 PM
    But the forbiddance came before the permittance  :popcorn:

    I asked you a question first. What's your conclusion?
    Logged

    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +931/-131
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #139 on: December 19, 2025, 06:42:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Freind on December 19, 2025, 06:13:21 PM
    I asked you a question first. What's your conclusion?
    No, I asked you a question first :popcorn:

    Quote from: WorldsAway on December 19, 2025, 04:54:41 PM
    The practice of the Church used to be to refuse Christian burial to unbaptized Catechumens...1917 Code says it is to be permitted. Was the Church incorrect before? Correct now? Correct before, and incorrect now?
    Logged
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 470
    • Reputation: +56/-101
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #140 on: December 19, 2025, 06:55:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: WorldsAway on December 19, 2025, 06:42:14 PM
    No, I asked you a question first :popcorn:

    I asked you first, "So, you are saying it was useless for the Church to officially allow a requiem for a catechumen who died before baptism?"
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15348
    • Reputation: +6288/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #141 on: December 20, 2025, 04:44:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Freind on December 19, 2025, 05:56:43 PM
    You can't even answer "yes" that "the Church" gave us the New Testament. What do you know, then?

    You can't even say when "the Church" does something. Go ahead if you think you can, give us a list of examples.
    Well you asked a very puerile question in your effort to distract from answering anything at all, I mean, it's like asking if wind blows.   

    Look, if you would like to reply with a legitimate rebuttal, I would like it if you would reply with a legitimate reason stating what makes this wrong...... 

    A BOD Is salvation by faith alone. By design, a BOD is completely devoid of Divine Providence and is wholly dependent upon one (who is not a member of the Church) saving themself. The fact is, a BOD cannot work at all if Divine Providence is involved. Therefore, Divine Providence must be completely left out of the formula or a BOD fails. 
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 470
    • Reputation: +56/-101
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #142 on: December 20, 2025, 06:52:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: WorldsAway on December 19, 2025, 06:42:14 PM
    No, I asked you a question first :popcorn:

    I doubt if I went back in the thread and proved chronologically that I asked first that it would do any good. So, I will just answer you.

    The Church in the earliest years was very strict on imposing penances. Now they give, for instance, 3 prayers to say after confession. This isn't a contradiction, nor a condemnation of what went before. The same with the younger age for which receiving First Holy Communion became allowed. The same with rules for fasting. The same with dispensations to marry a non-Catholic, etc. etc. There was always strict rules against receiving the sacraments from schismatics, but times came up often that in danger of death epikeia allowed it. Such a circuмstance became more and more frequent and then the Church decided to ease the angst and explicitly allow it by mention in canon law.

    There is no salvation outside the true Church, the Roman Catholic Church. That is solid dogma. Fallen human nature tends to play games with rules, and the Church has been consistent about rules for funerals. They held it out that if Catholics want the benefits for their eternal needs at their funerals, they must be a Catholic in good standing, and consciously be so. So, the rules just rolled along pretty much the same.

    However, the bombshell of Protestantism hit laity of the Church in the 16th century and so many generations grew up brainwashed and biased with heresies. Whereas before when Protestants snapped out of their heresies, the road to conversion was quicker. Eventually the need was there for safety to extend the time taken on catechumens, to make sure their baggage was taken care of before baptism.

    Such is life, there were cases where catechumens accidentally suddenly died before baptism. This circuмstance hit people hard because of the rules of funerals and applying the Mass. The angst was there and priests had give comfort by bringing up Trent about sudden death and baptism in voto. Eventually, with population explosion, rapid travel and publications and large amounts of conversions to Catholicism, the Church eased that angst by explicitly mentioning it in canon law with the practical aspect that catechumens accidentally suddenly dying would be automatically given the prayers of the Church and funeral rites. Yes, it DOES entail necessarily the soul could be in purgatory without baptism by water. The lack of this law before 1917 had nothing to do with a denial of Trent's baptism in voto.
    Logged

    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +931/-131
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #143 on: December 20, 2025, 08:01:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Ecclesiastical law is not infallible, that's my point. If you think the 1917 Code is correct, then the prior practice was incorrect. If the prior practice was correct, than the 1917 Code is incorrect.

     Ecclesiastical burial is to be given to Catechumens who die without baptism. That's the current law. A future pope could abrogate the current law, and enact a new law that would forbid ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized Catechumens..as was done in the past


    Quote
    A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance, and it was done apparently because he believed that the emperor had had the baptism of desire. The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga: "Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without the redemption of baptism."

    ...

    The reason of this regulation [forbidding Christian burial rites to unbaptized persons] is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): ‘It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.

    Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) vol. 2 



    Logged
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 470
    • Reputation: +56/-101
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #144 on: December 20, 2025, 09:07:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: WorldsAway on December 20, 2025, 08:01:40 AM
    Ecclesiastical law is not infallible, that's my point. If you think the 1917 Code is correct, then the prior practice was incorrect. If the prior practice was correct, than the 1917 Code is incorrect.

     Ecclesiastical burial is to be given to Catechumens who die without baptism. That's the current law. A future pope could abrogate the current law, and enact a new law that would forbid ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized Catechumens..as was done in the past

    Yes, it is infallible. It is "the Church" that does it, and it cannot do anything against morals and faith to the whole Church. This is not "papal infallibility". It is the Church infallibility. St. Thomas says it is a BLASPHEMY to say THE CHURCH does anything harmful or even "useless". You willing to commit blasphemy?

    I wonder whether you even read all I responded with. The examples I gave were all changes, all useful and good. 
    Logged

    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +931/-131
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #145 on: December 20, 2025, 10:35:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The 1917 Code does not teach faith and morals to the Universal Church, and it does not bind the Universal Church in its entirety. If the 1917 Code is correct, then the prior practice was incorrect.

    Nice trap with "useless", too bad you didn't have the satisfaction of its success :laugh2:

    Now, what is the "usefulness" of the reversal of the prior practice, and the implementation of the current Canon? I don't know. I don't need to know. I didn't make the law, I don't know the reasoning of whoever wrote that Canon. But the law's the law, of course

    Logged
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 470
    • Reputation: +56/-101
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #146 on: December 20, 2025, 10:45:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: WorldsAway on December 20, 2025, 10:35:00 AM
    The 1917 Code does not teach faith and morals to the Universal Church, and it does not bind the Universal Church in its entirety. If the 1917 Code is correct, then the prior practice was incorrect.

    Nice trap with "useless", too bad you didn't have the satisfaction of its success :laugh2:

    Now, what is the "usefulness" of the reversal of the prior practice, and the implementation of the current Canon? I don't know. I don't need to know. I didn't make the law, I don't know the reasoning of whoever wrote that Canon. But the law's the law, of course

    Just like Stubborn, you can't say when "the Church" does some thing. Look what V2 has done to you.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15348
    • Reputation: +6288/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #147 on: December 20, 2025, 11:04:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Freind on December 20, 2025, 09:07:21 AM
    Yes, it is infallible. It is "the Church" that does it, and it cannot do anything against morals and faith to the whole Church. This is not "papal infallibility". It is the Church infallibility. St. Thomas says it is a BLASPHEMY to say THE CHURCH does anything harmful or even "useless". You willing to commit blasphemy?

    I wonder whether you even read all I responded with. The examples I gave were all changes, all useful and good.
    No, The Church does not make Canon Laws, the pope does. Popes are infallible when they define a doctrine Ex Cathedra, popes are not infallible in the exercise of their legislative power; they are entirely capable of enacting both foolish and bad laws, of commanding that which is foolish and that which is sinful. Although likely blasphemous to you, this is the truth.

    If you disagree, and it seems you do, then you do not understand papal infallibility, nor the difference between that and the Church's infallibility - which is something that is often (not always) distinct from papal infallibility. 

    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +931/-131
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #148 on: December 20, 2025, 11:10:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Freind on December 20, 2025, 10:45:38 AM
    Just like Stubborn, you can't say when "the Church" does some thing. Look what V2 has done to you.
    You're talking gibberish now

    How's this: "The Church" does teach that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation

    "'The Church" does not teach BOD as a Dogma to be believed and professed by all the faithful

    At the end of the day, you have your opinion. I have mine.
    You can imbibe the Cekadan bitter zeal and condemn all those who do not agree with your opinion as being guilty of mortal sin.

    Or, you can be honest, have some humility, and admit that no Council or no Pope has ever taught BOD to the Universal Church
    Logged
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 470
    • Reputation: +56/-101
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #149 on: December 20, 2025, 11:36:46 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: WorldsAway on December 20, 2025, 11:10:30 AM
    You're talking gibberish now

    How's this: "The Church" does teach that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation

    "'The Church" does not teach BOD as a Dogma to be believed and professed by all the faithful

    At the end of the day, you have your opinion. I have mine.
    You can imbibe the Cekadan bitter zeal and condemn all those who do not agree with your opinion as being guilty of mortal sin.

    Or, you can be honest, have some humility, and admit that no Council or no Pope has ever taught BOD to the Universal Church

    I haven't condemned anyone. I am being honest. But you think "the Church" only "does" some thing when it teaches solemnly in the magisterium. You are SO wrong. It does approves of liturgy, did you know that?
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11
    « previous next »