Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Good Catholics, I need your help and prayers  (Read 7045 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jim

Good Catholics, I need your help and prayers
« Reply #25 on: November 29, 2011, 03:29:24 PM »
Quote from: Seraphim


   See what I mean?

   Keep this foolishness up, and you will conclude we haven't had a pope since the 1st century (which would make your lone bishop in the woods about 2000 years old....better elect him pope quick).

   


Dear Seraphim,
Please, lets limit this thread to Baptismo fluminis et baptismo sanguinis. Not an argument of sedevacantism.

Offline Jim

Good Catholics, I need your help and prayers
« Reply #26 on: November 29, 2011, 03:39:24 PM »
Quote from: nadieimportante


Practically all the Fathers of the Church, and today The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary teach/taught the same thing as Dimond regarding the absolute necessity of baptism, and EENS as it is written, and they have not been condemned either. The Slaves offer the Latin Mass every week with the approval of the local diocese bishop and Rome.



Yes, the Servants were reconciled with the modern conciliar Vatican authorities. I am talking about this from a pre-Vatican II perspective/hierarchy.

The Dimonds would call the Servants "heretics, apostates" etc. just because they do not agree with them on the sedevacantist issue.

Fr. Feeney and his followers were disciplined by pre-Vatican II authorities, specifically the Holy Office. The only way I've seen this squared away and swept under the rug is by those neo-sedevacantists who say there has not been a Pope since Pius IX (an interregnum of 133 years, which is, save divine intervention, impossible to fix from a human perspective, since all clergy, bishops, etc from Pius IX's reign are long gone).

Quote from: nadieimportante


The theories of BOD and all it's offshoots have absolutely no support from dogma. If we are to read dogma as it is clearly written, then the strict EENSers are right and all those fallible catechism and fallible loose quote found here and there are wrong.



Yes, and many theologians, including Doctors of the Church, theologians and saints more learned than you or me, have found otherwise.

Quote from: nadieimportante


The Patristic Scholar Fr. William Jurgens, who has literally read thousands of texts from the fathers, was forced to admit the following in his three volume set on the Fathers.

Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility.  But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”




Those same scholars who say baptismo fluminis et sanguinis is de fide found otherwise. They too had access to the Church Fathers.


Good Catholics, I need your help and prayers
« Reply #27 on: November 29, 2011, 03:57:25 PM »
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 66, Article 11

Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?

Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Question 65, Article 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.

Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.

On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."

I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."

Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Question 60, Article 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.

Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: 'by water'," according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.