Author Topic: Feeneyites and Sedes Give Trads a Bad Name (Read 15884 times)

Jehanne · « **Reply #50 on:** October 01, 2009, 03:20:17 PM »

Quote from: clare

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Jehanne
I was present at my fourth child's birth, as was my wife! Appropriate or not, I did it, and as it was done correctly, it cannot be done again.

What you did was wrong. If there was no danger of death, YOU WERE WRONG. Go look it up.

SJB's correct. Laypeople may only baptise when there's danger of death.

True, it'll be valid, but a priest will need to be informed. Ceremonies should be supplied (like the exorcism), and what about the baptism certificate?

We have no traditional priest available to us, and I do not want my children ("kids") raised in the NO. I have posted on this elsewhere.

SJB · « **Reply #51 on:** October 01, 2009, 03:27:11 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB
I wasn't finished. And that's not heretical...it's true. Supernatural Faith is required at all times and by all people. That's what you underlined, isn't it?

You are really arrogant ... and that usually comes from ignorance.

Ignorance does not save.

That is correct. Supernatural Faith is required. The remedy for ignorance is knowledge...in all areas...including the basic catechism on the sacraments.

Quote

What is faith? This is how the Fathers defined it:

"That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)

So that means if a mute or infant is baptised...and he can't say with his mouth..."'Jesus is Lord"...then he's damned, right?

Is that what you're saying?

SJB · « **Reply #52 on:** October 01, 2009, 03:29:05 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: SJB
Quote
my fourth child was baptized by me within an hour or so after birth. I was very, very careful to use the correct matter and form.

In danger of death, this is appropriate. Otherwise, it is definitely not. I don't know the situation, but did you then take the child to a priest?

I was present at my fourth child's birth, as was my wife! Appropriate or not, I did it, and as it was done correctly, it cannot be done again.

What you did was wrong. If there was no danger of death, YOU WERE WRONG. Go look it up.

Like I said before, YOU and I do not have the same rule of Faith.

That has nothing to do with this thread. Besides, no priest was available.

You were wrong, Don...and you just don't care.

CMMM · « **Reply #53 on:** October 01, 2009, 03:35:22 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

There is a difference. A vow is an intent to do something. A desire can be a mere wish to do something. Consider the following:

1) I vow to go to Disney World.

2) I desire that I could go to Disney World.

You're judging internals. I know many people who make promises on a whim, and fail to follow through. I know many people who desired to succeed at something, and through hard work, managed to follow through successfully.

By your reasoning, any who has 'vowed', no matter how flippantly, will be saved. But those who have desired fervently, but did not survive some disaster, are lost.

Jehanne · « **Reply #54 on:** October 01, 2009, 03:38:14 PM »

Supernatural Faith in Jesus Christ is required. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, etc. do not have this, and they cannot be saved without it. Is not it written,

"Everyone who believes in the Son will not be judged. But everyone who does not believe in him is judged already, because he does not believe in the name of God's only Son." (John 3:18)

Quote from: SJB

So that means if a mute or infant is baptised...and he can't say with his mouth..."'Jesus is Lord"...then he's damned, right?

Is that what you're saying?

An infant can only be saved from Baptism; a mute may not be to say with his mouth, be he/she could still write, sign, or at least, nod, so yes, mutes can be saved, if they believe.