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

Author Topic: False BOD is Foundational to VatII  (Read 8706 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SJB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5171
  • Reputation: +1932/-17
  • Gender: Male
False BOD is Foundational to VatII
« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2014, 01:54:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: bowler
    Sure SJB, Abp. Lefebvre should not be understood as he wrote it, and all the dogmas on EENS and baptism should not be understood as they are written, and maybe you and I should not be understood as we write. And maybe what should not be understood as it is written should not be understood as it is written.

    "There was once a cat that fell asleep and dreamed that he was a man dreaming that he was a cat, and when he woke up, he did not know whether he was a man or a cat".


    There once was an idiot who did his own theology, saw things that were not really there, and due to his stupid pride he never woke up to see what a fool he has been.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-2
    • Gender: Male
    False BOD is Foundational to VatII
    « Reply #31 on: February 12, 2014, 09:12:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • To BOders, the councils teach in parables so only theologians understand what is being taught - except when it comes to a few certain things - -like "the desire thereof" means  BOD has been defined.

    Then you have Ambrose saying "When a doctrine is taught in an ecuмenical council, it is de fide." Yet he rejects de fide teachings from ecuмenical councils as though rejecting them were the rule of faith taught in ecuмenical councils.


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    False BOD is Foundational to VatII
    « Reply #32 on: February 12, 2014, 10:18:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: bowler
    To BOders, the councils teach in parables so only theologians understand what is being taught - except when it comes to a few certain things - -like "the desire thereof" means  BOD has been defined.

    Then you have Ambrose saying "When a doctrine is taught in an ecuмenical council, it is de fide." Yet he rejects de fide teachings from ecuмenical councils as though rejecting them were the rule of faith taught in ecuмenical councils.


    How do you explain away all the catechisms?
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-2
    • Gender: Male
    False BOD is Foundational to VatII
    « Reply #33 on: February 12, 2014, 11:08:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Quote from: bowler
    To BOders, the councils teach in parables so only theologians understand what is being taught - except when it comes to a few certain things - -like "the desire thereof" means  BOD has been defined.

    Then you have Ambrose saying "When a doctrine is taught in an ecuмenical council, it is de fide." Yet he rejects de fide teachings from ecuмenical councils as though rejecting them were the rule of faith taught in ecuмenical councils.


    How do you explain away all the catechisms?


    You deny ALL the clear dogmas using "catechisms" of which you never any quotes. That's called an end run. You don't have the mental wherewithal to answer any of the questions that come from directly reading clear language Dogmas.

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    False BOD is Foundational to VatII
    « Reply #34 on: February 12, 2014, 02:57:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Bowler
    You deny ALL the clear dogmas using "catechisms" of which you never any quotes.
    Catechisms do not contradict dogmas. Many catechisms have been clearly quoted, so you're either blind or just to stupid to realize what people have been posting for days, months, years and even decades now.

    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4579/-579
    • Gender: Female
    False BOD is Foundational to VatII
    « Reply #35 on: February 12, 2014, 03:10:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Quote from: Bowler
    You deny ALL the clear dogmas using "catechisms" of which you never any quotes.
    Catechisms do not contradict dogmas. Many catechisms have been clearly quoted, so you're either blind or just to stupid to realize what people have been posting for days, months, years and even decades now.



    The Baltimore Catechism is an example of a catechism that clearly contradicts dogma (when it states that there are three Baptisms). Catechisms are not infallible docuмents.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14737
    • Reputation: +6072/-907
    • Gender: Male
    False BOD is Foundational to VatII
    « Reply #36 on: February 12, 2014, 03:24:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Quote from: Bowler
    You deny ALL the clear dogmas using "catechisms" of which you never any quotes.
    Catechisms do not contradict dogmas. Many catechisms have been clearly quoted, so you're either blind or just to stupid to realize what people have been posting for days, months, years and even decades now.



    How would you know?
    You do not even believe what dogmas are, so why would you even say that catechisms don't contradict them?


    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-2
    • Gender: Male
    False BOD is Foundational to VatII
    « Reply #37 on: February 14, 2014, 09:39:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Quote from: Bowler
    You deny ALL the clear dogmas using "catechisms" of which you never any quotes.
    Catechisms do not contradict dogmas. Many catechisms have been clearly quoted, so you're either blind or just to stupid to realize what people have been posting for days, months, years and even decades now.



    You deny all the clear dogmas on EENS and baptism, and the Catechism of Trent in your belief that people can be saved by baptism of desire of the catechumen, implicit baptism of desire, and implicit faith.

    You deny all those clear dogmas and the entire catechism of Trent, for just one line in The Catechism of Trent which ends in "will avail them to grace and righteousness". From there you go on to deny EVERYTHING in your belief in salvation by Implicit Faith.

    You don't have a leg to stand on. The fact is, like this thread shows, you can't even complain about Vatican II:

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    At the end of the day, prescinding even from who's right or wrong about the issue, the Baptism of Implicit Desire (BOID) crowd have the SAME "subsistit" ecclesiology as Vatican II, whereby the actual MEMBERS comprise the subsistent core, and yet there are those outside of this subsistent core who nevertheless belong to the Church.  Consequently, we have separated brethren all over the world and in every religion ... separated materially but brethren formally.  Consequently, since right intention has become the criterion for salvation, and clearly people have a right to please God and to save their souls, then they have the right to practice their religion ... even if they're in material error, because it's the new soteriology.  This is why Dr. Fastiggi destroyed Bishop Sanborn in their debate, because he clearly showed that Vatican II ecclesiology was logically consistent with Bishop Sanborn's own stated principle that non-Catholics can be saved.

    If you were to convince me that BOID is in fact Traditional Catholic teaching, then I would have to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as substantially free from error.  I would go join and Eastern Rite or FSSP or something like that because I personally find most implementations of the Novus Ordo Missae inconsistent with my own spirituality.

    You guys reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II while yourselves holding THE VERY SAME ERRORS AND HERESIES.  If your views are not heretical, then you are schismatic for separating yourself from Vatican II (which teaches the SAME thing that you yourselves hold).

    So, LoT, SJB, and Ambrose, et al. you are NOT CATHOLICS.  You are either schismatics of heretics or both.



    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    False BOD is Foundational to VatII
    « Reply #38 on: February 14, 2014, 01:28:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: SJB
    Quote from: Bowler
    You deny ALL the clear dogmas using "catechisms" of which you never any quotes.
    Catechisms do not contradict dogmas. Many catechisms have been clearly quoted, so you're either blind or just to stupid to realize what people have been posting for days, months, years and even decades now.



    The Baltimore Catechism is an example of a catechism that clearly contradicts dogma (when it states that there are three Baptisms). Catechisms are not infallible docuмents.


    Except you can't provide one single catechism that explains things the way you understand them. This means you didn't learn from a cathechism, nor any other approved teacher.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46680
    • Reputation: +27550/-5115
    • Gender: Male
    False BOD is Foundational to VatII
    « Reply #39 on: February 14, 2014, 01:44:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Except you can't provide one single catechism that explains things the way you understand them. This means you didn't learn from a cathechism, nor any other approved teacher.


    Do you have an auto-reply program that just posts this same tired nonsense ad nauseam?

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    False BOD is Foundational to VatII
    « Reply #40 on: February 14, 2014, 03:15:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: SJB
    Except you can't provide one single catechism that explains things the way you understand them. This means you didn't learn from a cathechism, nor any other approved teacher.


    Do you have an auto-reply program that just posts this same tired nonsense ad nauseam?


    Ladi, YOU can't provide one single catechism that explains things the way you understand them. This means you didn't learn from a cathechism, nor any other approved teacher.

    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil


    Offline Alcuin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 269
    • Reputation: +91/-0
    • Gender: Male
    False BOD is Foundational to VatII
    « Reply #41 on: February 14, 2014, 04:27:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: SJB
    Except you can't provide one single catechism that explains things the way you understand them. This means you didn't learn from a cathechism, nor any other approved teacher.


    Do you have an auto-reply program that just posts this same tired nonsense ad nauseam?


    Ladi, YOU can't provide one single catechism that explains things the way you understand them. This means you didn't learn from a cathechism, nor any other approved teacher.



    Except you can't yourself re:Vatican II

    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-2
    • Gender: Male
    False BOD is Foundational to VatII
    « Reply #42 on: February 14, 2014, 05:24:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: bowler
    Quote from: SJB
    Quote from: Bowler
    You deny ALL the clear dogmas using "catechisms" of which you never any quotes.
    Catechisms do not contradict dogmas. Many catechisms have been clearly quoted, so you're either blind or just to stupid to realize what people have been posting for days, months, years and even decades now.



    You deny all the clear dogmas on EENS and baptism, and the Catechism of Trent in your belief that people can be saved by baptism of desire of the catechumen, implicit baptism of desire, and implicit faith.

    You deny all those clear dogmas and the entire catechism of Trent, for just one line in The Catechism of Trent which ends in "will avail them to grace and righteousness". From there you go on to deny EVERYTHING in your belief in salvation by Implicit Faith.


    You don't have a leg to stand on. The fact is, like this thread shows, you can't even complain about Vatican II:

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    At the end of the day, prescinding even from who's right or wrong about the issue, the Baptism of Implicit Desire (BOID) crowd have the SAME "subsistit" ecclesiology as Vatican II, whereby the actual MEMBERS comprise the subsistent core, and yet there are those outside of this subsistent core who nevertheless belong to the Church.  Consequently, we have separated brethren all over the world and in every religion ... separated materially but brethren formally.  Consequently, since right intention has become the criterion for salvation, and clearly people have a right to please God and to save their souls, then they have the right to practice their religion ... even if they're in material error, because it's the new soteriology.  This is why Dr. Fastiggi destroyed Bishop Sanborn in their debate, because he clearly showed that Vatican II ecclesiology was logically consistent with Bishop Sanborn's own stated principle that non-Catholics can be saved.

    If you were to convince me that BOID is in fact Traditional Catholic teaching, then I would have to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as substantially free from error.  I would go join and Eastern Rite or FSSP or something like that because I personally find most implementations of the Novus Ordo Missae inconsistent with my own spirituality.

    You guys reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II while yourselves holding THE VERY SAME ERRORS AND HERESIES.  If your views are not heretical, then you are schismatic for separating yourself from Vatican II (which teaches the SAME thing that you yourselves hold).

    So, LoT, SJB, and Ambrose, et al. you are NOT CATHOLICS.  You are either schismatics of heretics or both.


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    False BOD is Foundational to VatII
    « Reply #43 on: February 14, 2014, 05:49:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
    Concerning Baptism


    Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.

    We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. 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 pres-bytero non baptizato" and of 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".

    Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

    It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.

    St. Robert Bellarmine, Of The Church Militant, III, 3, “Of those who are not baptized

    *“Martyrdom is rightly called, and is, a certain baptism.” (On the Sacrament of Baptism, Bk. I, Ch. VI, (Tom. 3, p. 120A))

    “Concerning catechumens there is a greater difficulty, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved, as outside the ark of Noah. […] I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved. (Of The Church Militant, III,
    3, “Of those who are not baptized”)

    Douay Catechism (by Henry Tuberville, D.D. 1649)

    “Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?

    “A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.”

    Mgr. J. H. Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) - 1931

    II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:

    "The various baptisms: from the Council of Trent itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied, namely an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one as it were generic name; so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood)."

    Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives

    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.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-2
    • Gender: Male
    False BOD is Foundational to VatII
    « Reply #44 on: February 14, 2014, 05:59:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The title of this thread is "False BOD is Foundational to Vat II".
    It is undeniable that  because of people like you SJB (and, LOT, Ambrose and the other Heroin BODers) that we had Vatican II. You have nothing to complain about, as Ladislaus said:

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    At the end of the day, prescinding even from who's right or wrong about the issue, the Baptism of Implicit Desire (BOID) crowd have the SAME "subsistit" ecclesiology as Vatican II, whereby the actual MEMBERS comprise the subsistent core, and yet there are those outside of this subsistent core who nevertheless belong to the Church.  Consequently, we have separated brethren all over the world and in every religion ... separated materially but brethren formally.  Consequently, since right intention has become the criterion for salvation, and clearly people have a right to please God and to save their souls, then they have the right to practice their religion ... even if they're in material error, because it's the new soteriology.  This is why Dr. Fastiggi destroyed Bishop Sanborn in their debate, because he clearly showed that Vatican II ecclesiology was logically consistent with Bishop Sanborn's own stated principle that non-Catholics can be saved.

    If you were to convince me that BOID is in fact Traditional Catholic teaching, then I would have to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as substantially free from error.  I would go join and Eastern Rite or FSSP or something like that because I personally find most implementations of the Novus Ordo Missae inconsistent with my own spirituality.

    You guys reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II while yourselves holding THE VERY SAME ERRORS AND HERESIES.  If your views are not heretical, then you are schismatic for separating yourself from Vatican II (which teaches the SAME thing that you yourselves hold).

    So, LoT, SJB, and Ambrose, et al. you are NOT CATHOLICS.  You are either schismatics of heretics or both.