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

Author Topic: Dimonds  (Read 12228 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline APS

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Reputation: +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
Dimonds
« Reply #105 on: December 04, 2014, 01:33:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Director
    Quote
    Alphonsus ligouri did not use an errenous translation by rahner but states as de fide that baptism of desire is actually taught by the council of Trent.  The catechism of the council of Trent teaches baptism of desire.  The catechism of pope pius x teaches baptism of desire.  How do these authorities get it wrong Director if Trent is so clear?


    Read Peter Dimonds book ,,  He explains it better then I could ever.  Then I think you will understand it better.

    It all boils down to , "You cant believe any of the Fallable Theologians, Doctors, or Saints,.  Some by the grace of God , have proven their Falability in the errors in some of their writings ,, A Proven fact.  That's why you can only rely on the Popes , and the Councils.   etc etc ... you know the drill.



    Protestants say you cannot believe any of the fallible Theologians Doctors or Saints thats why you have to read the Bible.  But the Catholic Church teaches through her Catechisms.  Every Catechism teaches Baptism of Desire, the Catechism of Trent, Catechism of Pius X, even Fr Michael Muller's book whom the strict interpreters of EENS love to quote.  I will trust the Catechisms with my soul and you can trust Mr Dimond.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14905
    • Reputation: +6186/-917
    • Gender: Male
    Dimonds
    « Reply #106 on: December 04, 2014, 02:40:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: APS
    Quote from: Director
    Quote
    Alphonsus ligouri did not use an errenous translation by rahner but states as de fide that baptism of desire is actually taught by the council of Trent.  The catechism of the council of Trent teaches baptism of desire.  The catechism of pope pius x teaches baptism of desire.  How do these authorities get it wrong Director if Trent is so clear?


    Read Peter Dimonds book ,,  He explains it better then I could ever.  Then I think you will understand it better.

    It all boils down to , "You cant believe any of the Fallable Theologians, Doctors, or Saints,.  Some by the grace of God , have proven their Falability in the errors in some of their writings ,, A Proven fact.  That's why you can only rely on the Popes , and the Councils.   etc etc ... you know the drill.



    Protestants say you cannot believe any of the fallible Theologians Doctors or Saints thats why you have to read the Bible.  But the Catholic Church teaches through her Catechisms.  Every Catechism teaches Baptism of Desire, the Catechism of Trent, Catechism of Pius X, even Fr Michael Muller's book whom the strict interpreters of EENS love to quote.  I will trust the Catechisms with my soul and you can trust Mr Dimond.


    You failed to mention the catechism of the catholic church. Why?
    "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 Binechi

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2318
    • Reputation: +512/-40
    • Gender: Male
    Dimonds
    « Reply #107 on: December 04, 2014, 03:39:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Catechisms are not Infallable....


    NOT EVERY PARAGRAPH OF THE CATECHISM OF TRENT WAS PROMULGATED INFALLIBLY


    The Council of Trent closed on Dec. 4, 1563. The Catechism of Trent was still being worked on in 1564 and it wasn’t finally published until 1566. The Catechism of Trent is not the Council of Trent. It is not infallible in every paragraph, but only in those points of doctrine to be passed along to all the faithful; for those matters represent what the Church has always taught.

    Even the introduction to the popular Tan Books’ translation of the Catechism of Trent has a quote from Dr. John Hagan, who admits that “its teaching is not infallible.” The Catechism of Trent is more than 500 pages long in a common English version. It was worked on by a variety of theologians.

    Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine… Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14905
    • Reputation: +6186/-917
    • Gender: Male
    Dimonds
    « Reply #108 on: December 04, 2014, 04:01:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • True.
    Trent's catechism does not teach a BOD any way.
    "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 APS

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 42
    • Reputation: +18/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Dimonds
    « Reply #109 on: December 04, 2014, 04:03:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Director
    Catechisms are not Infallable....


    NOT EVERY PARAGRAPH OF THE CATECHISM OF TRENT WAS PROMULGATED INFALLIBLY


    The Council of Trent closed on Dec. 4, 1563. The Catechism of Trent was still being worked on in 1564 and it wasn’t finally published until 1566. The Catechism of Trent is not the Council of Trent. It is not infallible in every paragraph, but only in those points of doctrine to be passed along to all the faithful; for those matters represent what the Church has always taught.

    Even the introduction to the popular Tan Books’ translation of the Catechism of Trent has a quote from Dr. John Hagan, who admits that “its teaching is not infallible.” The Catechism of Trent is more than 500 pages long in a common English version. It was worked on by a variety of theologians.

    Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine… Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”


    When did I say that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is the Council of Trent?   When did I say that the Catechism of the Council of Trent was infallible.  I think it fair to say that the Catechism of the Council of Trent states what all Catholic contemporaries of the Council of Trent thought of Baptism of Desire.  That Baptism of Desire is Catholic teaching and it is not contradicted by Trent.  However I would love to find a 16th century quote wherein a Catholic Authority states the Baptism of Desire is a Pelagian heresy.


    Offline APS

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 42
    • Reputation: +18/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Dimonds
    « Reply #110 on: December 04, 2014, 04:15:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    True.
    Trent's catechism does not teach a BOD any way.


    Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

    On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47219
    • Reputation: +27980/-5212
    • Gender: Male
    Dimonds
    « Reply #111 on: December 04, 2014, 04:16:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: APS
    However I would love to find a 16th century quote wherein a Catholic Authority states the Baptism of Desire is a Pelagian heresy.


    I swear that one could add the IQs of all the BoDers on CI here and struggle to get into the double digits.  I have REPEATEDLY, and I mean REPEATEDLY stated that BoD in and of itself, per se, is not Pelagian heresy.  What I call Pelagian heresy is the distorted extension of BoD to those who do not have Catholic faith.

    You may take note of the fact that the Catechism of Trent is speaking of someone actively preparing for Baptism, i.e. a catechumen.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14905
    • Reputation: +6186/-917
    • Gender: Male
    Dimonds
    « Reply #112 on: December 04, 2014, 04:29:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: APS
    Quote from: Stubborn
    True.
    Trent's catechism does not teach a BOD any way.


    Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

    On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness


    This is not a BOD. There is no mention of death or salvation, nor is there any guarantee of grace and righteousness - and for all you know, the unforeseen accident was the cause of a huge traffic jam that kept the priest from making to the Church to administer the baptism that day and they had to postpone the ceremony till the next week.

    In order to make this into a BOD, you have to add all your personal exceptions in order to make this teach something it is not teaching.

    Had you quoted the rest of the teaching, you would learn *why* the delay is not attended to with the same danger as in infants - allow me:

    Quote from: Trent's Catechism
    Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.

    Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.





    "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 APS

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 42
    • Reputation: +18/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Dimonds
    « Reply #113 on: December 04, 2014, 04:50:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: APS
    Quote from: Stubborn
    True.
    Trent's catechism does not teach a BOD any way.


    Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

    On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness


    This is not a BOD. There is no mention of death or salvation, nor is there any guarantee of grace and righteousness - and for all you know, the unforeseen accident was the cause of a huge traffic jam that kept the priest from making to the Church to administer the baptism that day and they had to postpone the ceremony till the next week.

    In order to make this into a BOD, you have to add all your personal exceptions in order to make this teach something it is not teaching.

    Had you quoted the rest of the teaching, you would learn *why* the delay is not attended to with the same danger as in infants - allow me:

    Quote from: Trent's Catechism
    Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.

    Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.








    Why does the Catechism say "The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants"? Does the Council of Florence give us a clue?

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14905
    • Reputation: +6186/-917
    • Gender: Male
    Dimonds
    « Reply #114 on: December 04, 2014, 05:36:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: APS
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: APS
    Quote from: Stubborn
    True.
    Trent's catechism does not teach a BOD any way.


    Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

    On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness


    This is not a BOD. There is no mention of death or salvation, nor is there any guarantee of grace and righteousness - and for all you know, the unforeseen accident was the cause of a huge traffic jam that kept the priest from making to the Church to administer the baptism that day and they had to postpone the ceremony till the next week.

    In order to make this into a BOD, you have to add all your personal exceptions in order to make this teach something it is not teaching.

    Had you quoted the rest of the teaching, you would learn *why* the delay is not attended to with the same danger as in infants - allow me:

    Quote from: Trent's Catechism
    Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.

    Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.








    Why does the Catechism say "The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants"? Does the Council of Florence give us a clue?


    Trent's catechism *tells you *why* the delay is not attended to with the same danger as in infants:

    Quote from: Trent's Catechism
    Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.

    Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.


    "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 Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47219
    • Reputation: +27980/-5212
    • Gender: Male
    Dimonds
    « Reply #115 on: December 05, 2014, 05:30:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'll start a separate thread to show how this quote does not teach BoD.  I've got to track down the Latin for this Catechism because, as a lot of things BoD-related, the translation involves reading an interpretation into it.  Basically, Stubborn is right.  While this Catechism may imply BoD it stops short of actually stating BoD, similar to St. Ambrose's statement about Valentinian.  Another is the translation of the word "accident", which in Latin is a more generic term meaning something like ("sudden circuмstance" or "misfortune").  In addition, there's a parallel passage in St. Fulgentius which talks about how "confession avails towards righteousness" (or something along those lines).  But then he completes the setence.  How does the "confession" (meaning confession of the faith) avail for righteousness ("because God will bring the person to Baptism).  All this passage is teaching is that God will make sure in His Divine Providence that no well-disposed adult from among His elect will be prevented from receiving the Sacrament of Baptism ... along the lines of "ask and you shall receive".  I someone truly and sincerely desires Baptism, God will give it to him.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47219
    • Reputation: +27980/-5212
    • Gender: Male
    Dimonds
    « Reply #116 on: December 05, 2014, 05:32:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But Nado has hijacked all the BoD threads with the Catechism.

    I would like to point out to the Pelagian Nado, who will undoubtedly remain unconvinced (due to bias going in) that the Catechism does not teach BoD, that the Catechism is speaking of a Catechumen, someone actively preparing for Baptism and having the explicit resolve to receive it, not some "invincibly-ignorant" native.

    At the end of the the day, Nado finds the dogma EENS unpalatable and refuses to accept it, adopting instead a Pelagian theology.  And, ironically, Nado is a sedevacantist for "heresy" on the part of the V2 Popes ... yet the heresy held by the V2 Popes is none other than Nado's self-same Pelagian ecclesiology and soteriology.  So, if Francis is a manifest heretic outside the Church, then so is Nado.



    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47219
    • Reputation: +27980/-5212
    • Gender: Male
    Dimonds
    « Reply #117 on: December 05, 2014, 11:29:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nado
    You, a non-Catholic Feeneyite, even according to the moderator here, are going against the official Holy Office of the Church.


    Yes, now Matthew is the Magisterium, eh?  Unfortunately, the hierarchy that Matthew recognizes considers followers of Father Feeney to be in full communion with the Church.  And Matthew only said that tongue-in-cheek; otherwise he would be obligated to ban all of us "Feeneyites".  And the minute you signed up here, heretic, you've been agitating for Matthew to ban those of us who hold to sound Catholic dogma on the matter of EENS.  And don't lie and pretend it's about BoD.  Nishant believes in BoD and you repeatedly categorized him as a "Feeneyite" ... because he doesn't believe that non-Catholcs can be saved.

    Quote
    The Church says that priests can offer Mass privately for even a Jew who seemed of good-will in his error.


    "The Church" has never said any such thing.

    Quote
    The Church says that we must have a public requiem Mass for a suddenly deceased catechumen. Yes, even for a catechumen who left the building of his first meeting for instruction and got decapitated by a mack truck.


    Again, bad-willed heretic Nado, the 1917 Code of Canon Law refers EXPLICITLY to a Catechumen and explicit Baptism of Desire.  Nor does the 1917 Code TEACH BoD.  Canon Law is not Magisterium.  What the 1917 Code does is to allow for the presumption of a possibility of salvation for a catechumen ... in a pastoral or disciplinary context.  Not a certainty of salvation, because we cannot be certain of anyone's salvation.  Just a possibility, in a pastoral context, on the question of whether or not to offer a requiem Mass for such a one.  It's always possible that the person for whom the Mass is being offered is in fact in hell.  It's nothing more than the continued toleration of the hypothetical possibility of the opinion by the Church.  And that's all BoD can ever be ... some kind of hypothetical possibility.  It has never been and can never be defined as Catholic doctrine.  In addition, previous Church Canon Law had always forbidden the practice.  So either the prohibition was wrong or the allowing it was wrong; they are contradictory.  Either that or the Church has not pronounced with certainty either way and is just making the allowance for the possibility in a specific pastoral context.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14905
    • Reputation: +6186/-917
    • Gender: Male
    Dimonds
    « Reply #118 on: December 05, 2014, 12:43:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    But Nado has hijacked all the BoD threads with the Catechism.



    Not only the BOD threads, the torNado has spun every thread into a pile of heretical debris.

    Just a matter of when, not if the torNado will spin itself into oblivion.

    "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 Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14905
    • Reputation: +6186/-917
    • Gender: Male
    Dimonds
    « Reply #119 on: December 05, 2014, 12:52:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: Ladislaus
    But Nado has hijacked all the BoD threads with the Catechism.



    Not only the BOD threads, the torNado has spun every thread into a pile of heretical debris.

    Just a matter of when, not if the torNado will spin itself into oblivion.



    Bump!
    "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