Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: APS on December 01, 2014, 09:26:08 AM
-
Has anyone here had dealings with the Dimond brothers and their so-called Benedictine Monastery? I once responded to them concerning their claim that Van Noort (a Catholic manual theologian) was a heretic. I asked them to name a manual theologian that supports their views. After months discussion the original question "which manual theologian is not a heretic" remained unanswered. All they were able to produce were ad hominems, Ipse Dixit, and rants.
It was my understanding that these guys were supposed to be skilled debaters, but when they are really held up to the light they are nothing but empty suits.
Anyone else some information that would be helpful
Pax Christi
Michael Tucker
-
So you created a (new) account just to post this?
-
All they were able to produce were ad hominems, Ipse Dixit, and rants.
It was my understanding that these guys were supposed to be skilled debaters, but when they are really held up to the light they are nothing but empty suits.
You got them pegged -- ad hominems, "because I said so", etc.
They are NOT skilled debaters, unless of course you talk to one of their rabid fans :)
They are schismatic, cutting off huge swaths of Catholics from the Catholic Church, which makes them objectively evil.
In this time of confusion, when we are all trying to keep the Faith and keep Sanctifying Grace in our souls, I must say that they are to be avoided as dangerous to the Faith.
Following schismatic, charismatic personalities or other cults is NOT a good way to keep the Catholic Faith during this Crisis.
-
Yes, Ladislaus I did open an account to post this. I just find it interesting that these men claim to be theologians yet no manual theologians agree with them. I have the emails to prove that they cannot answer me. I can understand how the Feeneyites at the St. Benedict center affiliated with the Novus Ordo have some sort of legitimacy but the others have no leg to stand on.
-
It was my understanding that these guys were supposed to be skilled debaters, but when they are really held up to the light they are nothing but empty suits.
Anyone else some information that would be helpful
Pax Christi
Michael Tucker
As the saying goes, empty tin cans make the loudest noise.
-
What is a manual theologian?
-
Genuine Feeneyites at Saint Benedict Center want nothing to do with the Dimonds madmen. The association is insulting and it is a shame that the Dimonds have "adopted" the BOD issue but they have gone so far to even think that Fr. Feeney was in error. Authentic Feeneyism wants no part of sedevacantism. The title of this thread is quite misleading.
-
Has anyone here had dealings with the Dimond brothers and their so-called Benedictine Monastery? I once responded to them concerning their claim that Van Noort (a Catholic manual theologian) was a heretic. I asked them to name a manual theologian that supports their views. After months discussion the original question "which manual theologian is not a heretic" remained unanswered. All they were able to produce were ad hominems, Ipse Dixit, and rants.
It was my understanding that these guys were supposed to be skilled debaters, but when they are really held up to the light they are nothing but empty suits.
Anyone else some information that would be helpful
Pax Christi
Michael Tucker
They're seared demons, probably possessed. I messaged them on this same issue as well, and Bob Dimond just did his usual thing of getting like crazy and rant and hurl condemnations instead of answer my simple questions.
If you question any of their inventions they will anathematize you, call you bad willed and then never answer again. A real beatdown within an inch of their lives is what these fools need.
They are obsessed with this BOD issue, it's all they think about.
-
The Dimond bros do put out entertaining Youtube videos.
-
The Dimond bros do put out entertaining Youtube videos.
Which ones are you referring to.
-
The Dimond bros do put out entertaining Youtube videos.
Which ones are you referring to.
All of them are actually very fun to watch, as for the other issues, well, it is what it is.
-
Yes, Ladislaus I did open an account to post this.
Have you been lurking here then for some time?
-
What is a manual theologian?
He's referring to the scholastic so-called "manualists". Basically a proliferation of these occurred in the years leading up to Vatican II; they're really meant to be textbooks for use in seminaries.
-
Cantrarella..
.
Is it not true that Father Feeney believed (and probably in good faith) that one could be "Justified", without being Baptised .....?
Please answer the Question ......
-
What is a manual theologian?
He's referring to the scholastic so-called "manualists". Basically a proliferation of these occurred in the years leading up to Vatican II; they're really meant to be textbooks for use in seminaries.
Yes, but without formal training, the thin line between "manual theologian" and "armchair theologian" is very thin indeed.
-
What is a manual theologian?
He's referring to the scholastic so-called "manualists". Basically a proliferation of these occurred in the years leading up to Vatican II; they're really meant to be textbooks for use in seminaries.
Yes, but without formal training, the thin line between "manual theologian" and "armchair theologian" is very thin indeed.
He's actually talking about the Vatican II formally-trained writers of theology manuals ... such as Van Noort.
-
What is a manual theologian?
He's referring to the scholastic so-called "manualists". Basically a proliferation of these occurred in the years leading up to Vatican II; they're really meant to be textbooks for use in seminaries.
Yes, but without formal training, the thin line between "manual theologian" and "armchair theologian" is very thin indeed.
He's actually talking about the Vatican II formally-trained writers of theology manuals ... such as Van Noort.
Didn't Van Noort die in the 1940's in a ripe old age?
Typo ... meant pre-Vatican II. If you see the post above I wrote "in the years leading up to Vatican II".
These manuals started popping up after Pope Leo XIII's re-affirmation and revival of Thomism
-
the BOD issue but they have gone so far to even think that Fr. Feeney was in error.
Heaven forbid! What is this world coming too! :shocked:
-
the BOD issue but they have gone so far to even think that Fr. Feeney was in error.
Heaven forbid! What is this world coming too! :shocked:
Yet another one of our resident CMRI "theologians".
-
All they were able to produce were ad hominems, Ipse Dixit, and rants.
It was my understanding that these guys were supposed to be skilled debaters, but when they are really held up to the light they are nothing but empty suits.
You got them pegged -- ad hominems, "because I said so", etc.
They are NOT skilled debaters, unless of course you talk to one of their rabid fans :)
They are schismatic, cutting off huge swaths of Catholics from the Catholic Church, which makes them objectively evil.
In this time of confusion, when we are all trying to keep the Faith and keep Sanctifying Grace in our souls, I must say that they are to be avoided as dangerous to the Faith.
Following schismatic, charismatic personalities or other cults is NOT a good way to keep the Catholic Faith during this Crisis.
Thanks so much Matthew for this post! :applause:
-
Cantrarella..
.
Is it not true that Father Feeney believed (and probably in good faith) that one could be "Justified", without being Baptised .....?
Please answer the Question ......
No. What Fr. Feeney believed in his words was that "There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water". Basically everyone who is justified, WILL also be baptized. Baptism is the seal of the initial state of Justification, which runs accordingly to the Catholic doctrine of predestination:
“For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified.” (Rom 8:29-30)
God's foreknowledge and providence includes the Sacrament that makes people members of Christ's Mystical Body and thus, able to enter Heaven.
For more details on this, please open a new thread in the appropriate sub forum.
-
All they were able to produce were ad hominems, Ipse Dixit, and rants.
It was my understanding that these guys were supposed to be skilled debaters, but when they are really held up to the light they are nothing but empty suits.
You got them pegged -- ad hominems, "because I said so", etc.
They are NOT skilled debaters, unless of course you talk to one of their rabid fans :)
They are schismatic, cutting off huge swaths of Catholics from the Catholic Church, which makes them objectively evil.
In this time of confusion, when we are all trying to keep the Faith and keep Sanctifying Grace in our souls, I must say that they are to be avoided as dangerous to the Faith.
Following schismatic, charismatic personalities or other cults is NOT a good way to keep the Catholic Faith during this Crisis.
Thanks so much Matthew for this post! :applause:
:rahrah: :rahrah: :rahrah:
-
Following schismatic, charismatic personalities or other cults is NOT a good way to keep the Catholic Faith during this Crisis.
Thanks so much Matthew for this post! :applause:
I'm surprised that a Shuckhardite could agree with the above statement from Matthew.
-
See, I told you. There really IS salvation outside the Church.
:applause: :cheers: :rahrah:
-
See, I told you. There really IS salvation outside the Church.
:applause: :cheers: :rahrah:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Revelation-Signs-and-Symbols/205176352857648
-
No. What Fr. Feeney believed in his words was that "There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water". Basically everyone who is justified, WILL also be baptized. Baptism is the seal of the initial state of Justification, which runs accordingly to the Catholic doctrine of predestination:
Let see now ,,, we have a catechumen who is about to die who is not baptized but is "Justified", In fact he is in the "State of Justification"
Now isn t that a little "Odd"... The Council of Trent says that to reach the state of Justification, one must "Desire the Sacrament of Baptism, and then Receive it.
If one is Allready in the state of Justification, why in the world would he need to wait for Baptism. Doesn t make sense... Fr Feeney was wrong ,, admit it.
Quote:
“For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified.” (Rom 8:29-30)
-
Let's have a more objective look at the Dimonds, since most people have an ax to grind.
1) I agree that they are not good debaters and do not construct solid arguments. In particular, they fail to see finer distinctions that would make certain points of theirs more complex than they pretend.
2) They often miss subtle nuance in some of the quotes they adduce to prove their positions.
3) As with the dogmatic sedevacantists, this lack of ability to consider complexities and to make distinctions leads to a dogmatism, a pretense that their position is essentially de fide because it derives from a simple obvious "irrefutable" syllogism. They use the word "irrefutable" all the time.
4) They do have a lot of talent and do much good. Their life of Padre Pio, their book on UFOs, their video on hell, and their How the Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church, their materials exposing evolution and modern science, et al. are absolutely wonderful.
5) They practically give their stuff away, likely at a loss (charging just pennies for books, videos, and pamphlets); they are not about making money.
6) In terms of their being brothers, the charge that they are "fake Benedictines" is absurd and uncharitable. They're every bit as REAL as 99% of all Traditional groups of religious that have been founded without the requisite jurisdiction.
7) Whether any of you like it or not, the Dimonds have correctly identified the root cause of the problem behind Vatican II ... a heretical new ecclesiology that resulted from a gradual rejection of EENS. How do you get rid of EENS? Just redefine "Church" and "outside", and you're good. You're also now right there at Vatican II.
8) Dimonds then realized that the weapon used by the heretics to undermine EENS and create the new ecclesiology was BoD. But, unable to make the appropriate distinctions, they went overboard in declaring BoD "heretical" ... not realizing that one could defend EENS without necessarily rejecting BoD (at least logically). In fact, the ardent proponents of BoD ALWAYS conflate the issues on purpose because then they can pretend that they have the authority of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, etc. behind their refusal to accept EENS and their new gnostic-Pelagian-Protestant ecclsiology.
9) Dimonds recognize the bad will in most BoD proponents. Most of them hold to their opinion because the find EENS unpalatable and won't listen to reason. Consequently, the Dimonds became more frustrated and angry and bitter over time and have been overcome with bitter zeal.
10) In excommunicating proponents of BoD, the Dimonds have adopted a schismatic stance. I have repeatedly called them out on this. Father Feeney and the vast majority of "Feeneyites" do NOT do this but consider their position on BoD to be personal opinion.
What's interesting is that most of the bad traits of the Dimonds are not shared by the Feeneyite population as a whole, most of whom actually tend to be R&R. In fact, there are relatively few sedevacantist Feeneyites, and the most hostile enemies of Father Feeney and EENS come from the ranks of the SVs.
So most of the flaws one sees in the Dimonds are shared with the sedeavacantists and their bitter zeal and all its bad fruits actually emanate from the dogmatic sedevacantism rather than from Feeneyism.
-
No. What Fr. Feeney believed in his words was that "There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water". Basically everyone who is justified, WILL also be baptized. Baptism is the seal of the initial state of Justification, which runs accordingly to the Catholic doctrine of predestination:
Let see now ,,, we have a catechumen who is about to die who is not baptized but is "Justified", In fact he is in the "State of Justification"
Now isn t that a little "Odd"... The Council of Trent says that to reach the state of Justification, one must "Desire the Sacrament of Baptism, and then Receive it.
If one is Allready in the state of Justification, why in the world would he need to wait for Baptism. Doesn t make sense... Fr Feeney was wrong ,, admit it.
Off-topic. You need to start a separate thread.
There is indeed a very real distinction between justification and salvation, the latter of which is sealed by a special grace called "final perseverance". Father Feeney says that those in a state of justification through votum and who are predestined as it were towards final perseverance in the same would be brought to Baptism by God. Father Feeney's distinction is indeed quite valid. I'm not sure I agree 100%, but Father Feeney wasn't an idiot like you claim. In addition, there's the precendent that the JUST of the Old Testament (great saints like St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist etc.), despite being in a state of justification, could not be saved because they were missing something. That something is the same thing Father Feeney posited that those justified before Baptism would be lacking and incapable of being saved without. Father simply said that God would in fact provide the Sacrament for His elect, those predestined towards final perseverance in this state of justification, and that this is what is meant by the "seal" of the Sacrament.
It's very profound really, but I'm afraid too subtle for the Dimondite mind which tends to reduce everything into oversimplified syllogisms.
-
For all of you who say the Dimonds are not good debaters.... for God's sake, call them up, set up a recorded debate and hand them their lunch.
-
Let's have a more objective look at the Dimonds, since most people have an ax to grind.
1) I agree that they are not good debaters and do not construct solid arguments. In particular, they fail to see finer distinctions that would make certain points of theirs more complex than they pretend.
2) They often miss subtle nuance in some of the quotes they adduce to prove their positions.
3) As with the dogmatic sedevacantists, this lack of ability to consider complexities and to make distinctions leads to a dogmatism, a pretense that their position is essentially de fide because it derives from a simple obvious "irrefutable" syllogism. They use the word "irrefutable" all the time.
4) They do have a lot of talent and do much good. Their life of Padre Pio, their book on UFOs, their video on hell, and their How the Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church, their materials exposing evolution and modern science, et al. are absolutely wonderful.
5) They practically give their stuff away, likely at a loss (charging just pennies for books, videos, and pamphlets); they are not about making money.
6) In terms of their being brothers, the charge that they are "fake Benedictines" is absurd and uncharitable. They're every bit as REAL as 99% of all Traditional groups of religious that have been founded without the requisite jurisdiction.
7) Whether any of you like it or not, the Dimonds have correctly identified the root cause of the problem behind Vatican II ... a heretical new ecclesiology that resulted from a gradual rejection of EENS. How do you get rid of EENS? Just redefine "Church" and "outside", and you're good. You're also now right there at Vatican II.
8) Dimonds then realized that the weapon used by the heretics to undermine EENS and create the new ecclesiology was BoD. But, unable to make the appropriate distinctions, they went overboard in declaring BoD "heretical" ... not realizing that one could defend EENS without necessarily rejecting BoD (at least logically). In fact, the ardent proponents of BoD ALWAYS conflate the issues on purpose because then they can pretend that they have the authority of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, etc. behind their refusal to accept EENS and their new gnostic-Pelagian-Protestant ecclsiology.
9) Dimonds recognize the bad will in most BoD proponents. Most of them hold to their opinion because the find EENS unpalatable and won't listen to reason. Consequently, the Dimonds became more frustrated and angry and bitter over time and have been overcome with bitter zeal.
10) In excommunicating proponents of BoD, the Dimonds have adopted a schismatic stance. I have repeatedly called them out on this. Father Feeney and the vast majority of "Feeneyites" do NOT do this but consider their position on BoD to be personal opinion.
What's interesting is that most of the bad traits of the Dimonds are not shared by the Feeneyite population as a whole, most of whom actually tend to be R&R. In fact, there are relatively few sedevacantist Feeneyites, and the most hostile enemies of Father Feeney and EENS come from the ranks of the SVs.
So most of the flaws one sees in the Dimonds are shared with the sedeavacantists and their bitter zeal and all its bad fruits actually emanate from the dogmatic sedevacantism rather than from Feeneyism.
The Novus ordo says nothing of bod in order to advance indifferentism and their denial of eens.
They simply state non Catholics are part of the church whether they are bad willed or not, whether they desire baptism or not.
-
Let's have a more objective look at the Dimonds, since most people have an ax to grind.
1) I agree that they are not good debaters and do not construct solid arguments. In particular, they fail to see finer distinctions that would make certain points of theirs more complex than they pretend.
2) They often miss subtle nuance in some of the quotes they adduce to prove their positions.
3) As with the dogmatic sedevacantists, this lack of ability to consider complexities and to make distinctions leads to a dogmatism, a pretense that their position is essentially de fide because it derives from a simple obvious "irrefutable" syllogism. They use the word "irrefutable" all the time.
4) They do have a lot of talent and do much good. Their life of Padre Pio, their book on UFOs, their video on hell, and their How the Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church, their materials exposing evolution and modern science, et al. are absolutely wonderful.
5) They practically give their stuff away, likely at a loss (charging just pennies for books, videos, and pamphlets); they are not about making money.
6) In terms of their being brothers, the charge that they are "fake Benedictines" is absurd and uncharitable. They're every bit as REAL as 99% of all Traditional groups of religious that have been founded without the requisite jurisdiction.
7) Whether any of you like it or not, the Dimonds have correctly identified the root cause of the problem behind Vatican II ... a heretical new ecclesiology that resulted from a gradual rejection of EENS. How do you get rid of EENS? Just redefine "Church" and "outside", and you're good. You're also now right there at Vatican II.
8) Dimonds then realized that the weapon used by the heretics to undermine EENS and create the new ecclesiology was BoD. But, unable to make the appropriate distinctions, they went overboard in declaring BoD "heretical" ... not realizing that one could defend EENS without necessarily rejecting BoD (at least logically). In fact, the ardent proponents of BoD ALWAYS conflate the issues on purpose because then they can pretend that they have the authority of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, etc. behind their refusal to accept EENS and their new gnostic-Pelagian-Protestant ecclsiology.
9) Dimonds recognize the bad will in most BoD proponents. Most of them hold to their opinion because the find EENS unpalatable and won't listen to reason. Consequently, the Dimonds became more frustrated and angry and bitter over time and have been overcome with bitter zeal.
10) In excommunicating proponents of BoD, the Dimonds have adopted a schismatic stance. I have repeatedly called them out on this. Father Feeney and the vast majority of "Feeneyites" do NOT do this but consider their position on BoD to be personal opinion.
What's interesting is that most of the bad traits of the Dimonds are not shared by the Feeneyite population as a whole, most of whom actually tend to be R&R. In fact, there are relatively few sedevacantist Feeneyites, and the most hostile enemies of Father Feeney and EENS come from the ranks of the SVs.
So most of the flaws one sees in the Dimonds are shared with the sedeavacantists and their bitter zeal and all its bad fruits actually emanate from the dogmatic sedevacantism rather than from Feeneyism.
The Novus ordo says nothing of bod in order to advance indifferentism and their denial of eens.
They simply state non Catholics are part of the church whether they are bad willed or not, whether they desire baptism or not.
Yes--this was my experience in conciliardom. Even from "conservative" priests.
-
Ladislaus said:
"They do have a lot of talent and do much good. Their life of Padre Pio, their book on UFOs, their video on hell, and their How the Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church, their materials exposing evolution and modern science, et al. are absolutely wonderful."
1 Corinthians 13:1-6
"If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth;"
Matthew 23:15
"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves."[/i]
Ladislaus further states:
"Whether any of you like it or not, the Dimonds have correctly identified the root cause of the problem behind Vatican II ... a heretical new ecclesiology that resulted from a gradual rejection of EENS. "
The root cause is the loss of belief in the True Presence. In this belief is all Catholicism.
Ephesians 5:30
"Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones."
Apocalypse 2:17
"To him that overcometh, I will give the hidden manna,"
John 6:54 & 67
"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him."
1 Corinthians 11:28-29
"But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."
-
The Novus ordo says nothing of bod in order to advance indifferentism and their denial of eens.
They simply state non Catholics are part of the church whether they are bad willed or not, whether they desire baptism or not.
That's a very broad brush and is therefore not entirely accurate. Yes, your flaming liberal "I don't care what the Church teaches" heretic Novus Ordites just deny EENS outright. Those who accept EENS in principle, the more "conservative" ones, invariably leverage the concept of BoD in the interests of the new ecclesiology. Karl Rahner himself traced the progression through BoD to Vatican II.
Traditional Catholics who try to find exceptions to EENS also use BoD as the weapon. Of course they apply BoD quite loosely, even to Protestants who are Baptized, so that BoD is really nothing but code-word for "sincerity" or "good will". So the Church of the Faithful from Church dogmatic formulae has become the Church of the Sincere. BoD as used by most modern proponents (not, however, by the likes of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus) is nothing more than Pelagianism in disguise.
-
For all of you who say the Dimonds are not good debaters.... for God's sake, call them up, set up a recorded debate and hand them their lunch.
What a great Idea.... The truth of the matter is there is no one here who would take the open and public challenge, as they would come away "red faced " and empty handed.
Peter Dimond in is his great book , "Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation", is a comprehensive Manual detailing , all dealing with Baptism of Desire/Blood and Salvation , Backed always with Popes , Councils and Church Docuмents, which none here can do, and is why you won t take the Challenge. None can stand the Truth.
All the arm chair theologians out there ,, here is you chance,, let s see what your made of.
andysloan
Ladislaus
Cantarella
All the followers of Fr. Fention
Emerentina
SBC followers
Their Email.... mhfm1@aol.com
-
To Director:
I have already had an email debate with him regarding the falsity of sedevacantism (Dogma 6:6; Vatican 1; Matthew 18:15-17). Here is an excerpt of one reply.
"Without in any way discounting the seriousness of the matter or the evil entailed in the position, it’s true that the position which recognizes Francis as the pope is theologically laughable. For anyone who understands and believes anything about Church unity, the Papacy, papal infallibility, the Magisterium, Church teaching on heresy, etc., your position is a JOKE. That’s why more and more people who are even slightly conservative are figuring out that he’s not the pope. You could laugh right in the face of someone who thinks, as you do, that Antipope Francis or Antipope Benedict XVI or Antipope John Paul II were popes. It’s almost not even worth debating at this point because it’s so obvious to anyone with even a small amount of good will. In addition to the fact that the Vatican II antipopes were and are clear heretics, they officially taught the opposite of true popes. That's impossible for popes to do. Every day Antipope Francis and your non-Catholic sect give more absolute proof for what we’ve been saying for years.
To say that Francis is the pope is like saying that the Dalai Lama is the pope.
The evidence that John Paul II was the Antichrist is overwhelming, but obviously an idolater like you won't realize it. You don’t even believe in Jesus Christ or Catholic teaching. Thus, deeper wisdom is folly to you. You probably also reject Sr. Lucia’s statement that we are in the end times. You haven't even figured out that John Paul II taught that every man is God and worshipped false gods at Assisi (facts). You would probably even deny that John Paul II facilitated idolatry at Assisi. You are a simply a possessed fool. When you go to bed tonight, know that we know for certain that Francis is not the pope and that you are on the road to Hell.
MHFM
www.SchismError.com
P.S. Don't expect more responses from us, even if you respond."
Thus, we see the common behaviour of schismatics - in mortal sin and therefore deprived of charity by God, they are enslaved to abuse and slander when contradicted.
3 John 1:9-10
"I had written perhaps to the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, doth not receive us. For this cause, if I come, I will advertise his works which he doth, with malicious words prating against us. And as if these things were not enough for him, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that do receive them he forbiddeth, and casteth out of the church."
Peter Dimond is simply a doctrinal bully, in pursuit of his own glory.
Romans 16:17-18
"Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent."
James 3:14-16
"But if you have bitter zeal, and there be contentions in your hearts; glory not, and be not liars against the truth. For this is not wisdom, descending from above: but earthly, sensual, devilish.
For where envying and contention is, there is inconstancy, and every evil work."
"A heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit, especially that he may lord and be honored above others." St Augustine
God will deal with him in time:
2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition,
Job 20:6-7
"If his pride mount up even to heaven, and his head touch the clouds: In the end he shall be destroyed like a dunghill, and they that has seen him shall say: Where is he?"
Matthew 23:24
"Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel."
-
When you go to bed tonight, know that we know for certain that Francis is not the pope and that you are on the road to Hell.
MHFM
They always need to proclaim that x person is on the road to Hell, when they are as well. How ironic.
In another debate Bob Dimond had he said "I can tell you INFALLIBLY that you're on the road to Hell."
Sheesh!
-
It is unthinkable that someone who could proclaim themselves truly Catholic, could speak the way they do. If you look on their website, where is talk of the cross, penance, love of God and neighbour, holy devotions? It is cold and obsessive.
I hope anyone who adheres to or respects them will wake up and run a mile, as MHFM is a citadel of the devil to draw people into error (like the CMRI).
In truth, I pray for Peter Dimond, because what an operation of deceit they are running and what an account will have to be given for the slander, abuse and promulgation of false doctrine.
2 Timothy 3:13
"But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error."
-
the accusation that you are a bad-will heretic....just like Ladislaus here pulled on me recently.
Most often they are correct when they make this accusation ... except that they go the extra step and pretend to judge the state of one's soul, the degree of culpability in the internal forum, and condemn people to hell ... with apparent relish.
You can in fact judge bad will in the external forum, just as you are clearly judging them to be of bad will, eh, Nado? Pot calling the kettle black?
I put neither your nor them in hell. I can, however, ascertain from your actions and words, Nado, that your theological positions stem from ulterior motives of the will rather than from cogent reasons, based on the self-contradictions and many signs of your begging the question. Similarly, I can judge that the Dimonds are motivated by bad will and bitter zeal. As to the degree of culpability, I leave that entirely in the Hands of God where it belongs. If I were a priest, I would not refuse you Communion, for instance, despite the fact that I have determined you to be a bad-willed heretic. Why? Because there are obviously degrees of bad will, and the degree of bad will required to put one outside the Church is quite high; you would have to at least implicitly repudiate the formal motive of faith, the Magisterium. In the current vacuum of authority, there's sufficient confusion about various theological issues to absolve people from that highest degree of guilt. Now, if you made it clear that you KNEW what the Church taught on a matter and then rejected it anyway, then that's different and the formal heresy becomes quite manifest. But if you make various subtle arguments defending your position to be in conformity with Church teaching, then however wrong and absurd and heretical the position is, it's difficult to ascertain anything more than material error. That is the key that most sedevacantists don't see and refuse to see. I am confident that if a new Traditional Pope Pius XIII came along and he solemnly condemned your position, that you would retract it. And that in the end is the litmus test for whether someone is a Catholic, that disposition to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as their formal rule of faith over their private judgment. I am confident that 99% of those who call themselves Traditional Catholics pass that test.
As a sedevacantist, you too are accusing Francis of bad-willed heresy ... but go the extra step to take it upon yourself to declare him outside the Church. So stop with the hypocrisy and sanctimonious self-pity already.
There's nothing so insipid as the modern greatest commandment of all, "Thou shalt not judge." We can in fact judge and do judge every day. We judge people's attitudes and dispositions based on external indicators. Where it stops is in judging the degree of culpability before God Himself. We cannot know this.
You've made it clear that you are a bad-willed Pelagian heretic, Nado. But, if I were like you, then I would consider you outside the Church. But, unlike yourself, I know the limits of my judgment. I have a duty to combat heresy whenever I am confronted with it, whether you like it or not, and whether it makes you uncomfortable or not. As for your own personal conscience, that's between you an God.
-
As a sedevacantist, you too are accusing Francis of bad-willed heresy ... but go the extra step to take it upon yourself to declare him outside the Church. So stop with the hypocrisy and sanctimonious self-pity already.
You make it seem as if proving that he has cast himself outside the Church were something difficult.
Even non-Catholics now are asking the question if he's a heretic.
I have a duty to combat heresy whenever I am confronted with it
Except when it comes to Bergoglio or the other antipopes; then nothing is heresy and it is impossible to prove anyways.
-
In other words, Ladislaus pulled the accusation on me because he couldn't argue anything any more. A common Feeneyite ploy.
:roll-laugh1:
What, me being unable to "argue anything more"? People have said lots of things about me on CI but never that I was unable to argue anything more.
No, Nado, you were soundly refuted by about half a dozen posters, including two who are NOT "Feeneyite", but refused to admit that you are wrong.
Nishant, a non-Feeneyite, and one of the most charitable posters on CI, basically said the same thing:
Expecting Nado to correct her opinion, based on the numerous pre-Vatican II authorities that have already been shown to her, seems at this point to be optimistic to the point of foolishness, Ladislaus, but anyway, for anyone of good will seeking the truth on this question I put it out there.
Typical Cushingite ploy is to tar anyone a "Feeneyite" who refuses to become a Pelagian heretic.
-
Except when it comes to Bergoglio or the other antipopes; then nothing is heresy and it is impossible to prove anyways.
False. I have repeatedly stated that I consider Bergoglio to be a Pelagian heretic. But, then again, the vast majority of the SVs here on CI are also Pelagian heretics. Thus you see the complexity of this issue? If I consider you Pelagian SVs to be Catholic, then I must also consider Francis to be a Catholic. Interesting dilemma, no?
But if I were to act like you SVs, I would just say that you are manifest heretics and not Catholics, and that would make it so.
Really one of the dumbest things Francis ever said was that Traditional Catholics are Pelagian heretics, with him being THE Pelagian heresiarch. Or did he actually have a point? Ah, never mind; he just has no idea what Pelagianism is.
-
Except when it comes to Bergoglio or the other antipopes; then nothing is heresy and it is impossible to prove anyways.
False. I have repeatedly stated that I consider Bergoglio to be a Pelagian heretic. But, then again, the vast majority of the SVs here on CI are also Pelagian heretics. Thus you see the complexity of this issue? If I consider you Pelagian SVs to be Catholic, then I must also consider Francis to be a Catholic. Interesting dilemma, no?
But if I were to act like you SVs, I would just say that you are manifest heretics and not Catholics, and that would make it so.
Really one of the dumbest things Francis ever said was that Traditional Catholics are Pelagian heretics, with him being THE Pelagian heresiarch. Or did he actually have a point? Ah, never mind; he just has no idea what Pelagianism is.
Explain what you mean by SVs being Pelagian heretics.
-
For all of you who say the Dimonds are not good debaters.... for God's sake, call them up, set up a recorded debate and hand them their lunch.
What a great Idea.... The truth of the matter is there is no one here who would take the open and public challenge, as they would come away "red faced " and empty handed.
Peter Dimond in is his great book , "Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation", is a comprehensive Manual detailing , all dealing with Baptism of Desire/Blood and Salvation , Backed always with Popes , Councils and Church Docuмents, which none here can do, and is why you won t take the Challenge. None can stand the Truth.
All the arm chair theologians out there ,, here is you chance,, let s see what your made of.
andysloan
Ladislaus
Cantarella
All the followers of Fr. Fention
Emerentina
SBC followers
Their Email.... mhfm1@aol.com
-
For all of you who say the Dimonds are not good debaters.... for God's sake, call them up, set up a recorded debate and hand them their lunch.
What a great Idea.... The truth of the matter is there is no one here who would take the open and public challenge, as they would come away "red faced " and empty handed.
Peter Dimond in is his great book , "Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation", is a comprehensive Manual detailing , all dealing with Baptism of Desire/Blood and Salvation , Backed always with Popes , Councils and Church Docuмents, which none here can do, and is why you won t take the Challenge. None can stand the Truth.
All the arm chair theologians out there ,, here is you chance,, let s see what your made of.
andysloan
Ladislaus
Cantarella
All the followers of Fr. Fention
Emerentina
SBC followers
Their Email.... mhfm1@aol.com
Director you missed the point. I did debate them. I could not believe that the Dimonds had the Chutzpah to condemn someone as intelligent as Van Noort because he did not fit into their adolescent theology. I know that no manual theologian would deny BOD despite these men all having read and thoroughly understood the Council of Trent, Council of Florence and all the dogmatic decrees the Dimonds twist into their beliefs.
Dimonds have all day to read and make videos and do whatever they feel is their business. The problem is that if their interpretation of BOB is so clear why has no one ever said Baptism of Desire is heresy? And if so perhaps they should go back to their original line of work. http://mikediamondservices.com/plumbing-heating-air-conditioning-services/plumbing/?_vsrefdom=p.2859.c.48413&gclid=CjwKEAiA4_WjBRCNgf7A_KeE9jwSJADtegYdFMAhPjy7LZro1vkZZmB2Rqsd6LuNNBKwVXlkz1A38xoCn2rw_wcB
-
Feeneyism will not disappear until something supernatural happens. There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.
-
Feeneyism will not disappear until something supernatural happens. There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.
Pope Pius XII authoritatively excommunicated the leader in order to help safeguard the faith. Forum owners should follow suit.
But the excommunication said nothing of BoD so they grab hold of that and the Holy Office letter, well you know what they say about it.
Feeneyites are not intellectually honest so that's why I say until something supernatural happens they won't go away.
-
There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.
This statement seems to attribute a lot more influence to the Dimonds than what they have in reality.
-
Feeneyism will not disappear until something supernatural happens. There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.
Pope Pius XII authoritatively excommunicated the leader in order to help safeguard the faith. Forum owners should follow suit.
I know that it's just a nuance, but any "excommunication" was on other grounds.
-
Feeneyism will not disappear until something supernatural happens. There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.
Pope Pius XII authoritatively excommunicated the leader in order to help safeguard the faith. Forum owners should follow suit.
But the excommunication said nothing of BoD so they grab hold of that and the Holy Office letter, well you know what they say about it.
Feeneyites are not intellectually honest so that's why I say until something supernatural happens they won't go away.
The letter of 1949 was sent explaining in detail the correct doctrine of baptism of desire.
From 1951 they published "Gate of Heaven", a book of 137 pages all agaisnt baptism of desire, and against the 1949 letter. Published while the SBC was already under censure. It was touted as their doctrinal position.
Cardinal Cushing wrote, September, 1952:
"The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circuмstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision."
Wording from actually excommunication, February, 1953:
"the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law."
Cushinguite Nado lets her inability to debate rationally the topic of BOD to blur her understanding on the whole issue. She has taken it quite personally with Ladislaus and at this point is unable to form objective opinions on anything.
The heretical letter of 1949 claims that there are known exceptions to the EENS dogma which has been defined by three Church Councils. The known exceptions are supposed to be the souls who die "invincible ignorant" of the True Faith and are saved through subjective and ambiguous "implicit desire via last minute BOD".
This letter is also a straighforward and blant rejection of the Nicene Creed "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin" which refers to water Baptism only, the sacrament that has been revealed by God Himself. It is being implied in this letter that there are three or more known baptisms: water, desire, blood etc. Unfortunately, Vatican II curia - Novus Ordo, sedevacantists such as CMRI, and even SSPX priests such as Fr.Francois Laisney are guilty of the same faulty reasoning.
As said before, it seems that that the "traditionalists" can only point out to the errors in Vatican II but cannot really provide an alternative since they act unaware of the Cushing Heresy (invincible ignorance -> denial of EENS) which is the cause of those errors.
The EENS dogma (as all Catholic dogmas) is to be understood as solemnly declared, professed, and taught since the creation of the Church, without any change of meaning.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, ex cathedra: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."
Cushinguism is an actual ERROR based on the modernist new doctrine of salvation made in the USA. The Archbishop of Boston and the liberal Jesuits there gave us the novel concept of an exceptional way of salvation: through "invincible ignorance" while in "false religion". This objective error was spread in the Catholic Church and carried over Vatican II. It is the main basis for liberalism and dissent in the Church.
It is pointless to discuss with those that have been attacked by the Cushinguite virus. Just as the conciliar Popes, the sedevacantists modernists BODers of CI all suffer from the same malady.
Cushinghites say that there can be known souls saved in invincible ignorance or baptism of desire, contradicting the ex cathedra thrice defined EENS dogma.
By saying that everyone need not enter the Catholic Church for salvation because there are some that can be saved in false religions, these Cushinguites (Pope Francis style) throw out the window Cantate Domino, Florence, Trent, and even Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7)!.
But once the virus of Cushinguism enters these modern souls, only a miracle of God's grace can cure it.
-
There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.
This statement seems to attribute a lot more influence to the Dimonds than what they have in reality.
I think they influence thousands of people. What do you think?
-
I could not believe that the Dimonds had the Chutzpah to condemn someone as intelligent as Van Noort because he did not fit into their adolescent theology.
Whether you agree with them or not, there's nothing "adolescent" about their theology. No, the likes of Van Noort is simply not above criticism for being "intelligent". Karl Rahner is quite intelligent also. If all you had was "How dare you criticize an intelligent man such as Van Noort", it's really no wonder why you didn't get any response. Your emotional angsting is truly adolescent. It seems that we have yet another Pelagian heretic promoting the agenda here.
-
Feeneyism will not disappear until something supernatural happens. There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.
Pope Pius XII authoritatively excommunicated the leader in order to help safeguard the faith. Forum owners should follow suit.
Father Feeney is no threat to the faith, someone who believes EENS and as a matter of personal opinion doesn't believe that God would allow any of His elect to die without the Sacrament of Baptism. You, Nado, a Pelagian heretic, who also reject the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and publicly promote your heresies, are in fact the real danger to the Faith.
Cardinal "No salvation outside of the Church? Nonsense." Cushing, your hero, was the real danger to the Faith. Father Feeney posed no threat to anyone except to the organized Jewry of Boston.
-
Nado the Cushingite heretic has not offered a single argument of substance on the issue yet. Cushingite is nothing more that our term of convenience in answer to the term "Feeneyite".
-
Feeneyism will not disappear until something supernatural happens. There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.
Pope Pius XII authoritatively excommunicated the leader in order to help safeguard the faith. Forum owners should follow suit.
Father Feeney is no threat to the faith, someone who believes EENS and as a matter of personal opinion doesn't believe that God would allow any of His elect to die without the Sacrament of Baptism. You, Nado, a Pelagian heretic, who also reject the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and publicly promote your heresies, are in fact the real danger to the Faith.
Let's hear what you REALLY think of Pius XII. Don't hide it.
You know nothing about the history of what went on, Nadette. Father Feeney was excommunicated for not showing up in Rome and was being railroaded the entire time (which is why he didn't show up). Look into the history, heretic.
-
Cushinguite Nado lets her inability to debate rationally the topic of BOD to blur her understanding on the whole issue. She has taken it quite personally with Ladislaus and at this point is unable to form objective opinions on anything.
Femlogic.
Cantarella is here establishing a pretext so she won't have to discuss anything with me anywhere. This is companion pretext to the Feeneyite accusation of "bad will", both of which try to get them away from strong arguments they cannot answer.
Cushing Heresy
Cushinguite virus.
Cushinghites say
Cushinguites (Pope Francis style)
Cushinguism enters
Even though what I posted was clearly from Pope Pius XII himself and the Holy Office, all Cantarella can see is "Cushing".
What really is behind the triumph of Modernism in Vatican II is The Cushing error. Not enough can be said to combat this perfidious heresy of denying the exclusivity of the Catholic Church for salvation. Yet, Nado has the nerve to condemn the conciliar Popes but she has no absolutely no right to do so because she shares the exact same liberal error.
Cushingism IS the very reason behind Indifferentism, Universal Salvation, and Religious Liberty. Then, we have modernist traitors such as CMRI posing as Catholic Traditionalists spreading this same very heresy and taking people outside the Church in the process. Again, this Heresy and Schism MUST be resisted. There will be no restoration until this problem is resolved.
Archbishop Cushing thinks that the kingdom of heaven is taken not by violence, but by ignorance. He thinks that the Protestants and Jews of Boston, where there is a Catholic church on every fourth or fifth street corner, will be saved either because they are unaware of the Faith, or else because they are too thick to understand it. In his largesse, the gate of heaven is open to all — both to those who die with the sacraments and to those who die hating Christ and His Church. Here is how he puts it: “When I die and go to Heaven, if I don’t find you there, I’ll know it’s because you’re not dead yet.”
In his published statements, Archbishop Cushing sounds more like a vote-coaxing politician than like a spokesman for the Church. Here are some of them:
To the Jews, who have for 2,000 years proclaimed their rejection of the Christ he professes to love, the Archbishop offers this expression of muddled charity: “No man could have my faith concerning Christ ... without loving Him and the people who produced Him, the Jews.”
To the Protestants, he presents this modest message, letting them know that the mission of the Catholic Church in America is merely to carry on the work begun by the nation’s Protestant founders: “Catholics are standing just as and where the Protestants did when they had complete moral leadership of the community.”
To non-Catholics generally, here is his assurance that they shouldn’t give a thought to changing their religion: “In the last analysis people will learn morality best within the household of their own spiritual families.”
And, ultimately, to his clergy, here is his modernization of the Gospel admonition about the narrow path and the strait way that leadeth to life: “No priest can be content today with serving God or saving people in a circuмscribed or narrow path.”
The heretical 1949 Holy Office Letter is the doctrinal foundation for the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. The one dogma of the Faith which Freemasons hate most vehemently is the one that proclaims the authority of the Church to teach and to command. Indeed, the initiation rite for one of the higher degrees of the “brotherhood” requires the initiate to stab with a dagger the Papal crown and tiara representing Pope Boniface VIII. Boniface was the Pope who defined ex cathedra the absolute necessity of personal submission to the Holy Roman pontiff in order to be saved.
-
.
-
Let's have a more objective look at the Dimonds, since most people have an ax to grind.
6) In terms of their being brothers, the charge that they are "fake Benedictines" is absurd and uncharitable. They're every bit as REAL as 99% of all Traditional groups of religious that have been founded without the requisite jurisdiction.
No, they are not, at least not as real as the religious communities who were founded by valid religious clergy, notwithstanding issues of "no jurisdiction" and "not being licit". The Dimond monastery essentially just "set up shop" with no lineage to a validly ordained bishop, priest nor a consecrated monk. The founder of MHFM reportedly never even took vows while he was a lay postulant at another monastery before he left it and founded MHFM. Conversely, the SSPX, CMRI and SSPV have religious communities that are established by actual clerics who were conferred Holy Orders by validly ordained bishops. SSPX, CMRI and SSPV religious communities, despite their splintering, ultimately stem from the apostolate of a valid bishop, Archbishop Lefebvre, hence they have the mark of being Apostolic, notwithstanding their religious communities lacking official Church approbation due to the Crisis.
-
Cardinal Cushing, Cardinal Cushing, Cardinal Cushing. Never Pius XII. An example of heretics going into denial when the Church Herself condemns them.
What condemnation?
The Letter of 1949 which was originally an inter office communication and it was placed in the Denzinger by ULTRA modernist Fr.Karl Rahner (probably Nado's favorite theologian)? This letter was supported by the Jєωιѕн Masonic liberal media and ironically in CI is repeatedly PROPAGATED and brought back to life by the modernists CMRI sedevacantists in their quest to UNDERMINE the exclusivity of Our Holy Roman Catholic Church as only possible means of human salvation.
The Archbishop of Boston and the liberal Jesuits there gave us the novel concept of an exceptional way of salvation: through "invincible ignorance" while in "false religion". This objective error was spread in the Catholic Church and carried over Vatican II. It is the main basis for liberalism and dissent in the Church.
For the modernist sedevacantists, most traditionalists, and Novus Ordo Catholics, being saved in through BOD in "invincible ignorance" refer to physically visible cases as exceptions to the EENS dogma as we could ever see the dead. This does not change the infallible doctrine that all need to explicitly convert to Catholicism before death, in order to be saved, without ANY known exceptions.
-
There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.
This statement seems to attribute a lot more influence to the Dimonds than what they have in reality.
I think they influence thousands of people. What do you think?
I seriously doubt it. I don't have anything solid to base that on. What are you going by to make you think that they do?
-
Lurking and learning here. :ready-to-eat:
But I'm confused - who is defending Card. Cushing?
Important reminder, Cantarella. +1
The heretical 1949 Holy Office Letter is the doctrinal foundation for the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. The one dogma of the Faith which Freemasons hate most vehemently is the one that proclaims the authority of the Church to teach and to command. Indeed, the initiation rite for one of the higher degrees of the “brotherhood” requires the initiate to stab with a dagger the Papal crown and tiara representing Pope Boniface VIII. Boniface was the Pope who defined ex cathedra the absolute necessity of personal submission to the Holy Roman pontiff in order to be saved.
-
Let's have a more objective look at the Dimonds, since most people have an ax to grind.
6) In terms of their being brothers, the charge that they are "fake Benedictines" is absurd and uncharitable. They're every bit as REAL as 99% of all Traditional groups of religious that have been founded without the requisite jurisdiction.
No, they are not, at least not as real as the religious communities who were founded by valid religious clergy, notwithstanding issues of "no jurisdiction" and "not being licit". The Dimond monastery essentially just "set up shop" with no lineage to a validly ordained bishop, priest nor a consecrated monk. The founder of MHFM reportedly never even took vows while he was a lay postulant at another monastery before he left it and founded MHFM. Conversely, the SSPX, CMRI and SSPV have religious communities that are established by actual clerics who were conferred Holy Orders by validly ordained bishops. SSPX, CMRI and SSPV religious communities, despite their splintering, ultimately stem from the apostolate of a valid bishop, Archbishop Lefebvre, hence they have the mark of being Apostolic, notwithstanding their religious communities lacking official Church approbation due to the Crisis.
Being able to set up a religious community has absolutely nothing to do with simple valid Holy Orders, nor can any "consecrated monk" set up a religious community. It has to do with JURISDICTION, which no one right now in the Traditional world has (except in supplied fashion for necessities related to the salvation of souls). You seriously misunderstand how this works.
-
There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.
This statement seems to attribute a lot more influence to the Dimonds than what they have in reality.
I think they influence thousands of people. What do you think?
I seriously doubt it. I don't have anything solid to base that on. What are you going by to make you think that they do?
Most of those who find Father Feeney's position persuasive here on CI were influenced by Father Feeney and SBC and not the Dimonds.
-
Lurking and learning here. :ready-to-eat:
But I'm confused - who is defending Card. Cushing?
Important reminder, Cantarella. +1
The heretical 1949 Holy Office Letter is the doctrinal foundation for the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. The one dogma of the Faith which Freemasons hate most vehemently is the one that proclaims the authority of the Church to teach and to command. Indeed, the initiation rite for one of the higher degrees of the “brotherhood” requires the initiate to stab with a dagger the Papal crown and tiara representing Pope Boniface VIII. Boniface was the Pope who defined ex cathedra the absolute necessity of personal submission to the Holy Roman pontiff in order to be saved.
CMRI sedevacantist Nado and the like...
-
There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.
This statement seems to attribute a lot more influence to the Dimonds than what they have in reality.
I think they influence thousands of people. What do you think?
I seriously doubt it. I don't have anything solid to base that on. What are you going by to make you think that they do?
They send their stuff all over the world. They always have new comments of people heaping praises on them, year after year, and of course they can't put every single email they get there. People from all over the world send them emails of approval. Now they even got one of their ads on tv.
They once told me they had close to a 1000 emails to answer, and this was years ago. They check and answer it every single day. It's probably true.
-
Except when it comes to Bergoglio or the other antipopes; then nothing is heresy and it is impossible to prove anyways.
False. I have repeatedly stated that I consider Bergoglio to be a Pelagian heretic. But, then again, the vast majority of the SVs here on CI are also Pelagian heretics. Thus you see the complexity of this issue? If I consider you Pelagian SVs to be Catholic, then I must also consider Francis to be a Catholic. Interesting dilemma, no?
But if I were to act like you SVs, I would just say that you are manifest heretics and not Catholics, and that would make it so.
Really one of the dumbest things Francis ever said was that Traditional Catholics are Pelagian heretics, with him being THE Pelagian heresiarch. Or did he actually have a point? Ah, never mind; he just has no idea what Pelagianism is.
Explain what you mean by SVs being Pelagian heretics.
-
Let's have a more objective look at the Dimonds, since most people have an ax to grind.
6) In terms of their being brothers, the charge that they are "fake Benedictines" is absurd and uncharitable. They're every bit as REAL as 99% of all Traditional groups of religious that have been founded without the requisite jurisdiction.
No, they are not, at least not as real as the religious communities who were founded by valid religious clergy, notwithstanding issues of "no jurisdiction" and "not being licit". The Dimond monastery essentially just "set up shop" with no lineage to a validly ordained bishop, priest nor a consecrated monk. The founder of MHFM reportedly never even took vows while he was a lay postulant at another monastery before he left it and founded MHFM. Conversely, the SSPX, CMRI and SSPV have religious communities that are established by actual clerics who were conferred Holy Orders by validly ordained bishops. SSPX, CMRI and SSPV religious communities, despite their splintering, ultimately stem from the apostolate of a valid bishop, Archbishop Lefebvre, hence they have the mark of being Apostolic, notwithstanding their religious communities lacking official Church approbation due to the Crisis.
Being able to set up a religious community has absolutely nothing to do with simple valid Holy Orders, nor can any "consecrated monk" set up a religious community. It has to do with JURISDICTION, which no one right now in the Traditional world has (except in supplied fashion for necessities related to the salvation of souls). You seriously misunderstand how this works.
You seriously misunderstand or, perhaps, avoid the point I'm making. The point is the religious communities from SSPX, et al, are organic, hence their founder(s) has an actual lineage to a member of the Church who was consecrated in the Holy Orders. This makes these religious communities far more real than the Dimond brothers' monastery, which is not organic and is 100% lay founded, hence lacking any authenticity. Their monastery is no different than some bozo waking up tomorrow morning and allotting his barn and land for a few lay people to start their "monastery" while they call themselves "monks" and "brothers". Moreover, your argument about jurisdiction, which is beside the point, has little merit because Catholic means "universal", therefore in this Crisis of the (universal) Church, a valid clergy has jurisdiction everywhere, and at any time, to minister to the flock, despite not being granted regular faculties, nor jurisdiction, by heretical / apostate Rome.
-
It is weird to see this defense of the Dimonds by Ladislaus. I'd like to know the reason behind it.
Anyways, they neither speak, nor behave, nor act nor live like real monks. If a real Benedictine monk were to hear how they speak he would fall on his back. They spend hours on the computer and phone every day. They don't even pray the full Divine Office, which they're supposed to do if they were real monks. To top it off they ditch their "religious garb" and dress as civilians when they sneak in incognito to receive the Sacraments from a Novus Ordo priest. Amazing hypocrites!
They're hacks and frauds who violate several points of the Holy Rule of St. Benedict.
-
You seriously misunderstand or, perhaps, avoid the point I'm making. The point is the religious communities from SSPX, et al, are organic, hence their founder(s) has an actual lineage to a member of the Church who was consecrated in the Holy Orders.
No, I misunderstand nothing. I'm SAYING that Holy Orders has nothing to do with it ... nothing. It may make you FEEL better about it, but some random priest can't just found a religious order without ecclesiastical approval. With that said, anyone can start something informal. That's how St. Benedict and a lot of orders first started; people set out to live a certain way and then later came the ecclesiastical approbation.
-
It is weird to see this defense of the Dimonds by Ladislaus. I'd like to know the reason behind it.
You see, that's the problem with 99% of you people. I defend the Dimonds where I feel they should be defended and criticize them where I see that they need to be criticized. So, the "reason behind it"? Simple truth. I seek the truth only. That's why I am attacked by SVs and R&R alike, because in both positions I find some truth and, conversely, I find other parts of both positions to be problematic, and I call it as I see it, without any agenda, without feeling the need to fall into a "camp" or fixed ideological "system". When I find fault with an SV proposition, I am attacked by the SVs as being a "defender of Francis". When I find fault with an R&R proposition, I am attacked for being an SV. If I defend Francis against scurrilous and trumped up charges of "heresy", then I am "always" defending "the apostate". When I attack Francis for being a Pelagian, then I am attacked for being a "Feeneyite". There are many things on which I agree with the Dimonds, and quite a few on which I do not. What's so difficult to understand about that? And I remain open-minded about things. When a reasonable person of good will, like Nishant, makes a strong argument in favor of R&R or in favor of a Catholic BoD, I think about his arguments and ponder them, and remain open to changing my mind where the force of truth brings me to a different conclusion. But when other people just flail their arms, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing, obviously not objectively seeking the truth but pushing an agenda, then it becomes annoying background noise.
You guys stick people in these emotional buckets where they're all evil or all good. It's like the people who get attacked for "supporting the h0Ɩ0cαųst" if they think that Adolf Hitler was a skilled political leader. As Matthew pointed out on a different thread, very few people are 100% pure evil, eh?
-
. . . when they sneak in incognito to receive the Sacraments from a Novus Ordo priest.
What Sacraments?
Do they confess to a pre-1968 NO priest? That's about the only thing that would be remotely consistent with their position.
If they confess to new rite "priests" or receive communion at a NO "mass," that is utterly illogical in light of their other positions.
-
. . . when they sneak in incognito to receive the Sacraments from a Novus Ordo priest.
What Sacraments?
Do they confess to a pre-1968 NO priest? That's about the only thing that would be remotely consistent with their position.
I'm not sure if he's pre-1968, but he's byzantine.
What I'm saying is that the way they go about it is not consistent with the truth or with what they say.
-
Feeneyism will not disappear until something supernatural happens. There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.
Pope Pius XII authoritatively excommunicated the leader in order to help safeguard the faith. Forum owners should follow suit.
But the excommunication said nothing of BoD so they grab hold of that and the Holy Office letter, well you know what they say about it.
Feeneyites are not intellectually honest so that's why I say until something supernatural happens they won't go away.
The letter of 1949 was sent explaining in detail the correct doctrine of baptism of desire.
From 1951 they published "Gate of Heaven", a book of 137 pages all agaisnt baptism of desire, and against the 1949 letter. Published while the SBC was already under censure. It was touted as their doctrinal position.
Cardinal Cushing wrote, September, 1952:
"The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circuмstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision."
Wording from actually excommunication, February, 1953:
"the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law."
Cushinguite Nado lets her inability to debate rationally the topic of BOD to blur her understanding on the whole issue. She has taken it quite personally with Ladislaus and at this point is unable to form objective opinions on anything.
The heretical letter of 1949 claims that there are known exceptions to the EENS dogma which has been defined by three Church Councils. The known exceptions are supposed to be the souls who die "invincible ignorant" of the True Faith and are saved through subjective and ambiguous "implicit desire via last minute BOD".
This letter is also a straighforward and blant rejection of the Nicene Creed "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin" which refers to water Baptism only, the sacrament that has been revealed by God Himself. It is being implied in this letter that there are three or more known baptisms: water, desire, blood etc. Unfortunately, Vatican II curia - Novus Ordo, sedevacantists such as CMRI, and even SSPX priests such as Fr.Francois Laisney are guilty of the same faulty reasoning.
As said before, it seems that that the "traditionalists" can only point out to the errors in Vatican II but cannot really provide an alternative since they act unaware of the Cushing Heresy (invincible ignorance -> denial of EENS) which is the cause of those errors.
The EENS dogma (as all Catholic dogmas) is to be understood as solemnly declared, professed, and taught since the creation of the Church, without any change of meaning.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, ex cathedra: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."
Cushinguism is an actual ERROR based on the modernist new doctrine of salvation made in the USA. The Archbishop of Boston and the liberal Jesuits there gave us the novel concept of an exceptional way of salvation: through "invincible ignorance" while in "false religion". This objective error was spread in the Catholic Church and carried over Vatican II. It is the main basis for liberalism and dissent in the Church.
It is pointless to discuss with those that have been attacked by the Cushinguite virus. Just as the conciliar Popes, the sedevacantists modernists BODers of CI all suffer from the same malady.
Cushinghites say that there can be known souls saved in invincible ignorance or baptism of desire, contradicting the ex cathedra thrice defined EENS dogma.
By saying that everyone need not enter the Catholic Church for salvation because there are some that can be saved in false religions, these Cushinguites (Pope Francis style) throw out the window Cantate Domino, Florence, Trent, and even Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7)!.
But once the virus of Cushinguism enters these modern souls, only a miracle of God's grace can cure it.
Cantarella yopu have made strong accusations such as the heretical excommunication, calling those in favor Cushingite. My question to you is name a theologian who says that Baptism of Desire is heresy. Anyone can interpret dogmas in their own light, Protestants do this with the Holy Writ. Until you can I have to assume that you are following a man made doctrine.
Pax Christi
Michael Tucker
-
I could not believe that the Dimonds had the Chutzpah to condemn someone as intelligent as Van Noort because he did not fit into their adolescent theology.
Whether you agree with them or not, there's nothing "adolescent" about their theology. No, the likes of Van Noort is simply not above criticism for being "intelligent". Karl Rahner is quite intelligent also. If all you had was "How dare you criticize an intelligent man such as Van Noort", it's really no wonder why you didn't get any response. Your emotional angsting is truly adolescent. It seems that we have yet another Pelagian heretic promoting the agenda here.
Van Noort is not merely intelligent he has a career as an unblemished Catholic Theologian. Ottaviani when he lead the Holy Office condemned Rahner for error. Ladislaus name one legitimate condemnation from a Catholic Authority against Van Noort.
Pax Christi
Michael Tucker
-
Feeneyism will not disappear until something supernatural happens. There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.
Pope Pius XII authoritatively excommunicated the leader in order to help safeguard the faith. Forum owners should follow suit.
Father Feeney is no threat to the faith, someone who believes EENS and as a matter of personal opinion doesn't believe that God would allow any of His elect to die without the Sacrament of Baptism. You, Nado, a Pelagian heretic, who also reject the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and publicly promote your heresies, are in fact the real danger to the Faith.
Cardinal "No salvation outside of the Church? Nonsense." Cushing, your hero, was the real danger to the Faith. Father Feeney posed no threat to anyone except to the organized Jewry of Boston.
Feeney was excommunicated by name. He was a danger to the faith otherwise the Pope would not have excommunicated him.
according to the Council of Constance (1414-18), it suffices that "the sentence have been published or made known by the judge in a special and express manner". Persons thus excommunicated are to be shunned (vitandi), i.e. the faithful must have no intercourse with them either in regard to sacred things or (to a certain extent) profane matters
Are you telling me you do not believe in the Council of Constance?
Pax Christi
Mike Tucker
-
Feeneyism will not disappear until something supernatural happens. There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.
Pope Pius XII authoritatively excommunicated the leader in order to help safeguard the faith. Forum owners should follow suit.
Father Feeney is no threat to the faith, someone who believes EENS and as a matter of personal opinion doesn't believe that God would allow any of His elect to die without the Sacrament of Baptism. You, Nado, a Pelagian heretic, who also reject the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and publicly promote your heresies, are in fact the real danger to the Faith.
Let's hear what you REALLY think of Pius XII. Don't hide it.
You know nothing about the history of what went on, Nadette. Father Feeney was excommunicated for not showing up in Rome and was being railroaded the entire time (which is why he didn't show up). Look into the history, heretic.
Blondel was excommunicated for not showing up as well. His defenders claim that he was railroaded.
Pax Christi
Mike Tucker
-
Let's have a more objective look at the Dimonds, since most people have an ax to grind.
6) In terms of their being brothers, the charge that they are "fake Benedictines" is absurd and uncharitable. They're every bit as REAL as 99% of all Traditional groups of religious that have been founded without the requisite jurisdiction.
No, they are not, at least not as real as the religious communities who were founded by valid religious clergy, notwithstanding issues of "no jurisdiction" and "not being licit". The Dimond monastery essentially just "set up shop" with no lineage to a validly ordained bishop, priest nor a consecrated monk. The founder of MHFM reportedly never even took vows while he was a lay postulant at another monastery before he left it and founded MHFM. Conversely, the SSPX, CMRI and SSPV have religious communities that are established by actual clerics who were conferred Holy Orders by validly ordained bishops. SSPX, CMRI and SSPV religious communities, despite their splintering, ultimately stem from the apostolate of a valid bishop, Archbishop Lefebvre, hence they have the mark of being Apostolic, notwithstanding their religious communities lacking official Church approbation due to the Crisis.
And the SSPX, CMRI, SSPV and other have seminaries were theology, philiophy and classical languages are studied.
Pax Christi
Mike Tucker
-
Cardinal Cushing, Cardinal Cushing, Cardinal Cushing. Never Pius XII. An example of heretics going into denial when the Church Herself condemns them.
What condemnation?
The Letter of 1949 which was originally an inter office communication and it was placed in the Denzinger by ULTRA modernist Fr.Karl Rahner (probably Nado's favorite theologian)? This letter was supported by the Jєωιѕн Masonic liberal media and ironically in CI is repeatedly PROPAGATED and brought back to life by the modernists CMRI sedevacantists in their quest to UNDERMINE the exclusivity of Our Holy Roman Catholic Church as only possible means of human salvation.
The Archbishop of Boston and the liberal Jesuits there gave us the novel concept of an exceptional way of salvation: through "invincible ignorance" while in "false religion". This objective error was spread in the Catholic Church and carried over Vatican II. It is the main basis for liberalism and dissent in the Church.
For the modernist sedevacantists, most traditionalists, and Novus Ordo Catholics, being saved in through BOD in "invincible ignorance" refer to physically visible cases as exceptions to the EENS dogma as we could ever see the dead. This does not change the infallible doctrine that all need to explicitly convert to Catholicism before death, in order to be saved, without ANY known exceptions.
Conspiracy theories are great but name a theologian that says explicilty Baptism of desire is heresy. Do you believe the Michael Muller CSSR is a heretic/cushingite/?
Pax Christi
Michael Tucker
-
It is weird to see this defense of the Dimonds by Ladislaus. I'd like to know the reason behind it.
You see, that's the problem with 99% of you people. I defend the Dimonds where I feel they should be defended and criticize them where I see that they need to be criticized. So, the "reason behind it"? Simple truth. I seek the truth only. That's why I am attacked by SVs and R&R alike, because in both positions I find some truth and, conversely, I find other parts of both positions to be problematic, and I call it as I see it, without any agenda, without feeling the need to fall into a "camp" or fixed ideological "system". When I find fault with an SV proposition, I am attacked by the SVs as being a "defender of Francis". When I find fault with an R&R proposition, I am attacked for being an SV. If I defend Francis against scurrilous and trumped up charges of "heresy", then I am "always" defending "the apostate". When I attack Francis for being a Pelagian, then I am attacked for being a "Feeneyite". There are many things on which I agree with the Dimonds, and quite a few on which I do not. What's so difficult to understand about that? And I remain open-minded about things. When a reasonable person of good will, like Nishant, makes a strong argument in favor of R&R or in favor of a Catholic BoD, I think about his arguments and ponder them, and remain open to changing my mind where the force of truth brings me to a different conclusion. But when other people just flail their arms, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing, obviously not objectively seeking the truth but pushing an agenda, then it becomes annoying background noise.
You guys stick people in these emotional buckets where they're all evil or all good. It's like the people who get attacked for "supporting the h0Ɩ0cαųst" if they think that Adolf Hitler was a skilled political leader. As Matthew pointed out on a different thread, very few people are 100% pure evil, eh?
The best way to defend the Dimonds and thier EENS position is to answer my original question. Name a theologian that says the Baptism of Desire is heresy. Perhaps you have the same problem that the Dimonds had. If it helps I can name theologians that say BAptism of Desire is Catholic teaching.
Pax Christi
Mike Tucker
-
The best way to defend the Dimonds and thier EENS position is to answer my original question. Name a theologian that says the Baptism of Desire is heresy. Perhaps you have the same problem that the Dimonds had. If it helps I can name theologians that say BAptism of Desire is Catholic teaching.
Pax Christi
Mike Tucker
If you want a full-blown discussion of EENS, take it to the BoD subforum. I do not agree that CATHOLIC Baptism of Desire is heresy. I do not defend that aspect of the Dimonds. Most proponents of BoD, however, actually reject EENS, reject Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and have a Pelagian/gnostic/Protestant ecclesiology and soteriology.
Let me guess, you're another of the CMRI cohorts who are friends with Myrna, Emerentiana, "Lover of Truth", and Nado.
-
The best way to defend the Dimonds and thier EENS position is to answer my original question. Name a theologian that says the Baptism of Desire is heresy. Perhaps you have the same problem that the Dimonds had. If it helps I can name theologians that say BAptism of Desire is Catholic teaching.
Pax Christi
Mike Tucker
You either did not read my post or it can't even register in your brain because you have such an ill will against EENS. I said specifically that I am not categorically defending the Dimonds. I agree with a lot of what they say, but reject other things that they say.
-
Van Noort is not merely intelligent he has a career as an unblemished Catholic Theologian.
That's not even close to any kind of argument. No wonder the Dimonds blew you off.
Your entire argument seems to consist of "Van Noort" said it? Seriously? Father Feeney was also intelligent, and he said the differently.
-
The best way to defend the Dimonds and thier EENS position is to answer my original question. Name a theologian that says the Baptism of Desire is heresy. Perhaps you have the same problem that the Dimonds had. If it helps I can name theologians that say BAptism of Desire is Catholic teaching.
Pax Christi
Mike Tucker
If you want a full-blown discussion of EENS, take it to the BoD subforum. I do not agree that CATHOLIC Baptism of Desire is heresy. I do not defend that aspect of the Dimonds. Most proponents of BoD, however, actually reject EENS, reject Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and have a Pelagian/gnostic/Protestant ecclesiology and soteriology.
Let me guess, you're another of the CMRI cohorts who are friends with Myrna, Emerentiana, "Lover of Truth", and Nado.
have never heard this before, what between those who believe in Catholic Baptism of Desire and those who believe in Baptism of Desire and reject EENS? I do not know Myrna, Emerentiana, Nado or Lover of truth and never been to a CMRI chapel.
Pax Christi
Mike Tucker
-
Van Noort is not merely intelligent he has a career as an unblemished Catholic Theologian.
That's not even close to any kind of argument. No wonder the Dimonds blew you off.
Your entire argument seems to consist of "Van Noort" said it? Seriously? Father Feeney was also intelligent, and he said the differently.
Nope, remember they condemned a Catholic theologian because the Dimonds' Feeneyism disagreed with Van Noort. Van Noort wrote a treatises on Dogmatic theology Feeney was excommunicated by the Pope and then reconciled with Cushingite Medeiros, without condemning the New Mass or Vatican II. Van Noort would not compromise with a heretic.
If Feeney's interpretation of EENS is so clear how come no theologian, treatises or catachism agrees with him? I know the answer to this and I beleieve the Dimonds would not address this because they know as well.
Pax Christi
Michael Tucker
-
Just pathetic.
-
Just pathetic.
What is pathetic?
-
The best way to defend the Dimonds and thier EENS position is to answer my original question. Name a theologian that says the Baptism of Desire is heresy. Perhaps you have the same problem that the Dimonds had. If it helps I can name theologians that say BAptism of Desire is Catholic teaching.
Pax Christi
Mike Tucker
If you want a full-blown discussion of EENS, take it to the BoD subforum. I do not agree that CATHOLIC Baptism of Desire is heresy. I do not defend that aspect of the Dimonds. Most proponents of BoD, however, actually reject EENS, reject Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and have a Pelagian/gnostic/Protestant ecclesiology and soteriology.
Let me guess, you're another of the CMRI cohorts who are friends with Myrna, Emerentiana, "Lover of Truth", and Nado.
have never heard this before, what between those who believe in Catholic Baptism of Desire and those who believe in Baptism of Desire and reject EENS? I do not know Myrna, Emerentiana, Nado or Lover of truth and never been to a CMRI chapel.
Pax Christi
Mike Tucker
Ladislaus, just because a fellow poster here agrees with Baptism of Desire as being a teaching of the Church, does not mean we know each other, it means we know that it is a teaching of the church.
Someday you too will know that either here or in eternity!
I do however, know Emerentiana, just for the record!
-
Ladislaus, just because a fellow poster here agrees with Baptism of Desire as being a teaching of the Church, does not mean we know each other, it means we know that it is a teaching of the church.
I was just curious, since the most active and ardent proponents of BoD (or, rather of Pelagian ecclesiology) have connections with the CMRI.
-
Can someone here explain what , "Catholic Baptism of Desire is " I am at a loss on this one . ?
-
Ladislaus, just because a fellow poster here agrees with Baptism of Desire as being a teaching of the Church, does not mean we know each other, it means we know that it is a teaching of the church.
I was just curious, since the most active and ardent proponents of BoD (or, rather of Pelagian ecclesiology) have connections with the CMRI.
Laudislaus is it not more likely that any traditional group which has formal theological training more likely to defend bod since the ssspx sspv cmri and all these traditional groups all teach the same the same thing on the matter. I think it is more likely that those who are American and have no formal theological or philosophical training could support Feeneyism.
Pax Christi
Michael Tucker
-
Can someone here explain what , "Catholic Baptism of Desire is " I am at a loss on this one . ?
There is only ONE Baptism, even if a baptism is administrated by a Protestant or atheist, if PROPERLY done, it is a Catholic Baptism, thus the word, "Catholic".
Baptism of Desire can be defined by reading here:
http://www.cmri.org/search-results.shtml?q=Baptism%20of%20Desire
-
Can someone here explain what , "Catholic Baptism of Desire is " I am at a loss on this one . ?
There is only ONE Baptism, even if a baptism is administrated by a Protestant or atheist, if PROPERLY done, it is a Catholic Baptism, thus the word, "Catholic".
Baptism of Desire can be defined by reading here:
http://www.cmri.org/search-results.shtml?q=Baptism%20of%20Desire
Thanks MyrnaM,, but that's not what Ladilaus or Cantarella are talking about.
I am of the mind that there is No Baptism of Desire
There is another Baptism of Desire, that they mention once in a while, of which I have never seen an explanation on, They refer to as a "Catholic Baptism of Desire".
So Maybe this should be directed to Laudislaus
How about it Laudislaus, What do you mean by a "Catholic Baptism of Desire'" ?
-
Can someone here explain what , "Catholic Baptism of Desire is " I am at a loss on this one . ?
There is only ONE Baptism, even if a baptism is administrated by a Protestant or atheist, if PROPERLY done, it is a Catholic Baptism, thus the word, "Catholic".
Baptism of Desire can be defined by reading here:
http://www.cmri.org/search-results.shtml?q=Baptism%20of%20Desire
Thanks MyrnaM,, but that's not what Ladilaus or Cantarella are talking about.
I am of the mind that there is No Baptism of Desire
There is another Baptism of Desire, that they mention once in a while, of which I have never seen an explanation on, They refer to as a "Catholic Baptism of Desire".
So Maybe this should be directed to Laudislaus
How about it Laudislaus, What do you mean by a "Catholic Baptism of Desire'" ?
Well director I am at a loss. You and Laudislaus cannot agree on baptism of desire. So if you believe that baptism of desire represents some sort of denial of Trent or send then you can answer my question at the begining of the thread. Name a theologian who states that baptism if desire is heresy or some sort of denial of the council of Trent. If the Council of Trent is so clear why does bi theologian agree with your interpretation?
-
Can someone here explain what , "Catholic Baptism of Desire is " I am at a loss on this one . ?
There is only ONE Baptism, even if a baptism is administrated by a Protestant or atheist, if PROPERLY done, it is a Catholic Baptism, thus the word, "Catholic".
Baptism of Desire can be defined by reading here:
http://www.cmri.org/search-results.shtml?q=Baptism%20of%20Desire
CMRI gives the pelagian Modernist version of BOD, in which non Catholics that do not even have the Catholic Faith, can be saved by last minute BOD without converting. This of course is false because nobody can be saved without the Catholic Faith, as defined in the Anathesian Creed, which dogmatically is the foundation of all human justification.
CMRI, ultra Modernist Rahner, and Pope Francis all share the same distorted version of BOD that would apply to a Jew, Hindu, Muslim, etc. It is a heretical denial of the thrice defined dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus which clearly states that only Catholics go to Heaven.
-
Well director I am at a loss. You and Laudislaus cannot agree on baptism of desire. So if you believe that baptism of desire represents some sort of denial of Trent or send then you can answer my question at the begining of the thread. Name a theologian who states that baptism if desire is heresy or some sort of denial of the council of Trent. If the Council of Trent is so clear why does bi theologian agree with your interpretation?
The fact of the matter , without getting into a long drawn out discussion, The problem as I see it ,is the erroneous translation of Denzinger on Justification in its Council of Trent, edited by fr. Karl Rahner . Dimonds book brings this and many other unknown facts out backed by Popes and Councils.
Trent is so Clear.... Yes it is , depending which translation your reading if from, and who is the translator. There are others besides Denzinger s out there, with the original Latin.
As far as Laudislaus ,, I generally agree with most of his views, but in the last couple months , he has changed views on different areas, this Catholic Baptism of Desire, along with Cantarella , is something that Ive never seen explained, and is why I am asking the question.
-
Well director I am at a loss. You and Laudislaus cannot agree on baptism of desire. So if you believe that baptism of desire represents some sort of denial of Trent or send then you can answer my question at the begining of the thread. Name a theologian who states that baptism if desire is heresy or some sort of denial of the council of Trent. If the Council of Trent is so clear why does bi theologian agree with your interpretation?
The fact of the matter , without getting into a long drawn out discussion, The problem as I see it ,is the erroneous translation of Denzinger on Justification in its Council of Trent, edited by fr. Karl Rahner . Dimonds book brings this and many other unknown facts out backed by Popes and Councils.
Trent is so Clear.... Yes it is , depending which translation your reading if from, and who is the translator. There are others besides Denzinger s out there, with the original Latin.
As far as Laudislaus ,, I generally agree with most of his views, but in the last couple months , he has changed views on different areas, this Catholic Baptism of Desire, along with Cantarella , is something that Ive never seen explained, and is why I am asking the question.
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?
-
As far as Laudislaus ,, I generally agree with most of his views, but in the last couple months , he has changed views on different areas, this Catholic Baptism of Desire, along with Cantarella , is something that Ive never seen explained, and is why I am asking the question.
[/quote]
I agree with you I am generally familiar with both of the SBCs' position of baptism of desire and the dimonds' position. Laudislaus' position seems to be a nuance that both you and are unfamiliar with and I would like to see it fleshed out by Laudislaus.
-
As far as Laudislaus ,, I generally agree with most of his views, but in the last couple months , he has changed views on different areas, this Catholic Baptism of Desire, along with Cantarella , is something that Ive never seen explained, and is why I am asking the question.
I have not changed my views, Director. I started a thread called Catholic Baptism of Desire. I don't believe in any Baptism of Desire, but I do not say that the Catholic Baptism of Desire is heretical, as the Dimonds claim. What I outlined in that thread is what a tolerable, non-heretical, Catholic Baptism of Desire would consist of.
This problem is with Pelagianism, denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and rejection of EENS.
-
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Catholic-vs-Heretical-Baptism-of-Desire
-
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.
-
I'll get back to the teaching of Trent, perhaps on another thread, since it's crucial. I actually believe that my reading of Trent and Father Feeney's position are not mutually exclusive. Father Feeney had a very brilliant and nuanced understanding of justification and salvation, and the Dimond brothers have always failed in the area of subtle thought and valid distinctions; they try to beat you over the head with a sledge-hammer where sometimes a little chisel is really what's required.
Yes, I do believe that St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine misread Trent. And I also have a different take on the Catechism of Trent. There are three or four layers of thought here. Yes, heaven forbid that one of these Doctors could EVER have been mistaken. Stop rending your garments (hypocritically to make a point) at the mere suggestion that they may have been mistaken. Only the Church is infallible. You only play up the quasi-infallibility of these authorities because you have already decided what you want to believe and are trying to puff them up because they support your position. Try HONESTLY looking at the evidence for a change, would you?
I used to have a position similar to Nishant's, where I believed in explicit Baptism of Desire (or implicit in explicitly wishing to become a Catholic) for catechumens and catechumen-like persons. I based this on my belief that Trent taught it, seeing that one passage quoted out of context over and over again. So one day I sat down, asked the Holy Spirit to help me understand Trent, and read the entire Tract on Justification in Latin, not just one sentence; when taken in context and read in the original Latin it is VERY OBVIOUS that Trent is NOT teaching BoD in the passages cited. I have since tried to go back and force myself to read Trent as teaching "the laver or the desire for it" as "the laver or else at least the desire for it", but couldn't do it. Why? Mostly because of the sentence that comes RIGHT after it, which is rarely included in the citation. I'll create a separate thread. I do that on a lot of issues, devil's advocate against my own position in order to remain honest. So, for instance, I have tried to prove to myself that God does not exist and simply cannot do it. I have tried to prove that any other religion besides the Catholic religion is the true religion; can't even come close to doing it. Etc. I do the same thing with BoD. I try to prove to myself that BoD is defined doctrine of the Church and can't do it. I can't find the evidence for it. Patristic evidence is non-existent and actually pushes the other way. No one has every demonstrated how BoD has been revealed either from Patristic testimony or, from the other way to do it, by deriving BoD implicitly from other Catholic revealed doctrine. No one has demonstrated definitively that the Church has defined BoD; it's been tolerated by the Church and widely held by many authorities, but as a matter of speculative theology and not because it's ever been authoritatively taught by the Magisterium. Unless you believe Trent taught it. But even then Father Feeney has a brilliant take on that which I'll try to outline (Father Feeney read Trent the way St. Robert and St. Alphonsus did.) So Trent really is the lynch-pin.
-
Baptism of Desire 101
Define Baptism of Desire...
The theory of men that a man can obtain eternal salvation thru a "(vow, votum, desire, will) for the Sacrament of Baptism, without ever being water Baptised.... and in the later times, without being a member of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church does not teach this , never will ,,, Trent has never taught this, Never will.
Most out there use the erroneous translation of Denzinger (Sources of Catholic Dogmas), on the session of Justification to try to "justify" their position.
There is another source out there with its Latin that vilifies the Denz. and brings to light the true meaning of Trent, on justification and that is the translation by Fr. Norman P. Tanner.
Tanner
Chap. 4. Suggested description of the justification of a sinner and its character in the state of grace
By those words there is suggested a description of the justification of a sinner: how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as children of God through the agency of the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the waters of rebirth or the desire for them, as it is written:
Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
So Justification Cannot take Place if either the water or the vow, desire for the water are missing.
Both are required or you have No Justification. No justification , No Salvation
There is lots more to be said on this subject , but will leave it for further review..
The Latin by Tanner...
Cap. IV. Insinmatur descriptio instificationis impii, et modus eius in statu gratioe
Quibus verbis iustificationis impii desceptio insinuator, ut sit translation ab eo statu, in qui homo nascitur filus primi Adac, in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei3, per secundum Adam lesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quac quidem translation post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei4.
-
I agree with you, Director, 100% that Trent never taught BoD. I've started threads dedicated to that subject before. Unfortunately, every single BoD thread goes off topic and becomes a sweeping general 150-page BoD discussion. We really need to find a way to stay on topic.
-
Tks Lad
I think it such an important issue and discussion topic , that I decided to start a separate Topic.
-
What's absolutely fatal to this interpretation of Trent is the quote from Our Lord that comes afterwards.
On its face, the phrase "X cannot happen without A or B" is ambiguous ... due to the double-negative construct. It could mean "X cannot happen without both A & B" or "X cannot happen without EITHER A OR B". But the phrase after it immediately disambiguates.
Why did Trent use the word "laver" instead of just saying "Baptism" or "the Sacrament of Baptism"? It's because Trent wanted to invoke the notion of WATER. Trent had also just spent paragraphs explaining how the Holy Spirit disposes the will to cooperate with the grace of justification. It's about the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament bringing the grace of justification WITH COOPERATION OF THE WILL ... against the Protestant errors. That's why there's a Canon later condemning the notion that the Sacrament can effect justification without the cooperation of the will. St. Thomas devoted a question to whether the Sacrament confers the grace of justification if the will doesn't cooperate.
So, back to Trent, the Holy Spirit give graces to inspire the will to cooperate with the ex opere operato grace from the Sacrament of Baptism.
Trent taught that justification cannot happen without the laver (water) or the will (as moved by the Holy Spirit) and then immediately backs that statement up by quoting Our Lord as teaching that rebirth requires water AND the Holy Spirit, i.e. the laver AND the movement of the will by the Holy Spirit, i.e. the cooperation and proper dispositions.
In order for me to accept the typical reading of Trent, I would have to say that Trent said:
Justification cannot happen without either Baptism or else the desire for it because Jesus taught that it cannot happen without both Baptism and the desire for it. That would be borderline blasphemous. Our Lord said and, but we say or.
That is NOT what Trent is teaching.
In addition, if Trent were teaching BoD, the fact that there's not even a token mention of BoB is absolutely inexplicable, since most of the Church Fathers who advocated BoB explicitly rejected BoD and most BoB theorists claim that it works differently from BoB in being "quasi ex opere operato". Trent then overturns the Patristic teaching of BoB but no BoD by saying that BoB essentially reduces to BoD and is therefore ex opere operantis in its effect.
There is absolutely no way that Trent intended to define or teach BoD here.
-
Tks Lad
I think it such an important issue and discussion topic , that I decided to start a separate Topic.
Thanks. I started to type my above response before I saw this post. I'll move over to the other thread.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.”
-
True.
Trent's catechism does not teach a BOD any way.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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:
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?
-
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:
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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 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!
-
Yes, canon law reflects the teaching of the magisterium, and is also protected by infallibility.
Based on your typical SV misunderstanding of infallibility? How is disciplinary law infallible since it's not doctrinal? It's that it cannot promote anything positively harmful to faith or morals. Church doesn't consider it harmful to faith or morals to allow for the possibility that Catechumens who die without Baptism might be saved. And that's nothing more than being consistent in that the Church has always tolerated the opinion of St. Thomas, St. Robert, et al. regarding BoD. Which is why the Dimonds are dead wrong in condemning BoD as heresy. That does not mean that the 1917 C does or even can "define" BoD. It just means that it extends the Church's TOLERATION of the opinion, of the possibility that a Catechumen MIGHT be saved, to a pastoral context. You need to remember that just because someone receives a Catholic funeral, this does NOT mean there's any presumption of salvation on their part, just a presumption of the possibility of salvation. Similarly, because ѕυιcιdєs are denied funerals there's simply a presumption that they couldn't be saved, though it's theoretically possible that any given one could be. And previous Church discipline disallowed burial for Catechumens. So, how is it that the previous Church discipline was not infallible whereas this one was? Because you misunderstand how disciplinary law is infallible and what discipline does and what it does not do (namely, define doctrine).
And, Nado, you keep ignoring the elephant in the room, namely that this Canon Law applies ONLY TO A FORMAL CATECHUMEN.
-
You can believe all you want in BoD. I'm not going to stop you. Just like I don't care that Nishant believes in BoD.
But you're a Pelagian heretic masquerading behind BoD in order to reject EENS.
You will note for the last time that the 1917 Canon Law says nothing about anyone other than a CATECHUMEN. So this proves absolutely nothing of your heretical position. That's what you ALL do. You quote St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, a Church Father or two, Pope Innocent, Trent, Catechism of Trent 1917 Code of Canon Law to prove BoD. But I would have you know that every single one of these restricted BoD to those who explicitly have the CATHOLIC FAITH. St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine would unhesitatingly call you a heretic. So do I. You continue to pretend that by arguing in favor of BoD you are actually proving your heresy.
You absolutely refused to answer Nishant. Because you can't. He believes in BoD, but he rejects your Pelagian heresy. He's softer about it than I am, claiming that it's just some lesser error. But he condemns you also, despite his belief in BoD. But you're too cowardly to attempt a response.
-
You DELIBERATELY dodge every solid argument made against your position but keep throwing the same excrement out there over and over again. But you won't look at and consider points that would militate against your position. You refuse to look at the contrary evidence. Thus my characterization of you being in bad will. Just admit it. Father Cekada actually did exactly that. You find EENS completely unpalatable and don't want to believe in it so you are compelled to undermine it any way you can.
-
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.
I apologize profoundly for my stupidity in not adequately applying your ad-hoc term correctly.
-
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:
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.
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.
Of course to interpret it that was would have to change the context. Pray tell what do you know about 16th century traffic jams?
-
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:
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.
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.
Of course to interpret it that was would have to change the context. Pray tell what do you know about 16th century traffic jams?
Ok, so replace traffic jam with a fallen oak tree blocking the path to the Church, or with any other non-fatal accident of your choosing, either way, the reason for the delay is NOT ONLY that the danger of death in adults is not the same as infants, there are also other advantages - please list the advantages as the catechism teaches them for me so I know you actually read it.
Whoever doesn't admit that the danger of death for infants is not the same as adults to be a fact of life, fools only themselves and whatever other dupes they can get to agree with them.
It explicitly states what the actual reasons for the delay are, and teaches why those reasons are advantageous.
The only way to make that teaching out to teach a BOD is to completely ignore what it does teach while entirely replacing what it teaches with your own idea. There is simply no other way to say that teaching is teaching that salvation is attainable via NSAA.
-
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:
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.
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.
Of course to interpret it that was would have to change the context. Pray tell what do you know about 16th century traffic jams?
Ok, so replace traffic jam with a fallen oak tree blocking the path to the Church, or with any other non-fatal accident of your choosing, either way, the reason for the delay is NOT ONLY that the danger of death in adults is not the same as infants, there are also other advantages - please list the advantages as the catechism teaches them for me so I know you actually read it.
Whoever doesn't admit that the danger of death for infants is not the same as adults to be a fact of life, fools only themselves and whatever other dupes they can get to agree with them.
It explicitly states what the actual reasons for the delay are, and teaches why those reasons are advantageous.
The only way to make that teaching out to teach a BOD is to completely ignore what it does teach while entirely replacing what it teaches with your own idea. There is simply no other way to say that teaching is teaching that salvation is attainable via NSAA.
Well Stubborn we can keep going at this until you admit the obvious. How long would it take a pedestrian to walk around a tree? Do you really think it is difficult to schedule a baptism in the sixteenth century. The only way this make sense if an accident causes death because adults can desire baptism and children cannot. The same terminology is used in Florence because they are using St Thomas' construction in his summa. But since you brought it up how difficult would it be to go around a fallen tree and it reschedule a baptism in the sixteenth century?
-
If you are honest, you will list the advantages of delaying adult baptism that the catechism enumerates. If you are dishonest, you will keep side tracking the actual teaching in order to incorporate your own teaching in it's place.
Look above, you can see I asked:
please list the advantages as the catechism teaches them for me so I know you actually read it.
-
I have read the Latin, and the original Latin could just as easily be read as,
their proper dispositions would avail them to justification were any sudden obstacle to arise that might [otherwise] prevent them from receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.
It's a nuanced "subjunctive" mood (a grammatical construct) that indicates hypothetical, something which we do not have in English. In other words, their dispositions would get them past anything that might otherwise prevent them from receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. It's along the lines of the St. Ambrose oration to Valentinian.
St. Fulgenius used the exact same phrase. He said that a catechumen's "confession" (embracing the faith) would avail him to righteousness. But if you look about a sentence later he says that it's because God would make sure that such a one would receive the waters of Baptism. St. Fulgentius' texts regarding EENS were well known and were paraphrased and quoted by some of the dogmatic definitions.
-
I have read the Latin, and the original Latin could just as easily be read as,
their proper dispositions would avail them to justification were any sudden obstacle to arise that might [otherwise] prevent them from receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.
It's a nuanced "subjunctive" mood (a grammatical construct) that indicates hypothetical, something which we do not have in English. In other words, their dispositions would get them past anything that might otherwise prevent them from receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. It's along the lines of the St. Ambrose oration to Valentinian.
St. Fulgenius used the exact same phrase. He said that a catechumen's "confession" (embracing the faith) would avail him to righteousness. But if you look about a sentence later he says that it's because God would make sure that such a one would receive the waters of Baptism. St. Fulgentius' texts regarding EENS were well known and were paraphrased and quoted by some of the dogmatic definitions.
Agreed, yet having the proper disposition is the preparation, a necessary function one needs before one actually receives the sacrament if one wants to receive the sacrament as worthily as possible, that is what the word "avail" is dictating.
It does not say that having the proper disposition will grant them salvation if the die before getting baptized, which is what the BODers insist it is saying.
Either way, the catechism teaching in question states some of the actual reasons why the delay is, preferable, even advantageous for the adult catechumen - - - which is why I asked the NSAAers to list those what those advantages to delaying adult baptism are which the catechism teaches. It's not like it's my teaching, it is taught in the catechism, right there big as day.
It is no trick question, the reasons are given right there, all they need to do is copy and paste, yet they insist the reason the danger is not the same in adults as it is for infants because the catechism simply *must* mean the adult wins a BOD if he dies without the sacrament.