Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on August 27, 2009, 11:22:29 AM
-
-
Those under the Heading:
The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty are the only ones I should have included. Here is where you can find them.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/2009str.htm
-
Wow, the Art of Scholastic Dishonesty
Wherever did you find this?
I'll make an attempt at reading it!
-
Don't bother. Griff Ruby is equally as dishonest as the Dimond brothers, or more so. Or blind.
Quick example:
Pope Eugene IV, "Cantate Domino," Council of Florence, ex cathedra: "No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
See in here the close grammar used. This speaks of those who leave the Church (for the ancient Fathers are full of denunciations of those who leave the Church, and for the martyrdoms of those who schismatically or heretically departed from the Church they have absolutely no respect. This is why one must "persevere" in the Church, something that only applies to those who are already inside as baptized members of the Church or Faithful. It is like saying that "If an American does not pay his taxes he is to be barred from all Governmental assistance." Nowhere in such a statement can one construe anything one way or the other as to what Governmental assistance non-Americans might possibly be permitted access to, as that statement only applies to Americans. So yes, a Catholic who leaves the Church, and is then martyred while still alienated from the Church, will be damned, and no BOB would apply to such an individual.
Notice that he completely left out the first part of the quotation, which appears nowhere in the article, and does indeed completely and infallibly render his argument null and void:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: "It (The Holy Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
That includes people who have NOT YET joined the Church Mr. Ruby! God the Holy Ghost did not say "All those who LEAVE the Church,' or "All those who RESIST the Church." As your bogus and heretical interpretation suggests. No wonder you omitted that part from your article.
Not to mention he is recognizing certain antipopes as true popes, which only adds to his propensity for heretical theology.
-
'Lover of Truth' and everyone else, STOP trying to put non-Catholics in heaven. It's heresy, pure and simple.
-
Don't bother. Griff Ruby is equally as dishonest as the Dimond brothers, or more so. Or blind.
Quick example:
Pope Eugene IV, "Cantate Domino," Council of Florence, ex cathedra: "No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
See in here the close grammar used. This speaks of those who leave the Church (for the ancient Fathers are full of denunciations of those who leave the Church, and for the martyrdoms of those who schismatically or heretically departed from the Church they have absolutely no respect. This is why one must "persevere" in the Church, something that only applies to those who are already inside as baptized members of the Church or Faithful. It is like saying that "If an American does not pay his taxes he is to be barred from all Governmental assistance." Nowhere in such a statement can one construe anything one way or the other as to what Governmental assistance non-Americans might possibly be permitted access to, as that statement only applies to Americans. So yes, a Catholic who leaves the Church, and is then martyred while still alienated from the Church, will be damned, and no BOB would apply to such an individual.
Notice that he completely left out the first part of the quotation, which appears nowhere in the article, and does indeed completely and infallibly render his argument null and void:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: "It (The Holy Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
That includes people who have NOT YET joined the Church Mr. Ruby! God the Holy Ghost did not say "All those who LEAVE the Church,' or "All those who RESIST the Church." As your bogus and heretical interpretation suggests. No wonder you omitted that part from your article.
Not to mention he is recognizing certain antipopes as true popes, which only adds to his propensity for heretical theology.
Could you explain the significance of the semicolons in this quote CM?
-
Could you explain the significance of the semicolons in this quote CM?
Grasping at straws, again, are you C.M.M.M.? Get over it.
-
Just asked a question. Don't feel obliged to answer.
If there is no significance, explain why. If I am grasping at straws, explain why. If the semicolon exists for a purpose, what is it's purpose in this quote, and why is Mr. Ruby a liar?
Oh, wait...
No. I'm done debating you.
-
'Lover of Truth' and everyone else, STOP trying to put non-Catholics in heaven. It's heresy, pure and simple.
That is actually quite to the contrary. They argue that infidels can enter the Church before death through extraordinary (and of course supernatural) means.
-
That is actually quite to the contrary. They argue that infidels can enter the Church before death through extraordinary (and of course supernatural) means.
But they cannot. Yet the heretics refuse to accept it. Some of them even go as far as to say that explicit belief in Jesus Christ is not even necessary (invincible ignorance). Thus, objectively, they are trying to put non-Catholics in heaven.
-
Just asked a question. Don't feel obliged to answer.
If there is no significance, explain why. If I am grasping at straws, explain why. If the semicolon exists for a purpose, what is it's purpose in this quote, and why is Mr. Ruby a liar?
When did I say he is a LIAR? There are differences between the word LIAR and the word DISHONEST. I said he is dishonest. His failure to use the full portion of Cantate Domino is dishonest, because the full text reduces his argument to nothing, whether he fully realizes it or not (also said he may just be blind).
Oh, wait...
No. I'm done debating you.
Very good! Why am I done debating you? Because your questions are completely irrelevant.
But let's play your little game for a second:
A semicolon has many uses. Often it separates to interdependent phrases. Whoopdy doo. :rolleyes:
IRRELEVANT because there is no semicolon in the Latin text of Florence. Go see for yourself (Tanner, Vol. 1, Part 17).
Frankly, you and your bad willed red herrings are quite simply pointless to keep dealing with. You've already rejected countless dogmatic decrees, without actually coming right out and saying so. You were unable to deny validity of my explanation of the rules of logic concerning the text of the Decree on Justification from Trent, though you tried and tried and fell into a critical blunder against logic in the process (logical NOR as a linguistic disjunction!).
You believe in and fight for heresy, despite the fact that logic itself is against you, and my epistemological judgment is that you are a formal heretic, on the road to hell. I hope you don't die like that.
Good day.
-
When did I say he is a LIAR? There are differences between the word LIAR and the word DISHONEST.
:roll-laugh2:
IRRELEVANT because there is no semicolon in the Latin text of Florence. Go see for yourself (Tanner, Vol. 1, Part 17).
That's fantastic. Go prove this is another faulty translation. Before we know it, the only trustworthy translation and interpretation will be from yourself.
'Pope' Catholic Martyr.
While your at it (proving this translation is wrong), you may feel it worthwhile to investigate the word 'aut' a little further.
I won't bring up the argument on NOR, though the investigation of 'aut' should tie in nicely with it.
I suggest...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disjunction/#MytVelAut
-
He doesn't say that he is the pope. Stop being sarcastic and uncharitable.
-
-
There is Catate Domino. Simple. Can not confuse the meaning. My priest was here this afternoon and I asked him about these things. You see he was telling me of an instance in his own family where his relative had the children "baptised" in the Novus Ordo fashion. Fr. K. told them in no uncertain terms that there children had not been baptised as the Novus Ordo form is invalid. He told them that to die and find out that he was correct would be too late. He said to them that God is the final judge of who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell, however they did not get ther children baptised as the Church teaches and from where he stands he told them it is not good.
Further, he said that "invincible ignorance" is so rare as to be non-exsistent these days. There is no excuse not to know our religion and the Gospel has been spread to the four corners of the earth. Why even persons in third world nations and jungles surf the web and have television and cell-phones.
He said that the fact of the matter is that most people today have heard and do not care. And, the worse he says are Catholics who do not defend the Church and teach her truths.
He conditionally baptizes everyone who comes to him after he has taught them, questioned them and heard them abjure the errors and falsehoods and heresies they held. He baptizes them because he says if they were not baptized or not baptized correctly the will not go to Heaven.
He also said that I should stay away from any boards that do not hold the True Faith and that we are not to enter into discussions with those of different faiths. Since he is sedevacantist that would mean this board as well.
Fr. K always says it is Catholic or Not there are no shades of gray, and if I have any questions I need only go to the writings of Pope Pius IX or Pope Pius X for clarification.
-
-
Scripture is infallible. Scripture says Jesus had brothers. Mary is not ever-virgin.
Scripture says that Abraham and Lot were brothers...but it gives geneology in book as well, clearly Lot and Abraham.....the meaning "brothers" is different in that culture at that time then our meaning.....it is Catholic dogma taht Mary was a Virgin before, during and after Christ birth....perpetually......
I have a saying that, barring new convents that still are having some issues understanding Mary- never trust a Catholic that does not have a love of Mary
-
Lot and Abraham were nephew and uncle........cut myself off in typing.darn phone.......speaking of quoting saints:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-III
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IV
-
Fr. K. told them in no uncertain terms that there children had not been baptised as the Novus Ordo form is invalid.
Your priest sounds like an idiot.
-
'Lover of truth' your assertions are completely heretical. After work I am going to dissect your entire discourse, and you will see that 'obstinate wrangling' as you call it, is firmly bound up with the Extraordinary Magisterium, and that you are in fact a Modernist.
Good day.
-
It hasn't seemed to have occurred to you that God is not bound by his sacraments and as such can, if He so desires, supply for the effects outside of them under certain conditions. You seem to erroneously think that the mere possibility of such an occurence negates or contradicts the law itself. Thus, you implicitly deny the absolutely gratuitiousness of the supernatural order, by implying that God is not free to act in such a manner. For that is really what this debate is about, whether or not this CAN occur. By the "logic" of your argument, you'd also have to accuse God of "contradicting" the laws of nature when he temporarily suspends said laws while working a miracle. You'd decry Lazarus as an imposter for attempt to contravene the universal law of death.
Your mind is in utter confusion and you cease not the putrid condemnations of other catholics. You make me physically ill.
-
That is actually quite to the contrary. They argue that infidels can enter the Church before death through extraordinary (and of course supernatural) means.
But they cannot. Yet the heretics refuse to accept it. Some of them even go as far as to say that explicit belief in Jesus Christ is not even necessary (invincible ignorance). Thus, objectively, they are trying to put non-Catholics in heaven.
Quite the contrary, fool, they refer to the subjective possibility of such a case. No one objectively puts a "non-catholic" qua "non-catholic" in heaven. You have to force ideas on people so you can unjustly condemn them like the Pharisees of old who through a mock trial unjustly condemned Jesus Christ.
-
It hasn't seemed to have occurred to you that God is not bound by his sacraments and as such can, if He so desires, supply for the effects outside of them under certain conditions. You seem to erroneously think that the mere possibility of such an occurence negates or contradicts the law itself. Thus, you implicitly deny the absolutely gratuitiousness of the supernatural order, by implying that God is not free to act in such a manner. For that is really what this debate is about, whether or not this CAN occur. By the "logic" of your argument, you'd also have to accuse God of "contradicting" the laws of nature when he temporarily suspends said laws while working a miracle. You'd decry Lazarus as an imposter for attempt to contravene the universal law of death.
Your mind is in utter confusion and you cease not the putrid condemnations of other catholics. You make me physically ill.
Good points-yes, ultimately, God is in charge and will do what He pleases, to whom and when....save, condemn, punish,reward.........we are to exercise the 3 virtues, the greatest is charity (also known as love, though I prefer the word charity more)
-
His argument amounts to implying that one would contradict the act of Redemption itself were one to suggest that God could have wrought the Redemption in another way. For if the mere possibility existed, then, by his warped logic, it would negate the actuality of the act itself.
He also doesn't seem to realize that, far from detracting from the sacrament of baptism, the doctrine regarding the desire for baptism actually affirms its necessity in that no man is justified without some kind of reference to the sacrament itself. The fact that God may supply for the effects doesn't affect its necessity as a means of regeneration. God supplies in both instances.
-
PRIMER:
Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, Condemning the Errors of the Modernists, #22: "The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort." - CONDEMNED.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, 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."
Any 'understanding' of the dogmatic decrees of the Holy Catholic Church, which in any way recedes from the objective sense of how it was declared IS HERESY. Otherwise you reduce the dogma of infallibility into a meaningless saying.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."
Transgressors of these laws are MODERNISTS.
-
-
Whoops. I have been accidentally quoting 'Lover of Truth' as Belloc, this whole time.
Regardless, review the information, please 'Lover of Truth'. Belloc too.
-
It hasn't seemed to have occurred to you that God is not bound by his sacraments...
"Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven;"
God is perfect justice. Will you accuse Him of contravening His own laws and decrees? You suggest that He is able to do so. How many times to I have to say that YES God, by virtue of His divinity is capable of ALL things whatsoever, but by virtue of His justice, we know that there are certain things He WILL NOT DO.
One of them is justify the unbaptized. By the power of His divinity He can do it, but He will not transgress His justice. This concept can be seen in the last book of the Bible.
And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne, a book written within and without, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel, proclaiming with a loud voice: Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man was able, neither in heaven, nor on earth, nor under the earth, to open the book, nor to look on it. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open the book, nor to see it. And one of the ancients said to me: Weep not; behold the lion of the tribe of Juda, the root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof... And they sung a new canticle, saying: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; because thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood...
God the Father holds the book in His right hand. Can he open it? By the power of His divinity, of course He can. Is he WORTHY ACCORDING TO JUSTICE? NO. God the Son is He who is worthy according to justice, thus God the Son opens the book. This is an excellent example of how God HOLDS HIMSELF BOUND TO JUSTICE.
Furthermore, he made an oath in St. John 3:5, that we all know so well. He states it in a manner of speaking that encompasses all of mankind and admits of no exceptions, and His declarations in the Extraordinary Magisterium also back up this understanding.
People who say things like "We leave judgment to God," as if to imply that we CANNOT KNOW God's judgment on such matters are ignoring the judgments He has already given, through the Holy Roman Pontiffs Clement V, Eugene IV, and Paul III. These judgments BIND the consciences of Catholics, just as they BIND the conduct of God in heaven, because it is He, God Himself, who has said it.
If He justified someone who was not baptized in real and natural water after the obsolescence of the Old Testament Law of the Israelites, He would render His own decrees false, at least in individual cases.
Why is it so hard to believe that God will INFALLIBLY ADHERE TO HIS OWN IRREVOCABLE LAW?
-
Your argument would hold if one were to think that baptism itself does not effect what God said it would. This is a matter of Justice and Promise. But your argument fails because it does not address the fact that God can without injustice act outside of His sacraments. This in no way nullfies the essence of the sacraments themselves. Do you understand yet? Why did you ignore my other post? Why do you persist in your injustices?
-
What an obscure post you have made.
Your argument would hold if one were to think that baptism itself does not effect what God said it would.
Yes. It also holds because people think that it is possible achieve what can truly only be wrought by the one baptism, the sacrament of faith, which administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, which regenerates ALL who are baptized in Christ, and is the instrumental cause of justification, and makes them a member of the Church, outside of which, if they die, they go straightaway into the everlasting fire.
This is a matter of Justice and Promise.
Yes.
But your argument fails because it does not address the fact that God can without injustice act outside of His sacraments.
Yes He can, but for this one sacrament He closed the door. It is clear from reading the simple and plain meaning of these decrees that He will not act outside of His sacraments. We know He is all powerful, and thus has no NEED to act outside of His PROMISE. He can get the sacrament of baptism in real and natural water to anybody He wills.
Furthermore, if a person makes a promise, and then breaks it behind your back, that is UNJUST, no matter how powerful the person breaking the promise is. My argument does not fail at all, since it addresses this very fact, contrary to the assertion in the above quote that it does not. Anybody who reads my previous post above will see that it does. Anybody except the one who made the assertion, that is.
This in no way nullfies the essence of the sacraments themselves. Do you understand yet?
Nobody ever said that belief in baptism of desire would nullify the sacrament of baptism, as though the sacrament would not still effect what it effects. Everybody IS trying to say, however, that a person can die unbaptized, but yet the mere fact that the sacrament of baptism actually exists at all is enough to save such a person, though they didn't actually receive it, but only desired to. Ridiculous! They must physically receive the sacrament while in the flesh. This just follows logically from the decrees.
Why did you ignore my other post?
The person quoted above unjustly put words into my mouth, for one:
His argument amounts to implying that one would contradict the act of Redemption itself were one to suggest that God could have wrought the Redemption in another way. For if the mere possibility existed, then, by his warped logic, it would negate the actuality of the act itself.
I never said anything like this. I said one would contradict the infallible decrees of Holy Mother Church, the meanings of which are to be firmly held as they are declared, according to the objective meaning of the words out of the pope's mouth, the letters on the page. This is how a person is to understand a dogmatic decree if they do not want to fall under the condemned errors of the Modernists.
By the "logic" of your argument, you'd also have to accuse God of "contradicting" the laws of nature when he temporarily suspends said laws while working a miracle. You'd decry Lazarus as an imposter for attempt to contravene the universal law of death.
The above quote is also an irrelevant red herring. God never decreed that the laws of nature would remain constant and unbending at all times, so of course He can make exceptions to these laws at His pleasure. This is not heretical. Besides, Lazarus did die. He never contravened the law of death. He died once as was appointed. Then he was raised by God, and, presumably, died again later on.
Hence, the above quote is nonsense and has nothing to do with God's decrees in the realm of faith. When He says something that leaves no room for exceptions (Cantate Domino) we don't make exceptions.
I mean, a miracle is one thing, but miracles do NOT contradict DOGMA!
Goodness gracious!
If I said that it was "possible" for God to pluck all the Muslims out of hell and stick them in heaven, what I be accused of heresy? I sure hope so! Of course by the power of His divinity, I certainly believe He can. But it would go against His promise, it would be unjust and therefore He would not do it!
Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.
:shocked:
This quote says a person can get into heaven without the baptismal character, which identifies them as a Christian! That they can get into heaven without being having passed through the gateway to the other sacraments, and therefore not permitted to receive absolution for sins or to partake of the body and blood of Jesus Christ! It means that they will go to purgatory, only to suffer TO THE MAX, because the centuries old Tradition of the Church PROHIBITS offering sacrifices for their souls! This is all rubbish!
-
Yes He can
You just conceded the doctrine of baptism of desire and blood.
-
The person who quoted me above seems to believe he has won a victory over the truth that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are in fact heresies. I did not concede baptism of desire or baptism of blood. My words have been presented out of context, and blatantly so. Here is what was said and how I responded:
But your argument fails because it does not address the fact that God can without injustice act outside of His sacraments.
Yes He can, but for this one sacrament He closed the door.
This is not to suggest that I believe a person can receive the grace of all other sacraments without actually receiving the sacrament.
I do not believe a person can have Holy Orders of desire for example. Nor do I believe a person can receive Confirmation of desire.
Also note that these two sacraments (Holy Orders and Confirmation) share something in common with the sacrament of Baptism. They confer a character, and cannot be repeated without sacrilege.
I am interested to see if anybody will try to argue that a person can have Holy Orders of desire or Confirmation of desire. If they will not argue this, why not? And if they still believe in baptism of desire, why, when it is 'built' the same way as Holy Orders and Confirmation? Why, when it is not 'built' like Penance and the Eucharist, which are both repeatable and DO NOT confer a character?
And I still want to know how the heretics will explain away this:
Baptism of desire says that a person can get into heaven without the baptismal character, which identifies them as a Christian.
Baptism of desire says that a person can get into heaven without being having passed through the gateway to the other sacraments, and therefore be in heaven, yet not be permitted to receive absolution for sins or to partake of the body and blood of Jesus Christ!
Belief in baptism of desire suggests that a person may somehow enter the Catholic Church without ever receiving the sacrament of Baptism. This means that the person SHOULD be allowed access to the sacraments. If they are not allowed access to the sacraments, why?
Belief in baptism of desire means that a person who received it will go to purgatory, since not all debt of temporal punishment is washed away, only to suffer without any hope of intercession from the Church Militant, because the centuries old Tradition of the Church PROHIBITS offering sacrifices for their souls. This tradition would either be harmful to these souls, or baptism of desire is not true, which indeed it is not.
Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for
it is the gate of the spiritual life;
through IT we become members of Christ and of the body of the Church.
Since death came into the world through one person,
unless we are born again of water and the spirit,
WE CANNOT,
as Truth says,
enter the kingdom of heaven...
(elimination of exceptions anybody?)
The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit.
Pope Eugene was talking about the SACRAMENT of Baptism and how WE CANNOT AS THE TRUTH SAYS enter heaven unless we receive the SACRAMENT of Baptism so as to be admitted to the spiritual life.
This heresy is like a stinky weed that was initially speculated about, inculpably, by holy people BEFORE it was infallibly rendered heretical; people today blindly believe in it despite the numerous MONUMENTAL contradictions it posits against the Extraordinary Magisterium they glibly claim to believe.
This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.
-
'Lover of Truth' and everyone else, STOP trying to put non-Catholics in heaven. It's heresy, pure and simple.
Of course it is. What you do not seem to grasp is that such is not what I, LoT, et alii are 'trying to do'.
-
They argue that infidels can enter the Church before death through extraordinary (and of course supernatural) means.
Jackpot.
-
Will you accuse Him of contravening His own laws and decrees? You suggest that He is able to do so. How many times to I have to say that YES God, by virtue of His divinity is capable of ALL things whatsoever, but by virtue of His justice, we know that there are certain things He WILL NOT DO...
...Why is it so hard to believe that God will INFALLIBLY ADHERE TO HIS OWN IRREVOCABLE LAW?
Why is it so hard to believe that the Lawgiver, for His own reasons, might operate above/outside His own decrees, in order to attain the ultimate end - salus animarum? What is a miracle, after all?
Do not even earthly kings, at times, commute a sentence, etc, for various reasons? In so doing, are they betraying the justice they are bound to uphold according to the very raison d'etre of their office?
-
Will you accuse Him of contravening His own laws and decrees?
He does so every single time he wants, for example, to attest to the supernatural sanctity of one of His friends.
He did so left, right, and center while on earth, in order to heal the physically and spiritually wounded sheep and draw all things to Himself. He also used them, by the way, to confound those who choked themselves (and others) to death on the letter of the law.
-
Following from what gladius says, "What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep: and if the same fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?"
Here God is contravening his own decree -- his own commandment -- and saying in some cases it is permissible to do heavy labor on the Sabbath, following the SPIRIT of the law, through the virtue of charity, and slightly bending the letter.
You see, God, being God, if He so chooses, can be flexible with His own laws, and this is one means by which he shows His power over the heavens and Earth. How do we know He CAN be flexible with baptism? The Good Thief, for one.
-
...Belief in baptism of desire suggests that a person may somehow enter the Catholic Church without ever receiving the sacrament of Baptism. This means that the person SHOULD be allowed access to the sacraments. If they are not allowed access to the sacraments, why?
Does the fact that a person is cleansed of sin through perfect contrition mean that he SHOULD be allowed access to the other sacraments again, even if he has not gone to confession? No.
Such a man, clean though he is in the sight of God, is NOT allowed to receive any of the other sacraments of God at the hands of men until he has confessed his sins. Why, CM?
-
Such a man, clean though he is in the sight of God, is NOT allowed to receive any of the other sacraments of God at the hands of men until he has confessed his sins. Why, CM?
Because no person can know if they have perfect contrition, short of a private revelation from God. Reception of the sacraments while in the state of mortal sin is a sacrilege, and therefore the priest is bound to prevent the possibility of such an offense taking place, one because it offends God, and two because it endangers the soul of the recipient of the sacrament.
-
However, if a person is in heaven, how can he eternally eat the true Mana of heaven, which is Jesus Christ, if he has not first been admitted to the spiritual life by Holy Baptism?
-
A person in heaven will be known to have achieved perfect contrition, or they would not be there.
However, you guys are both confusing Divinely instituted disciplines with Divinely instituted dogmas.
You argue that the letter of the law is not as important as the spirit of the law. Noted.
Note this: Vatican Council affirms that in matters of faith and morals, it is the LETTER that must be adhered to; Pope Leo XIII states that receding from the letter of Divinely revealed dogma is heresy, pure and simple; Pope Pius X condemns the error, which states that a dogma is not indeed a truth fallen from heaven, or that it is only something to be regarded in the general order, but not to be believed absolutely.
Authoritative quote time!
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.
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.
22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.
26. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing.
Number 26 applies perfectly to anyone who believes in baptism of desire. These Modernists argue that baptism, although admittedly held to be necessary by a necessity of means, nevertheless does not have to be received in a manner concurrent with the decrees of the Church. In this, they deny the dogmatic teachings on a matter of faith that has been defined numerous times, receding from the letter, and falling under the condemnation of Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum.
Note that I have provided a sound answer to every objection that has been asserted in favour of baptism of desire. It has nothing to do with my own ability; I have the truth on my side, otherwise I would falter under all these darts.
The heresy of baptism of desire is keeping people blind and outside of the Church.
-
A discipline is something pertaining to faith and morals.
Jesus Christ would never have fornicated. He never would have gotten drunk. He never would have said there are more than one true God. He never would have worshiped an idol. He never would have denied the resurrection. He never would have transgressed any law that was based upon a matter of FAITH or MORALS.
Furthermore, He even insisted on being baptized, Himself, and stated in clear terms "so it becometh us to fulfill all justice." He was a man, and as a man, would not enter into heaven unbaptized.
And Raoul76, the Good Thief, St. Dismas (whom we do not know if he was baptized or not or if he was circuмsized or not, as Scripture does not say) was taken to paradise by Christ BEFORE the New Testament went into effect. The Old Testament law was in force up until the Holy Passion of the LORD.
-
Following from what gladius says, "What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep: and if the same fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?"
Here God is contravening his own decree -- his own commandment -- and saying in some cases it is permissible to do heavy labor on the Sabbath, following the SPIRIT of the law, through the virtue of charity, and slightly bending the letter.
You see, God, being God, if He so chooses, can be flexible with His own laws, and this is one means by which he shows His power over the heavens and Earth. How do we know He CAN be flexible with baptism? The Good Thief, for one.
Although the Good Thief is not a good example, the first part of your post brings up a very interesting point.
-
The reason why orders and matrimony cannot be obtained by desire is because they are not necessary for salvation, among other things. You admit spiritual communion and perfect contrition, yet you arbitrarily shut the door on baptism. You do this because you misunderstand the decrees of the Church. Once you've admitted that God can and does in principle at least work outside of the sacraments, you're very special pleading is obvious when it comes to baptism. You say "all but this one." LOL...on what grounds? Certainly not tradition since you reject catholic tradition.
-
Once again, you've conceded the entire point, all the special pleading aside, for if you admit that God can act, under certain circuмstances, outside of one sacrament, you have no grounds to assert that he wouldn't or couldn't with regard to another, as a matter of Justice or Oath or any other like argument. Once again, I exhort you to follow all doctrine with regard to all the sacraments. Follow tradition and the Fathers and the Magisterium and you won't go wrong.
-
yet you arbitrarily shut the door on baptism.
There is nothing of arbitration in my position. Fidelity to the logical consequences of a literal reading of the Infallible Magisterium, which is the final authority on Scripture and Tradition, to recede from which in the least degree is heresy.
You do this because you misunderstand the decrees of the Church.
I read and believe them as they were declared.
Once you've admitted that God can and does in principle at least work outside of the sacraments, you're very special pleading is obvious when it comes to baptism.
Show me a dogmatic quote that states that all men must receive the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist for salvation, without exception. Such a quote does not exist.
Show me a dogmatic quote that states a person cannot enter heaven unless they confess their sins before death. Such a quote does not exist.
Numerous quotes have been cited, which state that a person MUST be born again of water and the Spirit to enter heaven, and these same quotes describe the sacrament of baptism, which alone is the instrumental cause of justification, or they cannot enter heaven.
You say "all but this one." LOL...on what grounds?
That's called selectively reading what I post, and ignoring most of it.
Certainly not tradition since you reject catholic tradition.
Tradition is any practice, doctrine or custom, which has been held universally from antiquity in the Church.
Shall I show again that Catholic Tradition has in fact prohibited offering sacrifices for the souls of unbaptized catechumens? I do not reject Tradition. It seems that the person quoted above does not understand what exactly constitutes Tradition.
A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance, and it was done apparently because he believed that the emperor had had the baptism of desire. The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga: "Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without the redemption of baptism."
You cannot get around this Tradition of the Church. You either have to say that it is evil if baptism of desire is true, or you have to say that it is good, and that baptism of desire is not true.
Follow tradition and the Fathers and the Magisterium and you won't go wrong.
I follow the Magisterium. I follow Tradition. I follow the Fathers in all things were they were unanimous in their interpretation of Scripture and Tradition.
Vladimir, please don't tell me you are buying the weak argument that equates a Divinely instituted discipline, which is subject to change, according to the good pleasure of God, with a Divinely revealed dogma, which is irreformable, according to His own words.
-
I am not saying anything, just that the parallel between that parable and this debate is interesting.
-
CM, the reason why the Church doesn't offer public prayers for those who die outside the visible confines of the Church is because the Church judges in the external forum. You falsely infer from this that baptism of desire is impossible. Yet another glaring fallacy mutilating your understanding of Catholic doctrine.
-
-
168. Can they be saved who remain outside the Catholic Church because they do not know it is the true Church?
They who remain outside the Catholic Church through no grave fault of their own and do not know it is the true Church, can be saved by making use of the graces which God gives them.
Nope, sorry. Not if they remain outside of the Catholic Church. If they remain outside and die, then they are saved OUTSIDE the Church according to this nonsense.
(a) Those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own are not culpable in the sight of God because of their invincible ignorance.
This part is true, because they have no way to know (invincible ignorance) of the true Faith and the true God, they cannot be punished for infidelity to the same. Pope Pius IX taught this.
"Those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law graven by God on the hearts of all men, and who, being disposed to obey God, lead an honest and upright life, aided by divine grace, attain to eternal life."
Aided by divine light and grace, the two things we need to BRING US INTO THE FAITH WHERE WE CAN ATTAIN ETERNAL LIFE.
But what heretical additions are made by these heretics?
(b) Persons who make use of the graces God gives them, even though they are not members of the true Church, actually have the desire to become members inasmuch as they wish to use all the means ordained by God for their salvation.
People who have never heard of Jesus Christ want to be part of His body!?!
(c) We should pray and try to persuade others to investigate the teachings of the Catholic Church because charity obliges us to do all we can to lead others to salvation. We should also pray for Catholic missionaries and help them in their work of bringing the faith to those outside the Catholic Church.
This is true! And why? Because they WILL be damned otherwise!
Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven - neither will they go to Hell. After the Last Judgment there will be no Purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven.
If they are inside the Church, then why can't they go to Heaven? But he doesn't say they are inside the Church. So if they never entered, then they must have original sin, which is not committed but contracted. But Ruby thinks they will not go to hell if they only have original sin but never commit a sin.
Pope Eugene IV says otherwise, yet you heretics want to believe Catechisms over Infallible Papal pronouncments.
"...all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives;"
You post this rot, despite the blatant heresy. You are no lover of Truth.
But it gets worse. Do you actually believe all this garbage?
1613. You are much more tolerant towards Pagans than you are towards Protestants whom you doom to hell because they don't belong to your Church.
The Catholic Church does not teach that Protestants are doomed to hell
WHAT!?!?!
Lover of MADNESS!!!
-
Scripture is infallible. Scripture says Jesus had brothers. Mary is not ever-virgin.
Scripture says that Abraham and Lot were brothers...but it gives geneology in book as well, clearly Lot and Abraham.....the meaning "brothers" is different in that culture at that time then our meaning.....it is Catholic dogma taht Mary was a Virgin before, during and after Christ birth....perpetually......
I have a saying that, barring new convents that still are having some issues understanding Mary- never trust a Catholic that does not have a love of Mary
-
Regarding perpetual virginity of Mary ever-virgin I was merely pointing out how people come to erreneous conclusions when taking quotes out of context:
The heretical protestants say "Jesus had brothers" therefore Mary had children.
The heretical feeneyites say; "No Salvation Outside the Church" therefore no one who has not been baptized can be saved.
-
I am coming to this discussion really, really late; however, I have read some of the posts in this thread. Just a quick clarification, "Did not Saint Thomas teach that explicit faith was necessary for salvation after Christ's coming, that is, certain truths of the Catholic faith and Christ's divinity and attonement needed to be believed explicitly in order for a person to be saved, which is why Christian baptism was necessary for an infant's salvation?"
-
I want to see if Catholic Martyr has the integrity to admit when he is wrong or to grant a legitimate point if not we must suppose he has been so loud and proud about his heresy that he would be to embarrest to concede the point.
I read somewhere that someone said BOB/D is not any Catechisms. I believe Catholic Martyr said this though I could be wrong.
Catholic Martyr - do you concede the fact that BOB/D is taught in approved Catholic Catechisms not directed towards the kiddies?
Do you admit that if the Church cannonized someone they believed was not baptized with water that they must believe in BOB/D?
If you answer either of the above questions incorrectly then we know what we are dealing with and we can only hope to convert those with humility and a sincere heart. :pray:
-
Pope Eugene IV says otherwise, yet you heretics want to believe Catechisms over Infallible Papal pronouncments.
"...all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives
Question-what happens if the heresy has gone on for so long the people do not know they are outside the Church and are heretical....Eugene and otehrs were speaking I beleive about those who willfully put themselves outside or know better and refuse to act....again, we cannto just copy/paste statements without knowing how to apply the rules
-
Belloc, you are missing the point. It is an infallible statement. God the Holy Ghost said "all those who are outside"
He did not say "all those who think they are outside"
or
"all those who choose to be outside"
You find yourself resorting to the Modernist proposition that this decree is not in fact a TRUTH FALLEN FROM HEAVEN.
-
You find yourself resorting to the Modernist proposition that this decree is not in fact a TRUTH FALLEN FROM HEAVEN.
Or he's understanding the dogma as it was originally declared.
Depends on your viewpoint.
-
Exactly. If you have a Modernist viewpoint, a decree can have been declared in a sense that in no way follows from the actual words of the same decree.
:fryingpan:
-
-
Belloc, you are missing the point. It is an infallible statement. God the Holy Ghost said "all those who are outside"
He did not say "all those who think they are outside"
or
"all those who choose to be outside"
You find yourself resorting to the Modernist proposition that this decree is not in fact a TRUTH FALLEN FROM HEAVEN.
What about infants who are baptized by non-Catholic priests and/or ministers?
-
I hate to do this, but I think Catholic Martyr is right about the Baltimore Catechism. I'm beginning to understand why he and Feeney are so disturbed about this issue. The BC displays some serious abuse of the "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" dogma.
"1613. You are much more tolerant towards Pagans than you are towards Protestants whom you doom to hell because they don't belong to your Church.
The Catholic Church does not teach that Protestants are doomed to hell. As a matter of fact, an American Catholic priest, Father Leonard Feeney, began in 1949 to preach that such was the Catholic teaching. He was warned both by Archbishop Cushing of Boston, and then by the Holy See itself, that he was preaching wrong doctrine and misrepresenting Catholic teaching."
I believe that a Protestant who makes an act of the will desiring to be joined with the Catholic Church before death has the POSSIBILITY of being saved. But this just flats out states that Protestants are not doomed, with no qualification, as if they can remain in their error with no repentance and still have a chance. Not to mention the gloating over Father Feeney's defeat feels way too personal.
Father Feeney may have been right about the Americanist tendencies of this catechism and I am automatically skeptical of any Catholic doctrine emanating from a country where almost all the priests and bishops not only accept but rejoice over the separation of Church and state. But I still believe in BoD and BoB.
That doesn't mean I believe all unbaptized catechumens will be saved. I believe simply that it is within God's power, but that only in rare instances would He break His own rule, and the rule is that baptism is necessary.
As usual Pius X says it best in HIS catechism, also quoted in that huge chunk of text granted to us by Lover_of_Truth:
"17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
Notice here not only love of God is needed but the desire for actual baptism in the CATHOLIC CHURCH. The movement of the soul towards "God" as that particular soul understands God is not enough; the movement of the soul must be towards the Church outside of which no one can be saved, showing that that soul knows the true God. Here Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is not violated.
-
CM says about the Council of Trent statement "... laver of regeneration OR the desire thereof"...
But the problem for you is twofold if you are advocating the false translation that it can be effected with only one or the other.
First, you have to admit that a person who receives baptism, even though they are kicking and screaming in defiance, even if they are forced, and do not desire the sacrament, they are still justified. Otherwise you are simply being arbitrary.
Well, aren't babies brought to the baptismal font often seen to be kicking and screaming in defiance? Ha ha.
This statement of Trent is only concerned with rebirth through water, not rebirth through the Holy Ghost. But an adult who desires baptism has ALREADY been born again of the Holy Ghost, even if he doesn't attain the water. Just as some babies may attain the water but not be born again of the Spirit until they reach the age of reason years and years later.
If a baby can be saved with just the water, as it is dogmatic that babies who die after baptism are saved, why can't an adult be saved having been born again of the Holy Spirit but without the water? Actually, the latter scenario seems far more plausible to me. ( I grant you that a baby may be reborn through the Holy Spirit at the same time he is reborn through the water, but that is a complex subject I have not researched yet ).
Christ does say you must be born again of water and the Holy Spirit but then in another place He only says "spirit." Just as in one place He says you must eat His body and drink His blood to have eternal life; while in another he only says "body." The Council of Trent determined on this basis to give communion in only one species.
Christ seems to give preference to rebirth through the Holy Ghost over rebirth through water, just as he gives preference to eating His body over drinking His blood. Undoubtedly He anticipated this debate and I think He gave a very clear answer. REBIRTH THROUGH THE SPIRIT IS ENOUGH FOR SALVATION. AND EATING HIS BODY IS ENOUGH.
You refuse to acknowledge this point. If you are going to be literal and say we must be born again of both the water and the Holy Spirit, then why not be equally literal and say we must eat both His body and drink His blood? Why not reject Trent and join the Hussites?
As for the hypothetical person "forced" into baptism, I don't think it even occurred to the theologians of Trent. Such a person clearly would not have their sins washed away but the Trent doctors don't need to say that explicitly, as it is so obvious to common sense.
-
What about infants who are baptized by non-Catholic priests and/or ministers?
It is a dogma that the baptism performed by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, using the proper matter and with the intention to do what the Church does is valid.
It is a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium that children who have not yet attained the use of reason, which is around 7 years old, are not bound by the Divine Law (cannot actual sin), and thus if they died after being validly baptized, but before the age of reason, would die as Catholics, and go straight to heaven.
-
As usual Pius X says it best in HIS catechism
Now you are muddying up the waters again. The Catechism that bears his name was originally released as "A Compendium of Christian Doctrine" and was not written by him. It was compiled from the many books of text in use in the Dioceses of Italy, along with texts previously approved of from the Bishops of Piemonte, Liguria, Lombardy, Emilia and Tuscany. Furthermore, in promulgating it, Pius X made no move to say that it was binding on all the faithful. It is entirely possible, and based on his stance against Modernism, I firmly believe, that it was modified after he had given his approval.
Notice here not only love of God is needed but the desire for actual baptism in the CATHOLIC CHURCH. The movement of the soul towards "God" as that particular soul understands God is not enough; the movement of the soul must be towards the Church outside of which no one can be saved, showing that that soul knows the true God. Here Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is not violated.
Only when you understand Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus to mean something different than whatthe ex cathedra decrees say.
-
CM says about the Council of Trent statement "... laver of regeneration OR the desire thereof"...
But the problem for you is twofold if you are advocating the false translation that it can be effected with only one or the other.
First, you have to admit that a person who receives baptism, even though they are kicking and screaming in defiance, even if they are forced, and do not desire the sacrament, they are still justified. Otherwise you are simply being arbitrary.
Well, aren't babies brought to the baptismal font often seen to be kicking and screaming in defiance? Ha ha.
The Decree on Jurstification is clearly speaking of those who have attained the use of reason and free will, such as to be bound by the Divine Law. Those who are capable of desiring the sacrament. Read the whole decree, all the chapter therein, and you will see that this is true. The decree does not treat of infants, or imbeciles.
And most of the rest of what you say is based on your own interpretation of Scripture, without referencing the Solemn Magisterial teachings of the Church, whereby they are properly contextualized. Any time the Church has interpreted St. John chapter 3 verse 5, it has done so in a way as to make clear that there are no exceptions.
As for the hypothetical person "forced" into baptism, I don't think it even occurred to the theologians of Trent. Such a person clearly would not have their sins washed away but the Trent doctors don't need to say that explicitly, as it is so obvious to common sense.
The Fathers of Trent had in mind to condemn the Protestant heresies. If a catechumen had fallen for these heresies, and had come to believe that his 'faith' alone could save him, he might have been so inclined to receive baptism, merely for the sake of human respect, while secretly despising the sacrament. Such a one would certainly not be justified.
-
I think that the modern heresy is that faith and/or desire can be implicit.
-
That is an evolution of the heresy yes, but baptism of desire, being a proposition that is directly opposed to the Solemn Magisterial decrees of Holy Mother Church is the original heresy.
-
If we are going to use the Latin, it is "ecclesiam" in this instance. Carry on...
-
...The BC displays some serious abuse of the "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" dogma.
Ah, sorry, Raoul. I did not see that you had subsequently used the correct Latin case. Cheerio...
-
Has anyone read Mr Patrick Henry Omlor's article on this matter? It is quite good.
-
That is an evolution of the heresy yes, but baptism of desire, being a proposition that is directly opposed to the Solemn Magisterial decrees of Holy Mother Church is the original heresy.
So, you are claiming that the Council of Trent was a heretical council?
-
-
That is an evolution of the heresy yes, but baptism of desire, being a proposition that is directly opposed to the Solemn Magisterial decrees of Holy Mother Church is the original heresy.
So, you are claiming that the Council of Trent was a heretical council?
No. Why would you say that?
-
So to sum up, there are six realities that must be borne in mind when reading the following quotes, so as to read them in the sense always and forever intended by the Church, and with the Mind of the Church, understanding them exactly as they were written, and not with the alien interpretation foisted upon them by the likes of Peter Dimond and Fr. Feeney:
Six REALITIES? Let us examine these 'realities', by which you approach the dogmas of Holy Mother Church, and draw them into the light, and expose every facet of them for all to see. And then we may proceed in determining whether they are indeed realities.
I propose to measure them against the dogmatic standards of the Church.
1) Those passages referring to damnation of those outside the Church always carry a sense of "do not" and never "have not."
Please explain this one in greater detail before we can proceed to discuss it. I am not quite sure I understand your assertion here.
2) Those passages that make sweeping generalizations would naturally have to admit certain limited exceptions, as can be defended by other doctrines as applicable.
Really? According to whom? I'd like to see your argumentation, which posits an INFALLIBLE decree, in which a sweeping generalization is made and leaves room for no exceptions, can later understood in a sense different than what it conveys upon the first reading.
Do you believe that we may also understand a dogmatic decree that DOES NOT make a sweeping generalization as being capable of admit of exceptions as well? Why or why not?
And how does your statement not contradict the following dogma?
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.
Next:
3) Those passages referring to saved souls can only be speaking of those who are in either Purgatory or Heaven, nowhere else.
Correct, obviously. This is a dogmatic reality.
4) Those passages referring to the Church as the only means of salvation mean that no other "church" can save, but do not limit the Church's methods for applying God's Grace to souls.
Which grace might you be referring to, O sly one? Prevenient grace? Sanctifying grace, perhaps? Please do clarify this point.
5) Those passages referring to the necessity to "abide" or "remain" or "continue" in the Church have no bearing on questions of BOB and BOD and entrance requirements since they speak only to those who are already in the Church Militant.
This is a very bizarre assertion. How can you abide in something you have never entered? Is entrance no longer a prerequisite to abiding therein?
6) Those passages which speak of water baptism as being the only means of entering the Church are speaking of how to enter the Church Militant, the only one of the three levels of the Church which one can voluntarily join.
So you argue that a person can skip right from being a pagan in the state of original sin to being either in Purgatory or Heaven?
In other words, the person never voluntarily joined the Church Militant (even if they desired baptism), but they were just placed by God in the Church Suffering or the Church Triumphant?
I have more questions for you, but this will suffice for now.
Please respond.
-
-
That is an evolution of the heresy yes, but baptism of desire, being a proposition that is directly opposed to the Solemn Magisterial decrees of Holy Mother Church is the original heresy.
So, you are claiming that the Council of Trent was a heretical council?
No. Why would you say that?
Trent, clearly, speaks of BoD ("vowtum").
-
Trent, clearly, speaks of BoD ("vowtum").
No it does not. You are misreading the decree, and falling into the same error that David Hobson dishonestly promotes.
Please review this article (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/08/trents-decree-on-justification-and.html), and then get back to me.
It deals specifically with the decree you have in mind.
'Lover of Truth', I will respond to you shortly.
-
-
Wear the scapular and pray the rosary daily asking God to grant you the truth each day. It will come if you are humbe and sincere.
This is actually good advice, provided that the person it is offered to is sincere in seeking the truth, and is willing to let go of all human respect in pursuance of it. In fact, I do it already, and I started quite some time ago.
Who enrolled you in the scapular?
-
A heretic non priest thought he did, and so did I at the time. However I have since learned better (and found out that he did not do it according to the proposed method). I no longer have that scapular, but I wear the replacement continuously.
I do not know if it can even be properly called a sacramental in my case, since it is not blessed, nor was I enrolled in it by a Catholic clergymen.
It is a reminder to me of my duties to the Blessed Virgin Mary and it reminds me to invoke the Blessed Virgin in times of temptation.
-
Also, this is the prayer of my heart:
"Lord, if I do not know Thee, and I do not know Thy Truth as I ought, at least I know that wherever the Truth is, there Thou art. Please call me to Thyself, and grant me grace that I may respond, and may nevermore offend Thee."
Hello Catholic Martyr,
I am very pleased that you say this prayer each day. May God bless you for that. I am also pleased that you may or may not be enrolled in the scapular. Do you pray the Rosary each day?
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to believe that if a clergymen is a "heretic" he does not validly do anything right.
Maybe you admit that it is valid but does not count somehow.
I know a latin phrase but do not want to bludgen it, it talks about Sacraments being "the work worked" rather than "the work of the worker" meaning a valid Priest can confect the Sacrament validly even if he is a heretic. I figure you are aware of this. So can you explain to me why you do not think you are properly enrolled in the scapular?
Also, can you ease my mind and let me know that you would admit you were wrong if you believe you were proven to be wrong on anything?
Lastly, please address this for me, the Church has cannonized saints that they believed were never baptized, forget whether or not cannonizations are infallible or not, does the Church cannonizing people they believe were not baptized with water show that they believe in BOB/D or not?
God bless, Mary keep,
John
-
Hello Catholic Martyr,
:wave:
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to believe that if a clergymen is a "heretic" he does not validly do anything right.
If a clergymen is a heretic, or schismatic he loses office. He retains his God given supernatural ability to effect sacraments, but he loses the right to do so, and therefore every such act is a mortal sin.
If a person is aware that this is the case, yet still seeks sacraments or sacramentals from him, then the person asking is also sinning mortally.
Maybe you admit that it is valid but does not count somehow.
Valid, and it counts for damnation, just like receiving the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin. There have been martyrs who died rather than receive sacraments at the hands of heretical clergy. St. Hermenegild...
I am certain that people who feel it is alright to receive sacraments at the hands of clergy who are 'mostly catholic', or who do not even bother to ask their priest about his faith (perhaps fearing the answers and their consequences, but ignorance is not bliss when it is culpable), are committing a sin that cries to heaven, and saints like Hermenegild are crying out: "How long O Lord, before Thou wilt avenge us."
So can you explain to me why you do not think you are properly enrolled in the scapular?
I understand (according to some) that the orders in the Novus Ordo are invalid. I don't know much about this topic, so I simply view Novus Ordo 'clergy', like the man who enrolled (?) me, and their sacraments as doubtful.
Also, can you ease my mind and let me know that you would admit you were wrong if you believe you were proven to be wrong on anything?
Yes. Here you go (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/03/retractions.html).
Lastly, please address this for me, the Church has cannonized saints that they believed were never baptized, forget whether or not cannonizations are infallible or not, does the Church cannonizing people they believe were not baptized with water show that they believe in BOB/D or not?
This is a common argument. There are a very small number of such cases. The first is that the Early Church saints and martyrs were not canonized, but rather the faithful were granted permission to venerate them on account of the records of their lives. And it's important to note that in the Early Church, there had not yet been a dogmatic declaration which eliminiated the possibilities of BoD or BoB.
Another thing to keep in mind is that it is quite possible for stories to be handed down that do not match the actual events.
Still another is that there are some supposed catechumen martyrs, but the term catechumen does not automatically mean unbaptized, as can be seen by reading the first Ecuмenical Council:
2. Since, either through necessity or through the importunate demands of certain individuals, there have been many breaches of the church's canon, with the result that men who have recently come from a pagan life to the faith after a short catechumenate have been admitted at once to the spiritual washing, and at the same time as their baptism have been promoted to the episcopate or the presbyterate, it is agreed that it would be well for nothing of the kind to occur in the future. For a catechumen needs time and further probation after baptism, for the apostle's words are clear: "Not a recent convert, or he may be puffed up and fall into the condemnation and the snare of the devil". But if with the passage of time some sin of sensuality is discovered with regard to the person and he is convicted by two or three witnesses, such a one will be suspended from the clergy. If anyone contravenes these regulations, he will be liable to forfeit his clerical status for acting in defiance of this great synod.
Likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs . . . [which] with remarkable caution are not read in the holy Roman Church . . . because the names of those who wrote (them) are entirely unknown . . . lest an occasion of light mockery arise. We, however, with the aforementioned Church venerate with every devotion both all the martyrs and the glorious combats of those who are known to God rather than to men.
And finally, infallible dogma and common sense both tell us that canonizations are not, in fact, an exercise of papal infallibility.
-
Do you pray the Rosary each day?
Whoops, forgot to answer this. Yes. 5 decades, sometimes more.