Author Topic: Father Kramer to the Feeneyites (Read 29597 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #15 on:** May 22, 2014, 04:16:16 AM »

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** May 22, 2014, 06:03:43 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Can you quote Fr. Kramer as saying that forced baptisms are efficacious to salvation. I have never read any such idea from him.

That's because if you turn the "laver" / "desire" phrase into either/or (as I've pointed out myriad times), you're saying that the Sacrament suffices without the desire. And Trent has two or three canons which explicitly reject the notion that Baptism can be efficacious without the desire (=votum = will =cooperation). This proves that Trent was teaching about the need for cooperation of the will and not the so-called Baptism of Desire.

Despite his bloviations about anathemas, it's ironically Mr. Kramer who falls under the anathema of Trent by denying the need for the desire in order to be justified in Baptism. "Father" Kramer would do well to investigate the validity of his "Holy Orders" and also needs to supplement his Novus Ordo "theological" training.

Ambrose · « **Reply #17 on:** May 22, 2014, 12:34:20 PM »

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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #18 on:** May 22, 2014, 12:42:58 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
Can you quote Fr. Kramer as saying that forced baptisms are efficacious to salvation. I have never read any such idea from him.

That's because if you turn the "laver" / "desire" phrase into either/or (as I've pointed out myriad times), you're saying that the Sacrament suffices without the desire. And Trent has two or three canons which explicitly reject the notion that Baptism can be efficacious without the desire (=votum = will =cooperation). This proves that Trent was teaching about the need for cooperation of the will and not the so-called Baptism of Desire.

Despite his bloviations about anathemas, it's ironically Mr. Kramer who falls under the anathema of Trent by denying the need for the desire in order to be justified in Baptism. "Father" Kramer would do well to investigate the validity of his "Holy Orders" and also needs to supplement his Novus Ordo "theological" training.

It proves it only to you and the Dimonds. No one, ever, since the Council of Trent, has held this perverse view of the Council's teaching.

The Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire. All Doctors and theologians since Trent, have all known this to be a fact and have the Council of Trent as a source of this teaching.

You stand alone with the Dimonds and those of like mind against the Doctors of the Church and the dogmatic theologians, who all have much better reading comprehension than you, and can read the obvious teaching on Trent without distorting it to support this modern heresy of denying Baptism of Desire.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #19 on:** May 22, 2014, 01:44:59 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

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.