Yeah, no exceptions you say, but then you redefine "Church" and "within" and "is".

If only you spent half this kind of time and energy defending the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (instead of formally denying that dogma).

Again, the Feeneyites redefine "within" and the Novus Ordo redefines "Church".  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

In the below article I make one error (that I'm aware of) when I say that Sacramental Baptism is necessary by "Divine precept" but not by "a necessity of means" when in reality Sacramental Baptism is necessary for both reasons but is not necessary by "intrinsic necessity".  What it all means is that God can save the cooperative soul without the instrumentality of water provided such a soul is, through no fault of his own, not aware of the necessity of Baptism for salvation or when he is aware but Sacramental Baptism is impossible, and or when one is not guiltily ignorant of the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

Is it any wonder that people like myself have problems with Baptism of Desire?  EVERY SINGLE attempt to explain it leads to contradictions and heresy.

So you claim that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means but then go on to say the exact opposite, that it's not necessary if someone is ignorant of the necessity "through no fault of his own".  But if you're excused due to inculpable ignorance then IT IS NO LONGER A NECESSITY OF MEANS BUT OF PRECEPT.  You had to admit that it's wrong to say Baptism is necessary by necessity of precept, but then essentially SAY the same thing anyway, despite paying lip service to "necessity of means".

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism

Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.

Then, with your falsely-applied distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic necessity, you once again deny the dogma of Trent that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation by stating that one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.  Extrinsic necessity speaks to what God CAN do.  This has nothing to do with what He CAN do.  It has everything to do with what He has revealed that He ACTUALLY DOES.

And, for crying out loud, I have actually EXPLAINED to you how you can retain your belief in BoD WITHOUT rejecting the dogma, by at least adopting the language that people receive Baptism in voto and that the Sacrament acts as the instrumental cause of justification by way of that votum.  But you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to do this ... most likely due to pride.  You again refer to the Holy Sacrament of Baptism disparagingly as "water".  Before you used the repugnant phrase "water and words" in the tone of "smells and bells".

I've given you multiple opportunities to correct yourself, but you refuse.  Consequently, you are a heretic and anathema for rejecting the dogmatic teaching of Trent.

What competence and credibility do you have when you make the obvious blunder of referring to Baptism as necessary by a necessity of means?

You need to shut down your blog or limit yourself to discussing menu options for Fridays in Lent.

You are unable to make proper distinctions.  It is necessary by necessity of means and by divine precept but not by intrinsic necessity.  Eating fruit is not evil unless God tells you not to.  If God makes a general decree that no one should eat fruit and one, through no fault of his own, is not aware of this decree he will not be culpable of disobeying God if he eats fruit.  Very basic stuff sir.

LoT, your definition of extrinsic necessity = necessity of precept.

Intrinsic necessity.  Something that is necessary in and of itself apart from divine precept.  There are moral absolutes.  Things always true or false right or wrong written into the nature of things.  Water being necessary for salvation is not one of them.   These things are obvious on the face of it but you won't get it.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ladislaus

Yeah, no exceptions you say, but then you redefine "Church" and "within" and "is".

If only you spent half this kind of time and energy defending the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (instead of formally denying that dogma).

Typical modernist double talk.

Those who believe in "salvation by implicit desire" corrupt the meaning of the defined EENS dogma, which is an unchangeable truth from Heaven, not subject to further interpretation.

Explicit faith, the sacraments, and submission to the Roman Pontiff are necessary, as necessities of means, for salvation. Not exceptions.

I do not believe in salvation by implicit desire.  That would be like saying you believe in salvation by water apart from the formula.  Is that what you believe?  Then don't falsely accuse me.

Carry on.   :cheers:

Modernists re-interpret defined Catholic dogma with ambiguity and subjectivism. They claim that the old and ageless formula that "there is no salvation outside the Church" must be re-defined to fit the current times. A classic example, BOD adherents and other modernists claiming to be "traditionalists" say that salvation is not IN, but THROUGH the Church. In doing this, the share the same error with the liberals whom they condemn. People who are not "in" the Church may still be saved through the Church; thus, to the modernists the dogma that "there is no salvation outside the Church" means that there is really salvation outside the Church.

It is simple logic that can be explained to first communicants. There is no need to color the thrice defined dogma that only Catholics go to Heaven and to be a Catholic, you must be water baptized.

You are guilty of reinterpreting the dogma it is an invention of the late 1940's and 50's.

See, like all modernists, you continually demonstrate your blatant dishonesty by accusing those who speak the truth of being guilty of what in actuality, you yourself are guilty of. That is and has always been one of the tactics of the modernists and you and the NSAAers are professionals at this tactic.  

The First Vatican Council infallibly decrees that:
"the meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

The above decree has been replaced by the modernist enemies of the Church with the new axiom:
"Dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it."

You and the rest of the NSAAers reject the infallible decree of V1 completely while embracing the new axiom of modernist invention and deception.

But wait, that's not sufficient for the modernist enemies - there's more.

The above new axiom has an additional and inseparable new axiom, the two axioms are so closely related that they are married to one another - and it goes like this:
"Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Between these two modernist axioms is why you, no matter how you say it,  accept that there is salvation outside the Church - and you and the other NSAAers fall head over heels for the new axioms, the modernist doctrines, without the slightest regard to the decree of V1.

Between those two modernist doctrines, 1) dogma becomes something which needs interpreting, which in turn, as you and your fellow NSAAers continually demonstrate, allows NSAAers to obliterate the meaning of dogma, and 2) rewards salvation without the sacraments, without the Church and without the faith, to those presumed ignorant of the true faith.

You've got Wathen, Feeney and the Dimonds, I got Thomas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus.  You have a novel invention.  I have the Catholic Church.

No, you attempt to invoke those good saints and the Church (outside of which there is no salvation) to support your heresy - the truth is you have Cardinal Cushing, all the conciliar popes and modernist theologians and hierarchy. According to you, there is no need for the sacraments hence no need for the Church - why do you say you have the Catholic Church when there is no need for it?

Again, you falsely and continually demonstrate your blatant dishonesty by accusing those who speak the truth of being guilty of what in actuality, you yourself are guilty of.




 

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I got Thomas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus.

Thomas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus wouldn't recongize you as a Catholic for your denial of EENS and denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.  You've got nothing.

Thomas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus would declare Suprema Haec to be heretical.

So you say.  But you are incorrect.  To you the truth is nothing to me it is everything.  Do you have anything intelligent to say or just more ad hominen attacks?

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I got Thomas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus.

Thomas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus wouldn't recongize you as a Catholic for your denial of EENS and denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.  You've got nothing.

Thomas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus would declare Suprema Haec to be heretical.

Quote

To you the truth is nothing to me it is everything.

Nonsense.  I just know the truth to be different than what you want it to be.

Quote

Do you have anything intelligent to say or just more ad hominen attacks?

That was not an ad hominem but rather a response to your allegation that you have St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus on your side.  I call nonsense.

Would Bellarmine and Alphonsus call Trent heretical?  Why is their interpretation of it wrong and yours correct?  It's a rhetorical question.  

Would Bellarmine and Alphonsus call Trent heretical?

This has absolutely nothing to do with Trent but rather with your rejection of EENS.