Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Last Tradhican on February 07, 2020, 01:38:12 PM
-
From someone with 20+ years of experience, if you want to avoid these long drawn out threads about so-called "baptism of desire", as soon as a BODers starts a thread to teach people about baptism of desire, just ask them one question, and repeat it a few times by cutting and pasting. That is how I got rid of the biggest BOD poster in Cathinfo history, Lover of Truth, a perfect example of a false BODer who hid behind baptism of desire of the catechumen.
QUESTION:
Just tell me one thing, is the discussion about baptism of desire of the catechumen, the catechumen who is on the way to be baptized and gets run over by a truck? Are you one of those few honest BODers that limits his belief to BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas? Or are you just one of the legion of sophists false BODers that believes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, indeed people in any religion (that have no explicit desire to be Catholic, or baptized, or belief in the Incarnation or the Holy Trinity)?
-
^--- The last sentence of the "Question" appears to be incomplete--there is no object denoting what "...one of the legion of sophists false BODers..." believes.
-
Was St. Alphonsus a heretic when he taught implicit baptism of desire?
-
No, he was simply mistaken.
-
While I disagree with even the Thomistic version of BOD, just to stop the stupid arguing I am and have just conceded the point as LT laid out here. It works if your not faced with a rabid modernist.
-
Was St. Alphonsus a heretic when he taught implicit baptism of desire?
Define "implicit Baptism of Desire". Depending on how you define the term, I will either concede or deny that he ever taught such a thing.
-
From someone with 20+ years of experience, if you want to avoid these long drawn out threads about so-called "baptism of desire", as soon as a BODers starts a thread to teach people about baptism of desire, just ask them one question, and repeat it a few times by cutting and pasting. That is how I got rid of the biggest BOD poster in Cathinfo history, Lover of Truth, a perfect example of a false BODer who hid behind baptism of desire of the catechumen.
QUESTION:
Just tell me one thing, is the discussion about baptism of desire of the catechumen, the catechumen who is on the way to be baptized and gets run over by a truck? Are you one of those few honest BODers that limits his belief to BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas? Or are you just one of the legion of sophists false BODers that believes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, indeed people in any religion (that have no explicit desire to be Catholic, or baptized, or belief in the Incarnation or the Holy Trinity)?
The three things commonly held that are necessary to believe are the Trinity, the Incarceration and the Redemption. By believing in the Redemption one can implicitly believe in the necessity of baptism as I believe Saint Alphonsus, among others, taught. Please give me a reference from an approved theologian that supports your assertion. If I’m wrong, that Saint Alphonsus did not teach such a thing, I will gladly admit I’m wrong.
Just to be clear, I think that it’s most likely that all cases of baptism of desire only happened to catechumens.
-
^--- The last sentence of the "Question" appears to be incomplete--there is no object denoting what "...one of the legion of sophists false BODers..." believes.
I really meant for the individual person to ask the question his own way, what I wrote was just my example, anyhow here it is fixed:
QUESTION:
Just tell me one thing, is the discussion about baptism of desire of the catechumen, the catechumen who is on the way to be baptized and gets run over by a truck? Are you one of those few honest BODers that limits his belief to BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas? Or are you just another of the legion of sophists false BODers that believes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, indeed people in any religion (that have no explicit desire to be Catholic, or baptized, or belief in the Incarnation or the Holy Trinity) can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, by implicit faith?
-
I believe exactly what Lefebvre said on the subject and I've never been shy about admitting to this.
-
The three things commonly held that are necessary to believe are the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Redemption. By believing in the Redemption one can implicitly believe in the necessity of baptism as I believe Saint Alphonsus, among others, taught. Please give me a reference from an approved theologian that supports your assertion. If I’m wrong, that Saint Alphonsus did not teach such a thing, I will gladly admit I’m wrong.
Just to be clear, I think that it’s most likely that all cases of baptism of desire only happened to catechumens.
What does St. Alphonsus Ligouri's belief that "By believing in the Redemption one can implicitly believe in the necessity of baptism" have to do with the conciliar church belief that people in any religion can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards? ( P.S. - I never heard that quote by St. A. Ligouri regarding the Redemption )
-
I believe exactly what Lefebvre said on the subject and I've never been shy about admitting to this.
But you are not a person who creates threads about BOD, nor are you obsessed with teaching that people in all religions can be saved. You really are just asking questions.
-
What does St. Alphonsus Ligouri's belief that "By believing in the Redemption one can implicitly believe in the necessity of baptism" have to do with the conciliar church belief that people in any religion can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards? ( P.S. - I never heard that quote by St. A. Ligouri regarding the Redemption )
No one can be saved in their false religion. Also, I didn’t quote Saint Alphonsus. I was merely explaining what I believe he taught. Ladislaus, please correct me if I’m wrong about that.
-
But you are not a person who creates threads about BOD, nor are you obsessed with teaching that people in all religions can be saved. You really are just asking questions.
True, I mean between Feeney and Barron I'd take feeney any day lol.
Would you present Lefebvre's position as saying "people in all religions can be saved?" I know you'd disagree with him, but would you say he was saying that?
-
True, I mean between Feeney and Barron I'd take feeney any day lol.
Would you present Lefebvre's position as saying "people in all religions can be saved?" I know you'd disagree with him, but would you say he was saying that?
I mean, in real life I spend a lot more time trying to convince Catholics that Protestants (let alone Jews or Muslims) are in grave danger, then I do trying to convince Feeneyites that they technically have a marginal chance under pristine conditions, lol
-
From someone with 20+ years of experience, if you want to avoid these long drawn out threads about so-called "baptism of desire", as soon as a BODers starts a thread to teach people about baptism of desire, just ask them one question, and repeat it a few times by cutting and pasting. That is how I got rid of the biggest BOD poster in Cathinfo history, Lover of Truth, a perfect example of a false BODer who hid behind baptism of desire of the catechumen.
Lover of Truth, was the king of false BOD thread starters on CI, he would sometimes start four threads in one day and keep repeating the same quotes over and over. In my experience what I have found is that the BOD pushers are all the same in this regard, they are obsessed with teaching others that people in any religion can be saved and they despise those that believe in the dogmas on EENS as they are written (EENSers). They despise them because EENSers are a rebuke to them, they shine a light on the fact that what the false BODers believe is totally opposed to the dogmas on EENS, totally opposed. This is why they are constantly starting threads to teach that people in any religion can be saved, they want to drown out their conscience. They are like the divorced and re-married Catholic who despise Catholics and the Catholic Church because it is a rebuke to them.
This is "the divorce" that makes them hate strict EENSers, they can't accept the dogmas as they are written:
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
Dogmas are the words of the Holy Ghost spoken by the popes and councils approved by the popes. They are the final word. If they required interpretation, then they have failed and are not the final word. Keep in mind that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so.
Here are just a few dogmas on EENS and how they are changed COMPLETELY by the false BODers (in red):
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 ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Muslim, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, indeed, people in any other false religion can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved even if they do not want to be Catholics, do not want to be baptized, and do not believe in Christ or the Holy Trinity. They are saved their belief in a god that rewards.)
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a god that rewards)
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a god that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for tem with submission to the pope?)
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” (one thousand lords , one faith by their belief in a god that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it, their belief in a god that rewards)
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a god that rewards)
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.” (Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
-
I really meant for the individual person to ask the question his own way, what I wrote was just my example, anyhow here it is fixed:
QUESTION:
Just tell me one thing, is the discussion about baptism of desire of the catechumen, the catechumen who is on the way to be baptized and gets run over by a truck? Are you one of those few honest BODers that limits his belief to BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas? Or are you just another of the legion of sophists false BODers that believes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, indeed people in any religion (that have no explicit desire to be Catholic, or baptized, or belief in the Incarnation or the Holy Trinity) can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, by implicit faith?
I am more interested in getting to the crux of the subject matter. I'd like to know why any individual who is themself sacramentally baptized and self-identifies as one holding the [traditional] Catholic faith, is so willing and adamant about insisting, contrary to defined dogma, contrary to Scripture, contrary to Divine Providence and contrary to right reason, that the sacrament of baptism is not necessary for salvation.
What is it *exactly* that drives these individuals to insist the sacrament is not necessary for salvation?
Having dealt with some genuine catechumens in my life, and even though at the time they only knew very, very little about the faith, the very first thing they wanted before anything else, even before learning anything else about the faith, was to get baptized immediately if not sooner because they feared going to hell if they died without it!
These catechumens were only theological dumb bells who could not possibly be calmed with the idea of a BOD saving them, they wanted the sacrament - period, nothing short of the sacrament would satisfy them. To them, a BOD made no sense and was entirely illogical. See, they knew with absolute certainty, theologically dumb as they were, that if they died before receiving the sacrament, that going to hell was certain.
And after having finally entered the Kingdom of God (on earth), the Church, through the sacrament of baptism, all I will say is that their joy was immense, their joy was full and they found that peace which Christ left for us, His heirs.
So *exactly* why does any baptized Catholic claim that the sacrament is not necessary for salvation?
-
Yes, XavierSem has been exposed.
He kept saying that he believed in the necessity of explicit faith, but then immediately began arguing against it. When Matto professed his belief in the requirement for explicit faith, including his belief in the possibility of BoD, XavierSem immediately started arguing against him, while I actually praised him.
This completely exposed him and his agenda and his dishonesty.
Lover of Truth used to play the same game, pretend he believed that explicit faith is required, and then trying to undermine that at every turn. We had a BoDer named Arvinger taking OUR side against Lover of Truth. Arvinger and Matto are rare examples of sincere Thomistic BoDers. XaiverSem is a dishonest pretender with an agenda.
-
Yes, XavierSem has been exposed.
He kept saying that he believed in the necessity of explicit faith, but then immediately began arguing against it. When Matto professed his belief in the requirement for explicit faith, including his belief in the possibility of BoD, XavierSem immediately started arguing against him, while I actually praised him.
This completely exposed him and his agenda and his dishonesty.
Lover of Truth used to play the same game, pretend he believed that explicit faith is required, and then trying to undermine that at every turn. We had a BoDer named Arvinger taking OUR side against Lover of Truth. Arvinger and Matto are rare examples of sincere Thomistic BoDers. XaiverSem is a dishonest pretender with an agenda.
It almost looks like XavierSem is schizophrenic. XavierSem uses the same technique as Lover of Truth, bombarding his OP with cut and paste template long lists of BOD of the catechumen quotes while really to teaching salvation by belief in a god that rewards. Lover of Truth turned out to be not too well upstairs. It looks like XavierSem is cracking up quicker.
-
I am more interested in getting to the crux of the subject matter. I'd like to know why any individual who is themself sacramentally baptized and self-identifies as one holding the [traditional] Catholic faith, is so willing and adamant about insisting, contrary to defined dogma, contrary to Scripture, contrary to Divine Providence and contrary to right reason, that the sacrament of baptism is not necessary for salvation.
What is it *exactly* that drives these individuals to insist the sacrament is not necessary for salvation?
…………..
So *exactly* why does any baptized Catholic claim that the sacrament is not necessary for salvation?
One reason, and Lover of Truth kept repeating it, is that they think the EENS as it is written scares away potential converts. Maybe, the false BODers are cowards themselves, that is why they think others would be scared by the strict interpretation. I, myself would be attracted to it, the strict interpretation because it is for sure, it is dogma, the final word, the truth. Maybe it is because they are cowards afraid of turning off people?
-
As a father, I would ask a BODer who was a father as well if they felt at peace if their unbaptized children who were at the age of reason simply had the desire and suddenly died without water baptism. In words, would either actual baptism or BOD put their minds and hearts at rest?
I am an adult convert. I could not rest easily leading up to Easter Vigil until I knew I had received it as well as my wife and kids. My wife had "felt" a supernatural "experience" as soon as it was performed that she cannot describe but knows that she never felt anything like that in her life. It's called the laver of regeneration for a reason.
From time to time I believe God gives us those graces to remind us of what is actually happening.
-
As a father, I would ask a BODer who was a father as well if they felt at peace if their unbaptized children who were at the age of reason simply had the desire and suddenly died without water baptism. In words, would either actual baptism or BOD put their minds and hearts at rest?
I am an adult convert. I could not rest easily leading up to Easter Vigil until I knew I had received it as well as my wife and kids. My wife had "felt" a supernatural "experience" as soon as it was performed that she cannot describe but knows that she never felt anything like that in her life. It's called the laver of regeneration for a reason.
From time to time I believe God gives us those graces to remind us of what is actually happening.
No, the actual sacrament brings a certainty that mere profession of desire doesn’t.
But IF said child got hit by lightning on the way to the baptismal, I wouldn’t conclude he was certainly damned
-
As a father, I would ask a BODer who was a father as well if they felt at peace if their unbaptized children who were at the age of reason simply had the desire and suddenly died without water baptism. In words, would either actual baptism or BOD put their minds and hearts at rest?
I am an adult convert. I could not rest easily leading up to Easter Vigil until I knew I had received it as well as my wife and kids. My wife had "felt" a supernatural "experience" as soon as it was performed that she cannot describe but knows that she never felt anything like that in her life. It's called the laver of regeneration for a reason.
From time to time I believe God gives us those graces to remind us of what is actually happening.
The problem with your question is that the hypothetical unbaptized “child” would be in a state of sin since he only relied on his desire for baptism and never acted upon it. It seems that he would be tempting God. Those of us who believe in the doctrine of baptism of desire in the orthodox way, would see that the child actually would not be a candidate for BOD since he wouldn’t be properly disposed to make an act of perfect contrition and thus not be in a state of sanctifying grace.
-
No, the actual sacrament brings a certainty that mere profession of desire doesn’t.
But IF said child got hit by lightning on the way to the baptismal, I wouldn’t conclude he was certainly damned
Yes, if he was on the way to be baptized, that would be a horse of a different color. There would be the *possibility* that he could be saved.
-
One reason, and Lover of Truth kept repeating it, is that they think the EENS as it is written scares away potential converts. Maybe, the false BODers are cowards themselves, that is why they think others would be scared by the strict interpretation. I, myself would be attracted to it, the strict interpretation because it is for sure, it is dogma, the final word, the truth. Maybe it is because they are cowards afraid of turning off people?
I don't know LT, I mean these people pushing the idea are not stupid, they are intelligent adults with a working intellect who know how to read and write, many are even priests, bishops and higher authorities whose business it is to proclaim truth without regard to denier's feelings.
On the other thread, I am trying to get Praeter to answer a simple question showing that a BOD contradicts official dogma - but instead of answering, he entirely ignores the question while he dances around it, trying to prove dogma is to be interpreted, as if dogma, of all things, is supposed to be interpreted because it does not really mean what it says.
The very reason that "Or the desire thereof" was transformed into a BOD, is because instead of simply reading it as it is written, they HAVE GOT TO [mis]interpret it or they cannot possibly EVER get a BOD out of it, because what Trent is actually teaching, is condemning those who say justification is obtained without the sacrament or without the desire thereof. That is it, no interpretation, no added exceptions, just what it actually teaches.
So how is it even remotely possible that they take that clear decree, and insist it must be flipped into a BOD, where salvation is obtained without the sacrament, but with the desire thereof? It boggles the mind.
-
No, the actual sacrament brings a certainty that mere profession of desire doesn’t.
But IF said child got hit by lightning on the way to the baptismal, I wouldn’t conclude he was certainly damned
God is not the Almighty Terrorizer, and personally, I believe that to seriously consider such a hypothetical situation as a real life example is insulting to God, Who promised that whatever we desire, "whatever we ask necessary to salvation with humility, fervour, perseverance, and other due circuмstances, we may be assured God will grant when it is best for us. If we do not obtain what we pray for, we must suppose it is not conducive to our salvation, in comparison of which all else is of little moment". -Haydock, re: Mat. 7:8
Always remember and understand, that Almighty God provided you with the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it. Always remember that if God arranged for you to be baptized, it is by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to receive it and that a BOD denies this truth.
If the child were to be struck by lightning and if you have faith, then you would know with absolute certainty that it would be on his way home, after being baptized - that is the only way it works with God, always.
-
God is not the Almighty Terrorizer, and personally, I believe that to seriously consider such a hypothetical situation as a real life example is insulting to God, Who promised that whatever we desire, "whatever we ask necessary to salvation with humility, fervour, perseverance, and other due circuмstances, we may be assured God will grant when it is best for us. If we do not obtain what we pray for, we must suppose it is not conducive to our salvation, in comparison of which all else is of little moment". -Haydock, re: Mat. 7:8
Always remember and understand, that Almighty God provided you with the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it. Always remember that if God arranged for you to be baptized, it is by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to receive it and that a BOD denies this truth.
If the child were to be struck by lightning and if you have faith, then you would know with absolute certainty that it would be on his way home, after being baptized - that is the only way it works with God, always.
Its ridiculous, I agree, but its used as a hypothetical to make a point.
-
Its ridiculous, I agree, but its used as a hypothetical to make a point.
The thing is, I remember your hypothetical situation being asked since I was a child. The answer given was always the same, namely, if that person died on his way to be baptized, it was most likely because that person was insincere in their desire to be baptized and God knew it. By taking him early, the ever merciful God saved that person additional suffering.
As a trad child, that was the standard answer from relatives, priests and nuns who were still trads. How did that clear answer full of simple reasoning and faith, ever get flipped over to a BOD?
-
The thing is, I remember your hypothetical situation being asked since I was a child. The answer given was always the same, namely, if that person died on his way to be baptized, it was most likely because that person was insincere in their desire to be baptized and God knew it. By taking him early, the ever merciful God saved that person additional suffering.
As a trad child, that was the standard answer from relatives, priests and nuns who were still trads. How did that clear answer full of simple reasoning and faith, ever get flipped over to a BOD?
I'm not following. How is keeping him from baptism saving him from additional suffering?
-
I'm not following. How is keeping him from baptism saving him from additional suffering?
The damned who have the character of Baptism, AKA the seal, suffer greater punishments.
-
The damned who have the character of Baptism, AKA the seal, suffer greater punishments.
I did not know this. I just figured both go to Hell, so both suffer. Can you provide Church teaching on this?
-
I did not know this. I just figured both go to Hell, so both suffer. Can you provide Church teaching on this?
St. Alphonsus
Sermons for All the Sundays in the Year
SERMON XLVIII. NINETEENTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST. - ON THE PAIN OF LOSS WHICH THE DAMNED SUFFER IN HELL.
https://www.evangelizationstation.com/htm_html/Liturgy/Liguori%20sermons_for_all_the_sundays_in_t.htm
11.
(. . .)
The reprobate then shall hate and curse all the benefits which God has bestowed upon them. They shall hate the benefits of creation, redemption, and the sacraments. But they shall hate in a particular manner the sacrament of baptism, by which they have, on account of their sins, been made more guilty in the sight of God; the sacrament of penance, by which, if they wished, they could have so easily saved their souls; and, above all, the most holy sacrament of the altar, in which God had given himself entirely to them. They shall consequently hate all the other means which have been helps to their salvation. Hence, they shall hate and curse all the angels and saints. But they shall curse particularly their guardian angels their special advocates and, above all, the divine mother Mary. They shall curse the three divine persons the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; but particularly Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, who suffered so much, and died for their salvation. They shall curse the wounds of Jesus Christ, the blood of Jesus Christ, and the death of Jesus Christ. Behold the end to which accursed sin leads the souls which Jesus Christ has dearly bought.
Little Sermons on the Catechism by Cardinal Corsi
Page 138 - 139
https://archive.org/details/littlesermonsont00corsuoft/page/137/mode/2up
All these things which we have considered are well calculated to make comprehensible to us the priceless privilege of belonging to the Catholic Church, a blessing which we can never sufficiently appreciate, a grace which has been imparted to us by the mercy of God without any merit whatever on our part. He who has the misfortune of being born and taught in a false religion may turn to the true one, and many have done so. Yet it is extremely difficult to overcome the prejudices of training and education. Hence let us be most grateful to God for the precious gift of faith, and let us make use of it in the way He desires. Without this the blessing will be not only useless, but will merit for us greater punishment. What would it avail us, indeed, to be children of a holy Church if we were to lead lives in contradiction to her teachings?
Mystical City of God, Volume III, by Venerable Mary of Agreda
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/agreda/vol3/vol3.shtml
538.
(. . .)
Among the obscure caverns of the infernal prisons was a very large one, arranged for more horrible chastisements than the others, and which was still unoccupied; for the demons had been unable to cast any soul into it, although their cruelty had induced them to attempt it many times from the time of Cain unto that day. All hell had remained astonished at the failure of these attempts, being entirely ignorant of the mystery, until the arrival of the soul of Judas, which they readily succeeded in hurling and burying in this prison never before occupied by any of the damned. The secret of it was, that this cavern of greater torments and fiercer fires of hell, from the creation of the world, had been destined for those, who, after having received Baptism, would damn themselves by the neglect of the Sacraments, the doctrines, the Passion and Death of the Savior, and the intercession of his most holy Mother. As Judas had been the first one who had so signally participated in these blessings, and as he had so fearfully misused them, he was also the first to suffer the torments of this place, prepared for him and his imitators and followers.
751.
(. . .)
Then and there the infernal spirits resolved to persecute and torment more grievously the Catholics, and chastise more severely those who should deny or repudiate the Catholic faith. For they concluded that these merited greater punishment than the infidels, to whom it is not preached.
St. Chrysostom
Homily 20 on Hebrews
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240220.htm
9.
(. . .)
And what I just now said, that I repeat, that they shall suffer greater punishment, who, when they have enjoyed all good things, do not even so become better. For all shall not be punished alike; but they who, even after His benefits, have continued evil, shall suffer a greater punishment, while they who after poverty [have done this] not so. And that this is true, hear what He says to David, "Did I not give you all your master's goods?" 2 Samuel 12:8 Whenever then you see a young man that has received a paternal inheritance without labor and continues wicked, be assured that his punishment is increased and the vengeance is made more intense. Let us not then emulate these; but if any man has succeeded to virtue, if any man has obtained spiritual wealth, [him let us emulate]. For (it is said) "Woe to them that trust in their riches" cf.Psalm 49:6: "Blessed are they that fear the Lord." Psalm 128:1 To which of these, tell me, would you belong? Doubtless to those who are pronounced blessed. Therefore emulate these, not the other, that you also may obtain the good things which are laid up for them. Which may we all obtain, in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom to the Father be glory together with the Holy Ghost, now and for ever, and world without end. Amen.
St. Chrysostom
Homily 8 on First Thessalonians
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230408.htm
Would you see those also punished, who were of the number of believers, and who held fast to God, but were not of upright life? Hear Paul saying, "Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us murmur, as some of them murmured, and perished by the destroyer. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents." 1 Corinthians 10:8-10 And if fornication, and if murmuring had such power, what will not be the effect of our sins? And if you dost not now pay the penalty, do not wonder. For they knew not of a hell, therefore they were visited with punishments following close at their heels. But you, whatever sins thou commit, though you should escape present penalty, will pay for it all There.
Did he so punish those who were nearly in the state of children, and who did not sin so greatly — and will He spare us? It would not be reasonable. For if we commit the same sins with them, we shall deserve a greater punishment than they did. Wherefore? Because we have enjoyed more grace. But when our offenses are numerous, and more heinous than theirs, what vengeance shall we not undergo? They — and let no one think I say it as admiring them, or excusing them; far be it: for when God punishes, he who passes a contrary sentence, does it at the suggestion of the devil; I say this therefore, not praising them nor excusing them, but showing our wickedness— they therefore, although they murmured, were, however, traveling a wilderness road: but we murmur though we have a country, and are in our own houses. They, although they committed fornication, yet it was just after they came out of the evils of Egypt, and had hardly heard of such a law. But we do it, having previously received from our forefathers the doctrine of salvation, so that we are deserving of greater punishment.
St. Chrysostom
Homily 1 on the Acts of the Apostles
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210101.htm
As if then we were banquetting with Christ Himself, and partaking of His table, let us do nothing at random, but let us pass our time in fastings, and prayers, and much sobriety of mind. For if a man who is destined to enter upon some temporal government, prepares himself all his life long, and that he may obtain some dignity, lays out his money, spends his time, and submits to endless troubles; what shall we deserve, who draw near to the kingdom of heaven with such negligence, and both show no earnestness before we have received, and after having received are again negligent? Nay, this is the very reason why we are negligent after having received, that we did not watch before we had received.
Therefore many, after they have received, immediately have returned to their former vomit, and have become more wicked, and drawn upon themselves a more severe punishment; when having been delivered from their former sins, herein they have more grievously provoked the Judge, that having been delivered from so great a disease, still they did not learn sobriety, but that has happened unto them, which Christ threatened to the paralytic man, saying, "Behold you are made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto you" John 5:14: and which He also predicted of the Jews, that "the last state shall be worse than the first." Matthew 12:45 For if, says He, showing that by their ingratitude they should bring upon them the worst of evils, "if I had not come, and spoken unto them, they had not had sin" John 15:22; so that the guilt of sins committed after these benefits is doubled and quadrupled, in that, after the honour put upon us, we show ourselves ungrateful and wicked. And the Laver of Baptism helps not a whit to procure for us a milder punishment.
And consider: a man has gotten grievous sins by committing murder or adultery, or some other crime: these were remitted through Baptism. For there is no sin, no impiety, which does not yield and give place to this gift; for the Grace is Divine. A man has again committed adultery and murder; the former adultery is indeed done away, the murder forgiven, and not brought up again to his charge, "for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" Romans 11:29; but for those committed after Baptism he suffers a punishment as great as he would if both the former sins were brought up again, and many worse than these. For the guilt is no longer simply equal, but doubled and tripled. Look: in proof that the penalty of these sins is greater, hear what St. Paul says: "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy, under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and has done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" Hebrews 10:28-29
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/3if64r.gif) (https://imgflip.com/gif/3if64r)
Me likes it! :cowboy:
-
I'm not following. How is keeping him from baptism saving him from additional suffering?
I just saw this and thanks trad123 for your references. I don't remember seeing actual Church teachings on this, it is just what was taught by nuns, priests and parents to curious children when I was one.
The jist of course in a nutshell, is that if you die as a good little Catholic (baptized) child, it's because God loved you so much that He wanted you with Him in heaven right away. But if he died before baptism, it's because God saw he did not really want to be baptized or be Catholic, and would have gone onto live an evil life, a life of sin. So taking him now means less suffering since he only has comparatively very few sins than had he lived a full life.
This was actually explained to pretty much the whole Catholic school I went to as a 1st grader after a 3rd grader was accidentally shot and died instantly during his 8th birthday party. I guess you could've called that "grief counseling' according to the Catholic faith".
-
The very reason that "Or the desire thereof" was transformed into a BOD, is because instead of simply reading it as it is written, they HAVE GOT TO [mis]interpret it or they cannot possibly EVER get a BOD out of it, because what Trent is actually teaching, is condemning those who say justification is obtained without the sacrament or without the desire thereof. That is it, no interpretation, no added exceptions, just what it actually teaches.
So how is it even remotely possible that they take that clear decree, and insist it must be flipped into a BOD, where salvation is obtained without the sacrament, but with the desire thereof? It boggles the mind.
I've been trying to figure this stuff out for months since I first heard about it. The idea that Muslims and Jews and atheists can go to heaven is obviously nonsense. I don't really understand Feeny's position, but now that I've found this site and this section, I hope to when I dig through older threads.
When reading "or the desire thereof", my initial thought was that it was a reference to forced baptism and that it was clarifying that a person baptized against his will just got wet rather than entered the Church, not a reference to BOD.
I had some young Catholic woman recently telling me atheists could go to heaven and was extremely upset that I kept insisting that only Catholics could go to heaven.
I don't know what people here would say (well, those who allow for some kind of BOD, anyway), and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I told her that although an atheist cannot go to heaven, we cannot know he didn't convert at the final moments with perfect contrition by a special grace of God (sort of placing him in the state of a catechumen, though obviously informally). This does kind of bother me though, because I thought it was fine, or rather we should assume that a pagan, apostate, formal heretic or atheist didn't make it even if there is a possibility that they might receive some special grace we don't know about. What bothers me though is that seems right to make the assumption they were damned and it shouldn't be ambiguous.
-
I just saw this and thanks trad123 for your references.
Another:
St. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 78
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801078.htm
11. For He that "did burst asunder the sea and made them go through, did confine the waters as it were in bottles" Psalm 77:13, in order that the water might stand up first as if it were shut in, is able by His grace to restrain the flowing and ebbing tides of carnal desires, when we renounce this world, so that all sins having been thoroughly washed away, as if they were enemies, the people of the faithful may be made to pass through by means of the Sacrament of Baptism. He that "led them home in the cloud of the day, and in the whole of the night in the illumination of fire" Psalm 77:14, is able also spiritually to direct goings if faith cries to Him, "Direct my goings after Your word." Of Whom in another place is said, "For Himself shall make your courses right, and shall prolong your goings in peace" through Jesus Christ our Lord, whose Sacrament in this world, as it were in the day, is manifest in the flesh, as if in a cloud; but in the Judgment it will be manifest like as in a terror by night; for then there will be a great tribulation of the world like as it were fire, and it shall shine for the just and shall burn for the unjust.
-
Was St. Alphonsus a heretic when he taught implicit baptism of desire?
Implicit baptism of desire, as explained by Saint Alphonsus, does not translate into salvation through "implicit faith in Christ" [unlike what modernist heretics now a days believe]. Saint Alphonsus believed that implicit BoD only applied to those who accept Christ, but have no knowledge of the sacrament of baptism, and implicitly desire it through their explicit belief in Christ, and true contrition for their sins.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/3if64r.gif) (https://imgflip.com/gif/3if64r)
LOLOL AHAHAHAHA :laugh2:
-
LOLOL AHAHAHAHA :laugh2:
Let me guess:
That’s Poche, circa 1987 in Manhattan, while dancing at Club54 ?