CathInfo.com

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.

Quote from: Cantarella

We need not Fr. Kramer to interpret for us after 2000 years, the infallible Church teaching on EENS. 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, Ambrose and out of genuine curiosity, what is behind all the anti-feeneyite agenda of the CMRI?

You should ask them, I am not a member of the CMRI.  

My guess though, is that as Catholics we have a duty to defend the Faith from heresy.  The denial of Baptism of Desire is a dangerous modern heresy and Catholics must stand against it.

Its not a heresy, its more of a schism. Most that hold EENS still hold as catholic those who believe what St. Thomas and St. Ligouri held as BOD/BOB, so its not inherently schismatic. The problem is that they really do think that the matter has been settled on their score, and what do we base this on? Their own doctrine, because its not something that was based on magisterial teaching. For the past 300 years, we know for sure the doctrine has been accepted as a licit catholic opinion (exempting the heretical novel interpretations that some give it).

Similarly to SV'ism, the EENS issue is not in itself schismatic, but I believe that those who are objectively schismatics on both of these theological conclusions are/were schismatics before going into this belief. So it is just smokes and mirrors, for the real thing going on behind the background. Just look at the Saint Benedict Center, they are quite in communion with sedeplenist/sedevacantist (they might reject SV'ism but they don't consider it schismatic ipso facto). Once again, its not EENS or SV'ism that is the danger, but the fact of the matter is a tendency towards a sin against Charity, principally against the Unity of the Church itself. They care more about their own interpretations then anything else, which is why it doesn't matter what you quote or say, it will always be the same thing. Copy paste, a bunch of Denzinger quotes which they think agrees with them, but really does not and then anathema sit to whoever disagrees.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Cantarella

We need not Fr. Kramer to interpret for us after 2000 years, the infallible Church teaching on EENS. 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, Ambrose and out of genuine curiosity, what is behind all the anti-feeneyite agenda of the CMRI?

You should ask them, I am not a member of the CMRI.  

My guess though, is that as Catholics we have a duty to defend the Faith from heresy.  The denial of Baptism of Desire is a dangerous modern heresy and Catholics must stand against it.

Its not a heresy, its more of a schism. Most that hold EENS still hold as catholic those who believe what St. Thomas and St. Ligouri held as BOD/BOB, so its not inherently schismatic. The problem is that they really do think that the matter has been settled on their score, and what do we base this on? Their own doctrine, because its not something that was based on magisterial teaching. For the past 300 years, we know for sure the doctrine has been accepted as a licit catholic opinion (exempting the heretical novel interpretations that some give it).

Similarly to SV'ism, the EENS issue is not in itself schismatic, but I believe that those who are objectively schismatics on both of these theological conclusions are/were schismatics before going into this belief. So it is just smokes and mirrors, for the real thing going on behind the background. Just look at the Saint Benedict Center, they are quite in communion with sedeplenist/sedevacantist (they might reject SV'ism but they don't consider it schismatic ipso facto). Once again, its not EENS or SV'ism that is the danger, but the fact of the matter is a tendency towards a sin against Charity, principally against the Unity of the Church itself. They care more about their own interpretations then anything else, which is why it doesn't matter what you quote or say, it will always be the same thing. Copy paste, a bunch of Denzinger quotes which they think agrees with them, but really does not and then anathema sit to whoever disagrees.

I partially agree with you, that in some cases those who have adopted this heresy are schismatics, but in other cases they are not.  I also think many are gravely ignorant on this question, and have allowed themselves to be duped by shoddy SBC and Dimond books.  For those innocents who are truly ignorant, they would not be guilty of either heresy or schism.

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

Some who hold this position hold a mitigated view, and do not deny Baptism of Desire in and of itself, but deny implicit Baptism of Desire.  This was the original error of the Saint Benedict Center corrected by the Holy Office in 1949.  Those who have adopted this view, are not heretics, but are objectively temerarious.  The Holy Office did not condemn them for heresy, rather of doctrinal error.  It would still be a mortal sin for those who knowingly reject implicit Baptism of Desire, but they would not be heretics, which would lead them to lose their membership in the Church.

At some point, the Saint Benedict Center's position evolved into a complete denial of Baptism of Desire, which is heretical.  The neo-Feeneyites such as the Dimonds, Ibranyi and others are also promoters of the heretical denial of Baptism of Desire.