Author Topic: Father Kramer to the Feeneyites (Read 25561 times)

Cantarella · « **Reply #45 on:** May 28, 2014, 11:09:07 AM »

St. Thomas is not the binding teaching authority of Christ and His Church. He held an erroneous opinion on BOD (just as he had an erroneous view on the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady). His mistaken belief on this matter not considered heresy though since he died in 1274 BEFORE the Church has defined the necessity of Baptism of water for salvation in the Councils of Florence and Trent.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII

"The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even one single of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but by divine mandate, the interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures and depositary of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church ALONE is the entrance to salvation; she ALONE, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the source of Truth".

Cantarella · « **Reply #46 on:** May 28, 2014, 01:34:36 PM »

There is no doubt that the Church has tolerated the teachings of BOD and BOB. That is not the argument. Just as there is not infallible teaching on BOD / BOB, there is not a solemn condemnation of them either. BOD/BOB (for cathechumens and martyrs ONLY) have been accepted theories that belong to the realm of theological speculation. Never before they posed a real thread to Church dogma until Modernism and perhaps the Church saw no need to comdemn them.

There is only one reason that BOD/BOB has become an issue nowadays: It is the loophole that liberal modernists use in order to justify the heresy of invincible ignorance and the salvation for non-Catholics. It is because of the modern abuse of BOD (which was only permitted for catechumens ONLY) into a full blown denial of the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus salutary dogma, that a careful re-examination of the matter is very much necessary.

Even St. Thomas himself states that Faith in truths revealed by God is absolutely necessary for salvation. This faith must be explicit. Implicit desire does not suffice.

Quote from: St. Thomas

"After the Incarnation, all men, if they wish to be saved, are “bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles that refer to the Incarnation.” 4 And, after the Incarnation, all men, in order to be saved, “are bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”

Stubborn · « **Reply #47 on:** May 28, 2014, 04:52:34 PM »

Quote from: GJC

Quote from: Stubborn
Because I do not see how it fits into the debate.

Stubborn,

It is probably because St. Thomas clearly teaches Baptism of Blood and Repentance.

I believe the biggest misunderstanding is the other effect of the sacraments, which is the character (See Summa question 63) in addition to the sacrament itself (question 66) and the definition (question 60).

Now at this junction one must ask a question, did the Council of Trent agree with St. Thomas? Or do I go down the road with Dimonds and manifest that St Thomas was wrong?

Dimondism is an error, recognizable through their straw man arguments, as their latest video claims. They accuse the Saints of a position they do not hold, and act as though they have refuted it. Imo, most people, if not all, adhere to some teaching of the Dimonds and end up hoodwinked.

I see what you are saying and why Jehanne posted the quote from the council. For me, I was thinking more along the lines of St. Augustine's and St. Ambrose's teachings.

Some points to note in addition to Cantarella's replies.......

First, even per LoT's signature, the great St. Thomas himself said:
"If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." I think that if those who continually quote St. Thomas' teaching on a BOD emulated what he said above, they would cease referencing him and a BOD as though a BOD is dogma.

Next, I think an error that St. Thomas made is that he did not add some type of disclaimer or warn / condemn against the future possibilities of his teaching being used as it is these days - to have otherwise faithful Catholics preaching salvation is assured to anyone presumed to have some vague desire for baptism at their death.

The Dimonds are frauds. Personally, I think I may have read a total of about one page of what they have written - though I have read many snips of theirs on forums such as this one, I know enough about them to know they are a dangerous pair, even for those times when they speak the truth it is best to seek the truth elsewhere.

Finally, the Council of Trent disagreed with St. Thomas in it's canons - as Trent and Trent's catechism explains those famous few words that NSAAers cling to, "or without the desire thereof" to mean one must not only be baptized, one must also desire to be baptized and are not to be baptized against their will. Trent leaves no room for the exception of being saved via desire alone, but NSAAers will not accept this fact of the faith - often times they reference St. Thomas' teachings in support of their own error.

When understood the way NSAAers understand it, in direct contradiction to Trent, they maintain that reception of the sacrament is optional, it is an "either or" proposition, one must either receive it or they must desire it, those who die only desiring it have died due to circuмstances that either made it impossible for God to provide the sacrament or for whatever reason, God simply just did not provide the sacrament.

Ambrose · « **Reply #48 on:** May 28, 2014, 08:20:44 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Ambrose wrote:
Quote
1. The Sacraments or the Desire for them, as taught by Trent. Your attempt to write words out of Trent, will not make them disappear. Baptism of Desire was explicitly and clearly taught by the Council of Trent. Your saying otherwise, does not make it true.

Stubborn wrote:
Quote
Say what?

Is the sacrament of baptism an option or isn't it?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.

The sacrament is not an option. Every person on earth has the obligation to get Baptized. Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the necessity of Baptism as the as the person in question is not choosing Baptism of Desire, he is choosing Baptism, but has died prior to Baptism.

Ambrose wrote:
Quote
2. Baptism is not optional, all are obligation to get Baptized. Baptism of Desire is not making it an option.

Stubborn wrote:
Quote
Did Trent teach the sacrament is a necessity or did Trent teach the sacrament is optional?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.

The sacrament is necessary in fact or desire as taught by the Council of Trent. There is no option.

Unreal. You are really a piece of work.

Trent: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Ambrose: The sacrament is necessary in fact or desire as taught by the Council of Trent. There is no option.

Trent according to Ambrose: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is necessary, that is, not optional unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Trent CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Trent according to Ambrose: CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are necessary unto salvation, not superfluous; and that, with or without them, men cannot obtain of God, through faith alone, salvation; let him be anathema.

Ambrose aptly (and repeatedly) demonstrates how error becomes dogma and dogma error.

Can you read? You cited Canon IV which says:

Quote
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Yes, I can read and comprehend, my post stands.

Do you see any words outside of "or without the desire thereof"?

Your misreading of the canon makes the sacrament an "either or" option. You are doing it purposely to reduce the canon to a meaningless formula.

Did you read the other canon that states the sacrament is not optional and that the sacrament is necessary unto salvation? Outside of repeating your mantra: "the sacrament is necessary in fact or desire", how is it that you are able to convince yourself to ignore that entire canon?

Did you read the first part of canon IV that states the sacraments are necessary? How is it you are able to convince yourself to ignore the first part?

Do you comprehend that a BOD is not a sacrament at all, and that by repeating your mantra: "the sacrament is necessary in fact or desire", that you are explicitly insisting that the sacrament is optional and in doing so renders canon V completely null?

If you keep repeating your mantra while leaving off the last two words, you will cure yourself, those last two words are your killer.

Your agenda has blinded you to read what you want to see. The Canon is clear, and it teaches Baptism of Desire.

Cantarella · « **Reply #49 on:** May 28, 2014, 11:28:03 PM »

Quote from: GJC

I understand. So let me ask you a couple of questions.

If you have read a couple of my posts then you know that I support Baptism of Blood and Repentance (for catechumens only) and hold Suprea Haec Sacra as false and contradicting to EENS.

Does that make me a NSAAer?

If an adult has been Baptized by Repentance (this presupposes that this adult has received the supernatural virtues of faith, hope , and charity) does this adult receive remission of sins and sanctification (rebirth) prior to receiving the sacrament?

If yes why, if no why

Thanks

If anyone would like to give an answer that would be fine. If my understanding is wrong by all means help me out.

One does not cease to be a Catholic for believing BOD possible for catechumens ONLY. One is not a heretic for believing in BOD for catechumens ONLY. One becomes a heretic though when one believes in the heresy of invincible ignorance, indifferentism, and universal salvation.

The problem is that there is no Sanctifying Grace outside the Church. It is Baptism only what puts Sanctifying Grace into our souls for the first time. We all are born without it. Sanctifying Grace is a gift and no one has a right to it. That is why infants who die without being baptized cannot go to Heaven because they die without Sanctifying Grace. Baptism is the seal of justification.

Why there is so much modern controversy on the topic of BOD? it is only to justify the modern error of invincible ignorance and indifferentism, undermining the exclusivity of the Holy Roman Catholic Church as the only possible salvific religion.

St. Thomas himself explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own are still damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without the Faith. They are not saved and God does not prevent this by sending them a missionary. This is the place of invincible ignorance, simply an adequate means towards the selection of the Elect and the completion of the universe.

Quote from: St. Thomas:

“Unbelief has a double sense. First, it can be taken purely negatively; thus a man is called an unbeliever solely because he does not possess faith. Secondly, by way of opposition to faith; thus when a man refuses to hear of the faith or even contemns it, according to Isaiah, “Who has believed our report?” This is where the full nature of unbelief, properly speaking is found, and where the sin lies.

“If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith; they are not condemned for the sin of unbelief.”

In view of the extent of the penetration of the modernist heresy within the structure of Holy Mother Church, the times call for a solemn re-statement, in the manner of the glorious popes, Innocent III, Boniface VIII, and Eugene IV of the divinely revealed and fundamental truth, contained in the phrase consecrated by tradition " There Is No Salvation Outside The Church".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #50 on:** May 29, 2014, 06:07:07 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Your agenda has blinded you to read what you want to see. The Canon is clear, and it teaches Baptism of Desire.

You just keep saying that and yet you absolutely refuse to touch the weighty arguments I have made to the contrary. If it's "clear" in teaching BoD, then you should have ZERO problem refuting my arguments about it. In fact it's very clearly NOT teaching BoD.

Stubborn · « **Reply #51 on:** May 29, 2014, 06:55:22 AM »

Quote from: GJC

I understand. So let me ask you a couple of questions.

If you have read a couple of my posts then you know that I support Baptism of Blood and Repentance (for catechumens only) and hold Suprea Haec Sacra as false and contradicting to EENS.

How do you reconcile a BOB with Pope Eugene IV's bull, Cantate Domino:

".....not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Quote from: GJC

Does that make me a NSAAer?

A "Baptism of Desire" is not a sacrament, no one disputes this. Calling a BOD No Sacrament At All (NSAA) is naming it exactly what it is - nothing. Hence, infidels who are assumed to have some implicit desire are rewarded salvation, thanks to nothing, save an assumed implicit desire. If you believe salvation is attainable via NSAA, then you are a NSAAer.

Since the end of last year, I have offered to all those who profess salvation via NSAA to do something that is strictly and only Catholic, I challenged them to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - among all the "heroic Catholics BODers" not even one taker in over 6 months. You'd think the boards would be over flowing with threads defending the necessity of the sacraments - but nope, not even one. Perhaps you are up to the challenge?

What's worse is the fact that these same NSAAers have continued to start thread after thread championing salvation via NSAA - and *that* is what they claim Catholic teaching is.

Quote from: GJC

If an adult has been Baptized by Repentance (this presupposes that this adult has received the supernatural virtues of faith, hope , and charity) does this adult receive remission of sins and sanctification (rebirth) prior to receiving the sacrament?

If yes why, if no why

Trent's catechism, speaking about the sacrament of Penance, explains it like this.........

"By the Fathers of the Council of Trent, contrition is defined: A sorrow and detestation for sin committed, with a purpose of sinning no more. and a little further on the Council, speaking of the motion of the will to contrition, adds: If joined with a confidence in the mercy of God and an earnest desire of per forming whatever is necessary to the proper reception of the Sacrament, it thus prepares us for the remission of sin."

And again..........

"Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins."

Now they are speaking about Catholics - perhaps the penitent has been Catholic their whole life. If such a level of "Repentance" is that difficult for a Catholic to achieve, IMO a catechumen has less of a chance to achieve it.

Supposing the catechumen achieves it and is therefore justified, he, like the justified in the Old Testament, still has the stain of Original Sin which is only washed away through the sacrament of baptism.

There is no one in the state of justification who desires to be baptized who will die before he is sacramentally baptized. Whoever does not believe this has no faith.

Fr. Feeney said it best: "There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you."

Ambrose · « **Reply #52 on:** May 29, 2014, 07:10:21 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
Your agenda has blinded you to read what you want to see. The Canon is clear, and it teaches Baptism of Desire.

You just keep saying that and yet you absolutely refuse to touch the weighty arguments I have made to the contrary. If it's "clear" in teaching BoD, then you should have ZERO problem refuting my arguments about it. In fact it's very clearly NOT teaching BoD.

Your arguments have been refuted over and over and over.

SJB, Myrna, Michael93, Sunbeam, myself and others have all scanned or compiled approved sources, and you will not submit.

You will not hear St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas, all doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians, who have explained Baptism of Desire. Rather, you trust your own judgment over theirs.

You have not produced a single authority from the last millennium that in any way supports your arguments. The only support you claim is your private interpretations of papal teachings and the fathers, in which no approved source agrees with you.

Stubborn · « **Reply #53 on:** May 29, 2014, 07:41:50 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Ambrose
Your agenda has blinded you to read what you want to see. The Canon is clear, and it teaches Baptism of Desire.

You just keep saying that and yet you absolutely refuse to touch the weighty arguments I have made to the contrary. If it's "clear" in teaching BoD, then you should have ZERO problem refuting my arguments about it. In fact it's very clearly NOT teaching BoD.

Your arguments have been refuted over and over and over.

SJB, Myrna, Michael93, Sunbeam, myself and others have all scanned or compiled approved sources, and you will not submit.

You will not hear St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas, all doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians, who have explained Baptism of Desire. Rather, you trust your own judgment over theirs.

You have not produced a single authority from the last millennium that in any way supports your arguments. The only support you claim is your private interpretations of papal teachings and the fathers, in which no approved source agrees with you.

One pope teaching infallibly is the foundation, not a dozen doctors whose teachings were corrected by infallible canons.

I must suggest again - - repeat the words of Trent 5000 times a day every day until you believe it - - "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" - do that and you will come to see how ridiculous all your anti-sacrament statements have been.

Ambrose · « **Reply #54 on:** May 29, 2014, 07:52:34 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Ambrose
Your agenda has blinded you to read what you want to see. The Canon is clear, and it teaches Baptism of Desire.

You just keep saying that and yet you absolutely refuse to touch the weighty arguments I have made to the contrary. If it's "clear" in teaching BoD, then you should have ZERO problem refuting my arguments about it. In fact it's very clearly NOT teaching BoD.

Your arguments have been refuted over and over and over.

SJB, Myrna, Michael93, Sunbeam, myself and others have all scanned or compiled approved sources, and you will not submit.

You will not hear St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas, all doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians, who have explained Baptism of Desire. Rather, you trust your own judgment over theirs.

You have not produced a single authority from the last millennium that in any way supports your arguments. The only support you claim is your private interpretations of papal teachings and the fathers, in which no approved source agrees with you.

One pope teaching infallibly is the foundation, not a dozen doctors whose teachings were corrected by infallible canons.

I must suggest again - - repeat the words of Trent 5000 times a day every day until you believe it - - "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" - do that and you will come to see how ridiculous all your anti-sacrament statements have been.

It is your private and erroneous interpretation of the infallible papal teaching that I have a problem with, not the papal teaching itself.

You can twist Trent and other papal teachings to mean what you want them to mean, but it does not make it true.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #55 on:** May 29, 2014, 08:51:16 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Your arguments have been refuted over and over and over.

You haven't even TOUCHED them; you haven't tried. That's because you can't refute them. You just repeat the same old tired gratuitous assertions from circular authority over and over again ... all of which have heretical premises.

Stubborn · « **Reply #56 on:** May 29, 2014, 08:54:03 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

It is your private and erroneous interpretation of the infallible papal teaching that I have a problem with, not the papal teaching itself.

You can twist Trent and other papal teachings to mean what you want them to mean, but it does not make it true.

What isn't true?
Are you claiming Trent does not teach that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation? Is that what you claim isn't true?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #57 on:** May 29, 2014, 08:56:45 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

You will not hear St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas, all doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians, who have explained Baptism of Desire.

None of these have ever EXPLAINED BoD ... and that's part of the problem. They merely SAY it exists. There's no actual theological evidence for it either 1) from a unanimous teaching of the Fathers (there are more who reject it than who hold to it) or 2) explaining how it derives necessarily from other revealed doctrine.

Consequently, there's ZERO proof that this has been revealed, and if it has not been revealed it's nothing more than an exercise in speculative theology. Period. End of story.

It's been shown how both St. Alphonsus' and St. Thomas' "explanations" of BoD are completely invalid; their claims that it doesn't remit all the punishment due to sin have to be rejected as erroneous. So where does it leave their theorizing about BoD? St. Robert Bellarmine simply said that it "would seem too harsh" to say otherwise but gave no other explanation for why he holds it.

You've got nothing to stand on except for your interpretation of Trent, and my arguments that you're interpretation is wrong are rock solid and you have been unable to touch them.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #58 on:** May 29, 2014, 09:00:52 AM »

Isn't it ironic and incredibly dishonest for you to say that it's acceptable for a Catholic to reject St. Thomas' teaching that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation and yet at the same time attack those who have problems with his speculations regarding BoD? Why don't you attack those who reject St. Thomas' teaching regarding the necessity of explicit belief in the Holy Trinity or Incarnation? Why don't you attack those who reject Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation?

This all proves that your reasons for accepting BoD are purely emotional and not rational.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #59 on:** May 29, 2014, 01:06:00 PM »

Quote from: GJC

Think about Cornelius in Acts.

You just read into the episode of Cornelius what you want to see there. It just shows the activity of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius. If you read Trent on Justification it speaks of the Holy Spirit as disposing the soul to receive Baptism. This was shown to St. Peter to overcome his tendency towards judaizing. It is absolutely no proof of BoD.