Author Topic: Feenyite priests (Read 11574 times)

Binechi · « **Reply #105 on:** August 14, 2013, 06:57:51 PM »

The question of the subject of something called Baptism of Desire is really a very simple one.

Note...... Theologians , Doctors , Saints upon themselves, have no authority to make Doctrine.. Being fallable humans, can ,and have made errors in their writings in the past. They can teach, preach or write on defined dogmatic Dogmas ,or Doctrine, and can be held accountable for their errors. ,

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950:

“This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”

That being the case, if the “Fat” was eliminated out of the equation , (Saints, Doctors, theologians), what we have left is what the Church teaches.

The question then becomes……. “Teaches on .. What “?
The subject is “Baptism”.

We now go to all the Dogmatic Divinely revealed Church teachings on “Baptism”. No Better place to look ,,Then in The infallible Council of Trent, or Vatican I

Walla , what do we find.. No mention of the words , “Baptism of Desire”, noda , none, nothing, to be found anywhere.

Surely the Holy Ghost and the great minds of the Popes would not have missed such an important item as that ,two times no less, especially when it deals with the saving of Souls ?

So you see dear folks, when you take out the “He said this”, “she said that”, “This Saint said this”, that Doctor said that”, we bring it down to the lowest common denominator.

Its not what we think the Church says , It is what the Church teaches, and has Defined, Thru its valid vicars that we must believe, and adhere to for our salvation.

(There were over 500 names of Saints Doctors, and writers who the Church considers ,”Fathers of the Church”.
Those who wrote or spoke on something called Baptism of Desire were (2), on Baptism of Blood (approx. 8). A far cry from the “Unanimous”, or (500), required. (read below about unanimous)

.
On the Faith from the Vatican Council I

There is one thing that must be injected at this point, and that is, Per Vatican Council I….” On Faith”

1. Likewise I accept sacred scripture

o according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds,
 since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures;

o nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.

I embrace and accept the whole and every part of what was defined and declared by the holy council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.

There you have it a simple and complete rundown. Of why BD is not a teaching of the Church.

For those who obstantly believe this Theory, IMO are denying a Dogma. EENS.

If your not in the Church, (Baptism is the only way into the Church, ) Your Outside the Church. "Outside the Church there is No Salvation". Plain and Simple.......

God Bless You

MyrnaM · « **Reply #106 on:** August 15, 2013, 01:34:52 PM »

It does make you wonder why Jesus took the good thief into heaven despite the fact that he was not baptized with water... oh yeah, the Church was not yet officially founded. However Christ did tell Nicodemus PRIOR TO His crucifixion, that "unless a man be born again of water and the HOLY GHOST, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Yet He saved the good thief, that is strange.

Hmmm, also the Bible does say the Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, since the Church is actually Christ, and Christ the Church makes one wonder why the omitters teach their strange interpretation. Must be too plain and simple for them.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #107 on:** August 15, 2013, 01:42:20 PM »

Awe, Stubborn and Director doesn't like Bible stories, I wonder where the 3rd musketeer is? :scratchchin:

Stubborn · « **Reply #108 on:** August 15, 2013, 01:49:49 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Awe, Stubborn and Director doesn't like Bible stories, I wonder where the 3rd musketeer is? :scratchchin:

I love bible stories when they are told correctly.

You really should look up and find out exactly when the Church determined that Christ made the sacrament mandatory before you hash out the same old falsity about the good St. Dismas.

Otherwise, next thing you know, you'll use the Holy Innocents to promote BOB.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #109 on:** August 15, 2013, 02:43:45 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: MyrnaM
Awe, Stubborn and Director doesn't like Bible stories, I wonder where the 3rd musketeer is? :scratchchin:

I love bible stories when they are told correctly.

You really should look up and find out exactly when the Church determined that Christ made the sacrament mandatory before you hash out the same old falsity about the good St. Dismas.

Otherwise, next thing you know, you'll use the Holy Innocents to promote BOB.

However Christ did tell Nicodemus PRIOR TO His crucifixion, that "unless a man be born again of water and the HOLY GHOST, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Sounds mandatory to me! Plain and Simple.

Stubborn · « **Reply #110 on:** August 15, 2013, 05:11:00 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
Awe, Stubborn and Director doesn't like Bible stories, I wonder where the 3rd musketeer is? :scratchchin:

I love bible stories when they are told correctly.

You really should look up and find out exactly when the Church determined that Christ made the sacrament mandatory before you hash out the same old falsity about the good St. Dismas.

Otherwise, next thing you know, you'll use the Holy Innocents to promote BOB.

However Christ did tell Nicodemus PRIOR TO His crucifixion, that "unless a man be born again of water and the HOLY GHOST, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Sounds mandatory to me! Plain and Simple.

But He may as well have said nothing according to the theory of BOD - since BODers do not believe it is to be understood "as it is written".

Additionally, it is the Church that interprets Scripture, not us - and the Church teaches that Christ made the necessity of the sacrament mandatory sometime between His Resurrection and His Ascension, possibly at Pentecost (makes the most sense imo) or quite possibly when He commissioned the Apostles in Mat 28:19 "Going, therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #111 on:** August 15, 2013, 06:56:57 PM »

In regard to St. Dismas, Christ did tell Nicodemus PRIOR TO His crucifixion, that "unless a man be born again of water and the HOLY GHOST, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." After Christ said that, He promised St. Dismas a place in Heaven.

This proves that God can give grace to whoever He pleases.

Now you say Church law supercedes the words of God, because they don't fit your agenda. Naughty, naughty.

BTW, haven't you guys been interpreting scripture all along here on these various threads. You even quoted the above verse speaking of how important water is, and of course we agree. You deny there are three baptisms, one of water, desire and blood. Water being the most important, but not always present when needed in those rare circuмstances. That is when we depend on God.

Stubborn · « **Reply #112 on:** August 16, 2013, 04:54:54 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

In regard to St. Dismas, Christ did tell Nicodemus PRIOR TO His crucifixion, that "unless a man be born again of water and the HOLY GHOST, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." After Christ said that, He promised St. Dismas a place in Heaven.

This proves that God can give grace to whoever He pleases.

This proves that God told Nicodemus before His crucifixion about the necessity of the Sacrament. You should be very careful of how you interpret Scripture (2Peter 1:20 and 3:16) - I always recommend http://haydock1859.tripod.com/

You put Holy Ghost in caps - certainly you do not value the sacrament so little so as to purposely not put the prior word, "and" in caps?

Remember, the Church was not born until Pentecost so this is not a useable example. The death of St. Dismas, the Good Thief, occurred on Good Friday. Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Dispensation and became necessary and efficacious on the same day it became available, namely, on Pentecost Sunday, when the Church was formally established. This is what the Church teaches. You can look it up.

Quote from: MyrnaM

Now you say Church law supercedes the words of God, because they don't fit your agenda. Naughty, naughty.

Read what is written - I did not say any such thing.

Quote from: MyrnaM

BTW, haven't you guys been interpreting scripture all along here on these various threads. You even quoted the above verse speaking of how important water is, and of course we agree. You deny there are three baptisms, one of water, desire and blood. Water being the most important, but not always present when needed in those rare circuмstances. That is when we depend on God.

No, if you read what is written in the commentary from the Haydock for John 3:5, you will find it condemns any baptism without water. Additionally, Trent commands us to interpret John 3:5 absolutely literally when it states, "....as it is written," 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, etc'" - which agrees perfectly with the rest of the canon, but only when "or the desire thereof" is properly understood to mean that both conditions apply - otherwise Trent may as well left off John 3:5 or said, "but not as it is written..."

MyrnaM · « **Reply #113 on:** August 16, 2013, 09:48:07 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

In regard to St. Dismas, Christ did tell Nicodemus PRIOR TO His crucifixion, that "unless a man be born again of water and the HOLY GHOST, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." After Christ said that, He promised St. Dismas a place in Heaven.

This proves that God can give grace to whoever He pleases.

My point is proven that God is not limited with His mercy and He can favor whoever He wishes.

***

During the night, while I slept, I had a dream or a sort, that said, "time to dust off your shoes" from people who will not heed Church teaching.

I am not giving up, but when I am tempted to call out unnecessary
ad hominem attacks or read them from others it is disturbing to my peace of soul. You know the teachings of the Church, several have pointed them out to you yet to cling to your recent founded errors of them. Constantly quoting out of context, and twisting definitions or pretending they don't mean what they say.

The last word here is yours.

bowler · « **Reply #114 on:** August 16, 2013, 12:57:49 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

My point is proven

Eventually, no man will waste his time discussing anything with you if you continue to write down your feelings. This is pure Protestantism, every person being his own dogmatic religion of one.

SJB · « **Reply #115 on:** August 16, 2013, 01:04:16 PM »

Quote from: Bowler

This is pure Protestantism, every person being his own dogmatic religion of one.

That's exactly what you are doing. You read dogmatic decrees in English (a protestant reads the Bible) and then decides for himself what it means.

SJB · « **Reply #116 on:** August 16, 2013, 03:44:18 PM »

Quote

No, if you read what is written in the commentary from the Haydock for John 3:5, you will find it condemns any baptism without water. Additionally, Trent commands us to interpret John 3:5 absolutely literally when it states, "....as it is written," 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, etc'" - which agrees perfectly with the rest of the canon, but only when "or the desire thereof" is properly understood to mean that both conditions apply - otherwise Trent may as well left off John 3:5 or said, "but not as it is written..."

This is an idiotic line of reasoning.

Quote from: Douay-Rheims, John Ch 3

Christ's discourse with Nicodemus. John's testimony.

[1] And there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. [2] This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. [3] Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. [4] Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother' s womb, and be born again? [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[5] Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19.

[6] That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. [7] Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again. [8] The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. [9] Nicodemus answered, and said to him: How can these things be done? [10] Jesus answered, and said to him: Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?

[11] Amen, amen I say to thee, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony. [12] If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things? [13] And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. [14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: [15] That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting.

[16] For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. [18] He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. [20] For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.

[18] Is not judged: He that believeth, viz., by a faith working through charity, is not judged, that is, is not condemned; but the obstinate unbeliever is judged, that is, condemned already, by retrenching himself from the society of Christ and his church.

[19] The judgment: That is, the cause of his comdemnation.

Stubborn · « **Reply #117 on:** August 16, 2013, 04:34:50 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
No, if you read what is written in the commentary from the Haydock for John 3:5, you will find it condemns any baptism without water. Additionally, Trent commands us to interpret John 3:5 absolutely literally when it states, "....as it is written," 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, etc'" - which agrees perfectly with the rest of the canon, but only when "or the desire thereof" is properly understood to mean that both conditions apply - otherwise Trent may as well left off John 3:5 or said, "but not as it is written..."

This is an idiotic line of reasoning.

Always try hard to remember the words: "As it is written..........John 3:5" and you will never be able to honestly integrate a BOD into the Church's teaching no matter who may have taught it.

bowler · « **Reply #118 on:** August 16, 2013, 06:32:18 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Bowler
This is pure Protestantism, every person being his own dogmatic religion of one.

That's exactly what you are doing. You read dogmatic decrees in English (a protestant reads the Bible) and then decides for himself what it means.

Actually it's dogmatic decrees with an S, and there are so many of them and all are clear, that anyone that reads words as they are written, can understand them.

No one needs to interpret dogma through a theologian, or else the dogma is useless. You on the other hand do not like what they clearly say, so, you go about looking for whatever quote you can find.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra:

The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church , not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

SJB · « **Reply #119 on:** August 16, 2013, 08:06:45 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB
Quote
No, if you read what is written in the commentary from the Haydock for John 3:5, you will find it condemns any baptism without water. Additionally, Trent commands us to interpret John 3:5 absolutely literally when it states, "....as it is written," 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, etc'" - which agrees perfectly with the rest of the canon, but only when "or the desire thereof" is properly understood to mean that both conditions apply - otherwise Trent may as well left off John 3:5 or said, "but not as it is written..."

This is an idiotic line of reasoning.

Always try hard to remember the words: "As it is written..........John 3:5" and you will never be able to honestly integrate a BOD into the Church's teaching no matter who may have taught it.

"As it is written" is the way the supporting scriptural passage is referenced.