CathInfo.com

Quote from: Ladislaus

That's a heretical denial of the necessity of the Sacraments.

God's grace is not bound by the sacraments is a common teaching of the theologians. You are an idiot for calling it heretical.

God has bound US with the necessity of the Sacraments.  Consequently, WE are bound by the Sacraments.  You guys keep promoting the gnostic garbage (which undermines the Incarnation) in disparaging the visible aspect of the Sacraments to which God has bound US.  You can read my response where I admit that God is not bound by anything; it's a question of what He has bound US with.  God is not bound ultimately by ANYTHING; it's a question of what God has bound US with and what God has revealed to US in terms of what He binds us with.

You are therefore heretical for denying the necessity of the Sacraments.  Stubborn is correct in saying that you outright DESPISE the Sacraments.  Your false application of this principle to undermining the necessity of the Sacraments is what's heretical.  It's a bogus argument that leads to heresy.

Is God bound by the use of water in conferring the Sacramental character of water?  Hey, SJB, you are BINDING God if you say that the Sacramental character CANNOT be conferred without the pouring of water.  You stupid dishonest buffoon.  Go take a Logic 101 course before you try to argue theology.

Go ahead, SJB, try to confer the Sacrament of Baptism by just saying the words and not pouring any water, and then come back and tell me what God is "bound by".  I'm guessing that you would not validly confer the Sacrament of Baptism despite your "desire" to do so.  This is yet another one of your dishonest arguments.

You guys are dishonest.  You guys are hypocrites.

You guys are enemies of the Catholic Faith, not its defenders.  You are more interested in the appropriate dimensions of the lavabo cloth than in dogma.

I'll TELL you the effects of your BoDer ecclesiology.

it's called Vatican II.

Your BoDer ecclesiology leads to RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM.

Your BoDer ecclesiology leads to EVERY SINGLE ERROR IN VATICAN II.

You are not honest enough to admit that your BoDer ecclesiology is identical to V2 ecclesiology.

I have repeatedly asked you to distinguish, and you CONSTANTLY come back with ad hominems, hiding behind BoD proper, and changing the subject.  I have received EXACTLY ONE RESPONSE when I traced out in detail the logical continuity between extended BoD and Vatican II, and the response was from someone who obviously never read Vatican II and claimed without citation or proof that Vatican II promoted the notion that non-Catholic creeds are as good as Catholic ones.  Which Vatican II clearly does NOT teach.

If you were to convince me of your ecclesiology, I would be honest enough to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II.

You on the other hand are not honest.  You want to have your Traditional cake and eat it too.

You know, I used to criticize the Dimonds for calling people like you bad-willed.  Evidently they have dealt with your type of heretical nonsense long enough to know.  You have clearly manifested your bad will.

Notice how Ambrose disparages the MATTER of the Sacraments, matter that was instituted by Our Lord, as mere "externals".  That's actually VERY much in line with mainstream Novus Ordo theology.  To Stubborn's point about how they despise the Sacraments.  At first I thought Stubborn's language was a bit strong, but now I agree with it.

Even in your bogus BoD theology, you have to admit that there is NO OTHER WAY to confer the Baptismal character than THE EXTERNALS, no other way to confer HOLY ORDERS than by THE EXTERNALS.  You are heretical in BINDING God to these externals.

To Ladislaus/Canterella/Bowler



You can take the following "private revelation" with you to your individual judgements and tell Christ "I honestly did not believe it"!

Firstly, we are talking about extended BoD and not BoD proper, which is the subject of this citation.

Secondly, material like this cannot be used to form dogma.  These texts are often interpolated and embellished by editors, etc.  And even if it was authentic, when it comes to locutions very often the intellect of the "receiver" becomes a conduit or a filter, and it's often very difficult to distinguish personal reflection from actual divine location.  So, for instance, there are direct contradictions between the visions of Catherine Emmerick and Mary of Agreda regarding specific concrete details about the life of Our Lord.  While it takes nothing away from the sanctity of St. Catherine of Siena, there's a lot of doubt about where any particular passage comes from (from an editor, interpolator, or the saint's own mind).  In fact, the Dialogues appear to DERIVE from one or more "Letters" of St. Catherine which according to editors contain "mostly" the "words of God".  Mostly?  There are some correlations between St. Catherine's "Letter 272" and the "Dialogue", but there are also major differences.  Many scholars consider the Dialogue a "derived work" (derived by whom?), derived from some content in her letters.  Adding to the confusion and uncertainty, Catherine herself was just beginning to learn how to write and relied upon secretaries for most of her correspondence.  Over time there had been multiple editions or compilations with different structures and different content.

What matters in establishing true Catholic doctrine is Revelation and the Church's magisterium interpreting that Revelation.

There's absolutely ZERO indication that Baptism of Desire is revealed.

You have ONE Church Father who unambiguously floats the idea of BoD:  St. Augustine.  St. Augustine later retracted the opinion.  Even in floating it he did NOT describe it as a TEACHING or as having any authority.  He admitted in his language that it was his own personal speculative theology.  "Considering the matter over and over again, I find ..."  HE "finds" (not "teaches").  He went back and forth on the subject and then landed on this speculative opinion.  Meanwhile, there are 3 or 4 Church Fathers who EXPLICITLY reject BoD.  Consequently, there's lacking ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER that BoD was part of Divine Revelation.  Had it been revealed by Our Lord, then there would be indication of that in a unanimous consent and teaching of the Church Fathers.  If it's not part of Divine Revelation, it can never become dogma, regardless of how many people hold the opinion.

Another way that something can be said to be revealed is if it derives implicitly (by way of syllogism) from other revealed dogmas.  No theologian has EVER even attempted to demonstrate this.  They merely repeat the gratuitous assertion of this opinion rooted in speculative theology.  There's no such thing as some kind of "growing awareness" of the Church nonsense that the modernists like to promote as a source of dogma.  Just because more and more people over time have glommed onto the idea (because it tickles their fancy and they like it) does NOT mean that it's dogma.

Consequently, BoD CAN NEVER BECOME DOGMA.  It can on the other hand be rejected as heretical if it can be demonstrated to contradict revealed dogma, and all the evidence indicates that it does contradict revealed dogma.