Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians (Read 15206 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #105 on:** February 06, 2020, 10:20:35 AM »

Quote

Be sure not to skip the Sacrament of communion under both forms. And for that you'll have to go to the Novus Ordo Mass.

Receiving the Eucharist in the form of a host is the same as receiving the 'body, blood, soul and Divinity of Christ' which fulfills His command. Is your catechism that bad, that you think the Eucharist in bread form, does not contain Our Lord fully?

Praeter · « **Reply #106 on:** February 06, 2020, 11:06:21 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 06, 2020, 10:20:35 AM

Receiving the Eucharist in the form of a host is the same as receiving the 'body, blood, soul and Divinity of Christ' which fulfills His command. Is your catechism that bad, that you think the Eucharist in bread form, does not contain Our Lord fully?

You missed the point. I was using Fr. Feeney's erroneous method of private interpretation of Scripture, instead of the Catholic method of accepting what the Church teaches.

Read the Bread of Life thread and you'll see why Fr. Feeney denied the Catholic doctrine of BOD. He did so by relying on his private interpretation of Scripture, and convincing himself that by denying what all Catholics at the time believed, he was really remaining faithful to the explicit teaching of Christ. Read that thread and tell me how Feeney was any different than Luther.

Stubborn · « **Reply #107 on:** February 06, 2020, 11:08:57 AM »

Quote from: Praeter on February 06, 2020, 11:06:21 AM

You missed the point. I was using Fr. Feeney's erroneous method of private interpretation of Scripture, instead of the Catholic method of accepting what the Church teaches.

Read the Bread of Life thread and you'll see why Fr. Feeney denied the Catholic doctrine of BOD. He did so by relying on his private interpretation of Scripture, and convincing himself that by denying what all Catholics at the time believed, he was really remaining faithful to the explicit teaching of Christ. Read that thread and tell me how Feeney was any different than Luther.

You must have missed this......Now, my question to you and all BODers is; how is it that you all do not see the stark contradiction between defined dogma, Scripture, Divine Providence, and all of the other teachings from catechisms and the Fathers contrary to a BOD, and a BOD?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #108 on:** February 06, 2020, 12:43:11 PM »

Quote

I was using Fr. Feeney's erroneous method of private interpretation of Scripture, instead of the Catholic method of accepting what the Church teaches. ...Read the Bread of Life thread and you'll see why Fr. Feeney denied the Catholic doctrine of BOD.

Trent is the only place where "The Church" mentions BOD. And it's not a doctrine, by the way.

Quote

Fr. Feeney said a person can be justified - receive the state of grace - without water baptism.

Yes, that is 1 way to interpret Trent.

Quote

Fr. Feeney himself interpreted the teaching that a person can be transferred into the state of righteousness "by the desire" for baptism, as meaning a person could enter into the state of grace without water baptism.

Do you disagree?

Quote

Fr. Feenye's novelty forced him to admit (in The Bread of Life) that he didn't know where a person would go if they died in the state of grace without being baptized.

Trent doesn't say a justified, non-baptized person is saved. No other council in history says so, neither do any dogmatic decrees. Only certain saints have speculated that either 1) they would be saved, 2) they would still have to go to purgatory, or 3) they would go to Limbo and not heaven. But, as far as doctrine goes, the answer is as Fr Feeney said: "We don't know. The Church has not taught this infallibly."

Praeter · « **Reply #109 on:** February 06, 2020, 01:23:36 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 06, 2020, 12:43:11 PM

Trent doesn't say a justified, non-baptized person is saved. No other council in history says so, neither do any dogmatic decrees. Only certain saints have speculated that either 1) they would be saved, 2) they would still have to go to purgatory, or 3) they would go to Limbo and not heaven. But, as far as doctrine goes, the answer is as Fr Feeney said: "We don't know. The Church has not taught this infallibly."

The reason Trent didn't bother to say a non-baptized person in the state of grace can be saved is because no one questioned it. The Church teaches that those in the state of grace are "heirs of eternal life".

Council of Trent: "This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend [of God], that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

I challenge you to find anyone, before the very confused Fr. Feeney, who said a person that died in the state of grace might not go to heaven. If anyone had ever taught such a thing, you can rest assured the Feeneyites would have found it by now and spread it far and wide.

And no saint has speculated that a soul who dies in the state of grace, after Christ opened the gates of heaven, will go to Limbo.

Praeter · « **Reply #110 on:** February 06, 2020, 01:25:16 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on February 06, 2020, 11:08:57 AM

You must have missed this......Now, my question to you and all BODers is; how is it that you all do not see the stark contradiction between defined dogma, Scripture, Divine Providence, and all of the other teachings from catechisms and the Fathers contrary to a BOD, and a BOD?

Don't load me down, but give me a few quotes at a time and I'll reply.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #111 on:** February 06, 2020, 01:35:11 PM »

In my 20 years of experience I have found that everyone that defends BOD, is really defending salvation by belief in a God the rewards, that is, that anyone in any religion can be saved. In all the debates on the internet during the last like 20 years, I only met one person that limited it to BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas (and later St. Alphonsus Liguori, who was just following St. Thomas), the rest were just hiding behind St. Thomas, then they threw him under the boss to teach salvation for anyone even if they have no desire to be Catholic, no desire to be baptized, no belief in the Incarnation or the Holy Trinity.

XavierSem, Praeter…. just the newest cowards hiding behind St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonus Ligouri, and the word "desire" from Trent.

Merry · « **Reply #112 on:** February 06, 2020, 02:30:31 PM »

Concerning “Bread of Life” by Fr. Leonard Feeney --

Pope John XXIII assigned Monsignor Francis Cassano (deceased) to review and examine Bread of Life by Father Leonard Feeney. He was to find any errors - nay, heresy. He reported there was nothing "contrary to faith" in Bread of Life. Msgr. Cassano eventually had a parish on the Hudson River and attested his conclusion to many people, including the Center itself. (This Monsignor was not a "nobody" - he had also been assigned by Rome to investigate the case of the mystic stigmatist, Mother Aiello.)
We hear lots of calumnies from Rome (and others) about Fr. Feeney

-- but we never seem to hear of this report that found no flaw in “Bread of Life.”

"One of the most outstanding prophets of our time." - Hamish Fraser

"The greatest theologian we have in the United States, by far." — Rev. John J. McEleny, S.J., (Jesuit Provincial)

"The greatest theologian in the Catholic Church today." — John Cardinal Wright

Ladislaus · « **Reply #113 on:** February 06, 2020, 02:33:02 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 06, 2020, 01:35:11 PM

In my 20 years of experience I have found that everyone that defends BOD, is really defending salvation by belief in a God the rewards, ...

Same here ... with very few exceptions. And it's not worth our time fighting with those who believe in a BoD for catechumens.

Praeter · « **Reply #114 on:** February 06, 2020, 02:47:02 PM »

Quote from: ascanio1 on February 06, 2020, 02:09:48 AM

1) Pius X did not write the catechism
2) The catechism was in Italian, what you are quoting is not in Italian, it is some kind of a translation, we do not know who tampered with it.
3) Throw it away and quote some other sources. If what you say is true, then there would be many real papal decrees, like there are for EENS, of which one would have to discard ALL of them to believe what you are teaching.

The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:

“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.

Since my last comments on this thread there were many interesting new posts and, for me, useful ones. I would like to discuss these later, this weekend, as soon as I find time. But one quick reply, to Last Tardhican and Praeter:
I found an original, Italian version of Pius X catechism that was used especially in Rome and not in all of Italy at the time (so I am told). Praeter's translation is not conform to the original.

Provide the link to the Italian. Here is a link to an old Cathinfo thread, which includes a scanned copy of the page of the original Italian in which BOD is taught. Here is how the person who posted the Italian summed it up:

Quote

saintbosco13: "Clearly we can now see firsthand that Pope Saint Pius X approved of the catechism, and clearly teaches baptism of desire and baptism of blood, and on the soul of the Church. As has been discussed all along, here we have a Pope, and incorrupt Saint, teaching this doctrine, which is perfectly in line with all others in the Church who have taught it. The matter is now put to rest. More details and very clear copies of the actual pages can be found on baptismofdesire.com."

That thread also contains a link to the letter in which Pius X approved the catechism.

Praeter · « **Reply #115 on:** February 06, 2020, 03:08:39 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 06, 2020, 01:35:11 PM

XavierSem, Praeter…. just the newest cowards hiding behind St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonus Ligouri, and the word "desire" from Trent.

Xavier Sem and Praeter still believe what all the theologians taught before Vatican II. And I'm not hiding behind anyone. I haven't eve quoted St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus in this discussion.

Here's a few quotes from Pope Pius XII for you and the other BOD deniers to try and explain away:

Pius XII: "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..." (Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives)

Did you see that? An act of love? Any idea why he used that term, rather that baptism of desire?

Here's another teaching of Pius XII for you to resist:

Pius XII: “In the case of other sacraments, when the minister is, when the minister is lacking, he can be supplied through the force of divine mercy, which will forcoe even external signs in order to bring grace to the heart. To the catechumen who has no one to pour water in his head, to the sinner who can find no one to absolve him, a loving God will accord, out of their desire and love, the grace which makes them His friends and children even without Baptism or actual confession.” (Allocution March 4, 1941)

Do you agree that "desire and love" suffices for a person to obtain the state of grace? If not, it isn't myself and Xavier Sem you disagreeing with, but the Vicar of Christ.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #116 on:** February 06, 2020, 03:24:37 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on February 06, 2020, 10:08:46 AM

Do you believe this dogma, as it is written? "'We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

The dogma states explicitly that it is absolutely necessary to be subject to the Pope to be saved. No exceptions. If you believe the dogma, as it is written, you must conclude that it is impossible for a sedevacantist or anyone who dies during an interregnum to be saved. So, which is it: do you agree that every person who dies as a sedevacantist will go to hell (as I do), or do you deny the dogma?

I guess you are not saved then.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #117 on:** February 06, 2020, 03:49:10 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on February 06, 2020, 03:08:39 PM

Quote from: Praeter
Xavier Sem and Praeter still believe what all the theologians taught before Vatican II. And I'm not hiding behind anyone. I haven't eve quoted St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus in this discussion.

Here's a few quotes from Pope Pius XII for you and the other BOD deniers to try and explain away:

Pius XII: "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..." (Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives)

Did you see that? An act of love? Any idea why he used that term, rather that baptism of desire?

Here's another teaching of Pius XII for you to resist:

Pius XII: “In the case of other sacraments, when the minister is, when the minister is lacking, he can be supplied through the force of divine mercy, which will forcoe even external signs in order to bring grace to the heart. To the catechumen who has no one to pour water in his head, to the sinner who can find no one to absolve him, a loving God will accord, out of their desire and love, the grace which makes them His friends and children even without Baptism or actual confession.” (Allocution March 4, 1941)

Do you agree that "desire and love" suffices for a person to obtain the state of grace? If not, it isn't myself and Xavier Sem you disagreeing with, but the Vicar of Christ.

Well said. These people don't understand Catholic Doctrine. It is universally known that the OT Just obtained the Grace of Justification through Perfect Love of God, which Our Lord has called the First and Greatest of the Commandments, and which obtains the Grace of Contrition, as St. Alphonsus teaches. Our Lord said: Luk 10:25 And behold a certain lawyer stood up, tempting him and saying, Master, what must I do to possess eternal life? 26But he said to him: What is written in the law? How readest thou? 27He answering, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with all thy strength and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself. 28And he said to him: Thou hast answered right. This do: and thou shalt live." God's Grace is never lacking to those who do all that lies in their power to love Him alone above all things, and therefore they obtain the Grace of Justice by an Act of Perfect Contrition even before Baptism, what Pope Pius XII calls An Act of Love and Desire. Our Lord also explained this to St. Catherine saying He poured forth Blood and Water from His Most Sacred Heart, in order to show the Baptism of Love, that all can obtain who love Him above all things. We observe St. Mary Magdalene in the Gospel had her sins forgiven by love and contrition, because she knelt at the feet of Jesus, worshipped and adored Him, and loved Him above all things with sorrow for her past sins. King David had also obtained this grace of contrition through perfect love in the Old, and so did St. Peter, St. Dismas, Cornelius etc.

St. Luk 7:47 "Wherefore, I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. 48And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee."

Rather than argue with Catholic Theologians, Dimondite heretics must confess the mortal sin of denying the Dogma of BOD, to be reconciled with the Church. St. Alphonsus teaches, “But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.” We see countless other citations at: http://www.baptismofdesire.com/

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #118 on:** February 06, 2020, 03:54:05 PM »

Quote

I challenge you to find anyone, before the very confused Fr. Feeney, who said a person that died in the state of grace might not go to heaven.

.
I challenge you to find anyone, before the very confused Fr. Feeney, who said a person that died in the state of grace, but unbaptized, might go to heaven.
.
Even St Thomas was not clear. He said they would still have to go to purgatory due to the stain of original sin and temporal punishment not forgiven. I say they would go to Limbo, as they would be unbaptized, but justified in the eyes of God, just like infants. Or as Fr Feeney said, we don't know. The Church has not told us. There are a variety of valid opinions one can hold.

Stubborn · « **Reply #119 on:** February 06, 2020, 03:55:10 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on February 06, 2020, 01:25:16 PM

Don't load me down, but give me a few quotes at a time and I'll reply.

Here are only three of many:

1) Dogma:
Trent Session 7 / Decree on the Sacraments:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

2) Scripture:
Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

3) All Catechisms:
Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians (Read 15206 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Praeter

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Stubborn

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Pax Vobis

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Praeter

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Praeter

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Last Tradhican

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Merry

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Praeter

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Praeter

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Clemens Maria

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Nishant Xavier

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Pax Vobis

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Stubborn

Re: EENS for baptized Christians