Quote from: Stubborn

Ambrose just showing how he defends the heretical belief that No Sacrament At All is necessary for salvation - it's like he needs his fix or something.

Please note that Ambrose, like Fr. Kramer and all other NSAAers, cannot bring themselves to defend any sacrament - and it is particularly impossible for them to defend the necessity of the sacrament of baptism unto salvation as they no not believe they are necessary for anything at all.

Trent's catechism teaches the reason for this is because Ambrose and all NSAAers despise the sacraments.

No, just defending the Catholoc Faith, whole and entire.  You think that you can deny an article of Faith and be saved, but you at wrong.  I hope for your sake that God will forgive your ignorance of Catholic Teaching.

You say you're "defending the Catholic Faith, whole and entire" - you do this by promoting salvation without the sacrament, but the necessity of the sacraments for salvation is a main part of "the whole and entire" Catholic faith.

You say the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation - per Trent, you are anathema.

Defend yourself against that accusation.

To deny Baptism of Desire is to deny a de fide teaching of the Church, and is heresy.

 

Though you've posted this error many, many times, this is by far the most ridiculous thing you have ever posted. Let me explain - again......

A "baptism of desire" is No Sacrament At All. You say that salvation via No Sacrament At All is a de fide teaching of the Church. What you say is ridiculous.

Why is it that you cannot get yourself to defend the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism for the hope of salvation?

Why, after almost 6 months of asking you to start a thread championing the defense of the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, do you keep starting threads against the sacrament, and about salvation without any sacrament at all?

Please admit that you do not believe the sacraments are necessary for our hope of salvation. Please admit that to you, the sacraments are completely optional, that nobody really needs them.

If you do this, I will at least admit you to be an honest NSAAer.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Stubborn

Ambrose just showing how he defends the heretical belief that No Sacrament At All is necessary for salvation - it's like he needs his fix or something.

Please note that Ambrose, like Fr. Kramer and all other NSAAers, cannot bring themselves to defend any sacrament - and it is particularly impossible for them to defend the necessity of the sacrament of baptism unto salvation as they no not believe they are necessary for anything at all.

Trent's catechism teaches the reason for this is because Ambrose and all NSAAers despise the sacraments.

No, just defending the Catholoc Faith, whole and entire.  You think that you can deny an article of Faith and be saved, but you at wrong.  I hope for your sake that God will forgive your ignorance of Catholic Teaching.

You say you're "defending the Catholic Faith, whole and entire" - you do this by promoting salvation without the sacrament, but the necessity of the sacraments for salvation is a main part of "the whole and entire" Catholic faith.

You say the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation - per Trent, you are anathema.

Defend yourself against that accusation.

Quote from: Ambrose

To deny Baptism of Desire is to deny a de fide teaching of the Church, and is heresy.

 


Though you've posted this error many, many times, this is by far the most ridiculous thing you have ever posted. Let me explain - again......

A "baptism of desire" is No Sacrament At All. You say that salvation via No Sacrament At All is a de fide teaching of the Church. What you say is ridiculous.

Why is it that you cannot get yourself to defend the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism for the hope of salvation?

Why, after almost 6 months of asking you to start a thread championing the defense of the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, do you keep starting threads against the sacrament, and about salvation without any sacrament at all?

Please admit that you do not believe the sacraments are necessary for our hope of salvation. Please admit that to you, the sacraments are completely optional, that nobody really needs them.

If you do this, I will at least admit you to be an honest NSAAer.

The Sacraments are necessary in fact or on desire as the Council of Trent teaches.  You accept the first, but are rejecting the second.  

You are not allowed to pick which teachings you will believe, and reject those that you struggle with.   Some struggle with the teaching on transubstantiation, others contraception, others the Papacy, but for you, your point of conflict with Catholic Teaching is on Baptism of Desire.  

If you are having trouble, just let go and trust the Church which can neither deceive nor be deceived.  To reject even one point of Church Teaching, is to in effect reject Catholicism.  

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: Cantarella

We need not Fr. Kramer to interpret for us after 2000 years, the infallible Church teaching on EENS. The denial of "Extra Eccleasiam Nulla Salus" is a novelty. Fr. Kramer is far from being the binding authority of the Church. Truth is there is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church.

With all due respect, and out of genuine curiosity, what is behind all the anti-feeneyite agenda of the CMRI?

I was getting ready to ask what's with all the Feeneyites or EENS-defenders who are novus ordites?  The novus ordo has been mocking EENS since the early 1950's.  

Deny EENS?  The novus ordo denies Our Lord by saying that non-Christian faiths have the means of salvationin them.  

There are "feeneyites" that happen to attend the Novus Ordo Mass, which is a separate and distinct rite of Mass within the Latin Church.

There are "Feeneyites" who attend a worship service where it is openly stated that other religions are means of salvation?  

Does that strike you as odd?  It does to me.  

A Feeneyite cannot be an indifferentist but a novus ordite can.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Stubborn

Ambrose just showing how he defends the heretical belief that No Sacrament At All is necessary for salvation - it's like he needs his fix or something.

Please note that Ambrose, like Fr. Kramer and all other NSAAers, cannot bring themselves to defend any sacrament - and it is particularly impossible for them to defend the necessity of the sacrament of baptism unto salvation as they no not believe they are necessary for anything at all.

Trent's catechism teaches the reason for this is because Ambrose and all NSAAers despise the sacraments.

No, just defending the Catholoc Faith, whole and entire.  You think that you can deny an article of Faith and be saved, but you at wrong.  I hope for your sake that God will forgive your ignorance of Catholic Teaching.

You say you're "defending the Catholic Faith, whole and entire" - you do this by promoting salvation without the sacrament, but the necessity of the sacraments for salvation is a main part of "the whole and entire" Catholic faith.

You say the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation - per Trent, you are anathema.

Defend yourself against that accusation.

Quote from: Ambrose

To deny Baptism of Desire is to deny a de fide teaching of the Church, and is heresy.

 


Though you've posted this error many, many times, this is by far the most ridiculous thing you have ever posted. Let me explain - again......

A "baptism of desire" is No Sacrament At All. You say that salvation via No Sacrament At All is a de fide teaching of the Church. What you say is ridiculous.

Why is it that you cannot get yourself to defend the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism for the hope of salvation?

Why, after almost 6 months of asking you to start a thread championing the defense of the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, do you keep starting threads against the sacrament, and about salvation without any sacrament at all?

Please admit that you do not believe the sacraments are necessary for our hope of salvation. Please admit that to you, the sacraments are completely optional, that nobody really needs them.

If you do this, I will at least admit you to be an honest NSAAer.

The Sacraments are necessary in fact or on desire as the Council of Trent teaches.  You accept the first, but are rejecting the second.  

You are not allowed to pick which teachings you will believe, and reject those that you struggle with.   Some struggle with the teaching on transubstantiation, others contraception, others the Papacy, but for you, your point of conflict with Catholic Teaching is on Baptism of Desire.  

If you are having trouble, just let go and trust the Church which can neither deceive nor be deceived.  To reject even one point of Church Teaching, is to in effect reject Catholicism.  

You only prove you are dishonest NSAAer.

The sacraments are necessary - period. You add the exception; "or in desire" - which is saying that Trent teaches they are not necessary - that is heresy because not only does the Church teach they are a necessity, anyone with a grade school education knows they the cannot be both a necessity and optional.

There is no Church teaching on "A Baptism Of Desire", there is only theological speculation which was condemned as anathema by Trent.

Instead of calling it "A Baptism Of Desire", start calling it what it is -  "No Sacrament At All". I understand this will be all but impossible for you to do, but if you can accept this simple yet powerful truth, you will be forced to recognize the heresy for what it is.

You should meditate on why is it that you constantly start threads and champion the heresy of salvation via No Sacrament At All, why you are incapable of defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation and why you cannot honestly reply with honest answers to these simple questions.

Rather, when asked why you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments, you reply that you are defending Church teaching - which is not only not an answer to the question, you speak as though the Church teaches salvation without any sacrament at all - but you have yet to answer the direct question with an honest and direct answer - and as long as you embrace the heresy of salvation via No Sacrament At All, you never will.

So when will you be honest already, when will you admit that far as you're concerned, No Sacrament At All is necessary unto salvation?

I'm only asking for honesty here.

You are wrong.  Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire as the Council of Trent has taught.  If you reject Baptism of Desire you profess heresy against the Catholic Faith.

You must believe Baptism of Desire.  If you knowingly reject this teaching, you are guilty of heresy, and have severed yourself from the Church.

I would urge you to stop what you are doing, pray about it, and learn from approved sources.  Throw the Dimond and Feeneyite heretical garbage into the fire and look to save your soul.

Catholics are strictly warned to not allow themselves to adopt heretical propositions against the Faith.  

the doctrine has been accepted as a licit catholic opinion (exempting the heretical novel interpretations that some give it).

If the theological opinion of BOD for catechumens ONLY (notice, never doctrine) was commonly accepted and even taught in fallible catechisms in modern times, was because nobody really saw how the modernists were going to twist a permissible opinion (again for catechumens only, not just for "anybody" not prone to mass murder) into the odious heresy of salvation for non-Catholics and therefore, indifferentism.

Perhaps on this Fr. Feeney was first and we should have listened.

If they care at all for the theological opinion of BOD, is so they can justify the denial of EESN via invincible ignorance. Last minute BOD is the loophole they use. But the salutary dogma of EESN is clear and has been so for almost 2000 years. "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" is to be taken as written and there is only one way for the remission of original sin and entrance into the Church: water baptism.

The words of a dogmatic formula are not to be taken as figurative language, but are to be taken literally with the same sense and meaning for all time. In both Lamentabili and Pascendi Pope St. Pius X explicitly condemned the proposition that dogmas are to be understood as figurative-symbolic, having a merely practical function, and not as immutable laws from Heaven that never change.


Now that we know for sure where the modernists found the "loophole" they needed for undermining the exclusivity of Holy Mother Church as only means of human salvation, a most careful re-examination of the theological opinion of BOD is much needed.

You are wrong.  Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire as the Council of Trent has taught.  If you reject Baptism of Desire you profess heresy against the Catholic Faith.

Hmmm, let's see:

1) Trent taught whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema.

You say salvation is rewarded without any sacrament at all, therefore you are, per Trent, anathema.


2)Trent taught that whoever says the sacrament of baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; is anathema.

Here again, you say "Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire", you are saying the sacrament is optional, therefore once again, per Trent, you are anathema.

Certainly we can agree that the above 2 bullet points are indisputable evidence that per Trent, you are anathema.


When asked why you refuse to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, you answer that "you are defending Church teaching" - even adding "whole and entire". So according to you, the Church, wholly and entirely refuses to defend the necessity of the sacraments for our hope of salvation.

My guess is that the day you stop dancing around and explicitly admit that the sacraments are not needed for salvation, that one can make it to heaven without any of them and therefore without the Church, will be the day you wake up.

We know that you and all NSAAers do not believe that the road to hell is the one that's paved with good intentions, not the road to heaven, but if you could believe it, that would be big step in the right direction for you.

But, there can be no doubt that that the denial of Baptism of Desire, at least since the Council of Trent is heretical.

Yes, there can be doubt.  There's actually no reasonable way to reconcile Trent with your interpretation of it.  I've pointed this out multiple times now, but you constantly ignore my arguments.  NOT ONE PERSON has offered a refutation of my arguments regarding the correct interpretation of Trent.  I'm going to go ahead and write up a lengthy, thorough study of the treatise on justification just to refute this nonsense and also so that I can just link to it in the future and not have to keep retyping everything.

The teaching of Baptism of Desire was taught explicitly by the Council, and this is why St. Alphonsus gives it the note of de fide.

St. Alphonsus thought it was taught by Trent.  He can assign de fide to it all he wants, but that doesn't make it de fide.  Theologians commonly disagree about the theological note to be assigned to certain teachings.  We saw that, for instance, in the dispute about the infallibility of canonizations, where opinions on the theological note were all over the map.

Moreover, Ambrose, we have pointed out that your interpretation of BoD and its extension to Catholics is in fact tantamount to a direct heretical denial of EENS and renders you schismatic because then you have no theological basis whatsoever to reject the teachings of Vatican II.

If you believe that Trent taught BoD, then Trent says that no one can be justified except by either the Sacrament or the Desire for it.  It Trent taught that, then BoB doesn't exist except in being reduced to BoD.  But that rejects 99% of all the theological speculation regarding BoB (rendering their entire theology on the subject suspect) because all these BoB theorists describe BoB as working quasi ex opere operato.  Also it refutes the stupid argument from the Holy Innocents, because then BoB cannot work ex opere operato on those who are not endowed with the use of reason.  Finally, it completely overturns the many Church Fathers who believed in BoB but at the same time explicitly rejected BoD.  It also rejects the stupid "three baptisms" garbage, because then there are really only TWO Baptisms.  Everywhere you turn, you BoD theorists make yourselves look more and more ridiculous and absurd and self-contradictory.

If you believe that Trent taught BoD, making the Sacrament or desire being either/or, then you would have Trent anathematizing itself in the canons where it declares that the Sacrament cannot justify without the cooperation of the will (="votum").  In fact, the ENTIRE POINT OF THE TREATISE ON JUSTIFICATION is to discuss the relationship between grace and free will, in particular the Sacramental grace and the proper cooperation and disposition of the will ... and NOT to teach BoD ... against the errors of the Protestants.  In fact, the point of the treatise on justification is to defend the NECESSITY of the Sacraments for salvation ... against the Protestant errors (which most of you BoD theorists actually hold and therefore fall under Trent's anathemas).  Despite Mr. Kramer's bloviations about anathemas, it's he who falls under Trent's anathema.  Ironic, isn't it?

If you believe that Trent taught BoD, you'd be making Trent say, "You can be saved by either the Sacrament OR the desire because Jesus taught that you need the Sacrament AND the desire."  You would make a mockery of the Magisterium.

Everwhere you turn BoB and BoD theology are nothing but absurd speculation that's self-contradictory.  Dimonds point out very well how St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were completely wrong about their explanation of BoD ... declaring that it does not remit all the temporal punishment due to sin (which contradicts Church Magisterium regarding justification).

It's all MADE UP.  What says that BoB cannot confer the Baptismal character?  Why not?  God is not bound by His Sacraments after all?  Why CAN'T He imprint the Baptismal Character in an extraordinary way in BoB?

BoD is a sad joke that has led to nothing good whatsoever ... everywhere you turn it has heretical implications (God is bound by impossibility ... though not by the Sacraments, the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation, gnostic Pelagianism, stupid self-contradictory arguments, religious indifferentism, Vatican II).