Author Topic: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation (Read 4933 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #30 on:** July 03, 2014, 04:36:05 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Would Bellarmine and Alphonsus call Trent heretical?

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

You say Bellarmine and Alphonsus got it wrong. They both interpreted Trent correctly. You do not. I pray you get this and gain the Catholic Faith before you die.

Stubborn · « **Reply #31 on:** July 03, 2014, 05:26:29 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Would Bellarmine and Alphonsus call Trent heretical?

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

You say Bellarmine and Alphonsus got it wrong. They both interpreted Trent correctly. You do not. I pray you get this and gain the Catholic Faith before you die.

LoT, the lying hypocrite that he is, rejects the authoritative decree of Vatican 1 while attempting to invoke the good saints to support his error. We know he blatantly rejects it because as of three posts ago, we was educated in the matter.

I say this for the benefit of fresh lurkers who happen across LoT's posts.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #32 on:** July 03, 2014, 09:14:40 AM »

I normally do not even read Stubborn's posts and I just proved to myself again why:

Quote

the lying hypocrite that he is

Can you see the intellectual prowess oozing from his pores? This really helps settle the issue doesn't it?

Quote

rejects the authoritative decree of Vatican 1

There you have it. He said it so it must be true. Quote the treatise by Stubborn substantiating his claims from verifiable sources while discussing the issue with his typical cogent, logical and precise reasoning.

Very rich indeed.

:cheers:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** July 03, 2014, 09:30:24 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Would Bellarmine and Alphonsus call Trent heretical?

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

You say Bellarmine and Alphonsus got it wrong. They both interpreted Trent correctly. You do not. I pray you get this and gain the Catholic Faith before you die.

Again, see above. This has nothing to do with BoD proper. You hide behind BoD to justify EENS-denial, which neither Bellarmine or Alphonsus would ever have done.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #34 on:** July 03, 2014, 10:38:18 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Would Bellarmine and Alphonsus call Trent heretical?

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

You say Bellarmine and Alphonsus got it wrong. They both interpreted Trent correctly. You do not. I pray you get this and gain the Catholic Faith before you die.

Again, see above. This has nothing to do with BoD proper. You hide behind BoD to justify EENS-denial, which neither Bellarmine or Alphonsus would ever have done.

Incorrect. The above Sainted Doctors of the Church teach that it is possible for one to be justified by the desire for Baptism and Alphonsus teaches this is De Fide based upon Trent. The interpreted the Latin correctly. If you do not grant this we cannot even talk.

But let's get it out there. Do you believe Bellarmine and Alphonsus understood Latin well enough, considering they were fluent in it, to interpret the teaching of Trent correctly? Or did they both mess up on this issue?

Do you claim Baptism of Desire is erroneous or heretical? Or do you agree with Bellarmine and Alphonsus against the teaching of the Feeneyites and their accusation that the Sainted Doctors erred on this issue?

Stubborn · « **Reply #35 on:** July 04, 2014, 05:01:26 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I normally do not even read Stubborn's posts and I just proved to myself again why:

Quote
the lying hypocrite that he is

Can you see the intellectual prowess oozing from his pores? This really helps settle the issue doesn't it?

Quote
rejects the authoritative decree of Vatican 1

There you have it. He said it so it must be true. Quote the treatise by Stubborn substantiating his claims from verifiable sources while discussing the issue with his typical cogent, logical and precise reasoning.

Very rich indeed.

:cheers:

Say what you want, but one thing you'll never say, is anything in defense of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - and you never have and you never will as long as you preach they are not an absolute necessity - while you yourself presumably partake of them every week, this is hypocrisy.

You just keep trumpeting the same modernist teachings, invoking the names of great saints in your attempt to support your heresy of preaching the reception of the sacrament is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation.

Cantarella · « **Reply #36 on:** July 04, 2014, 11:20:11 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Incorrect. The above Sainted Doctors of the Church teach that it is possible for one to be justified by the desire for Baptism and Alphonsus teaches this is De Fide based upon Trent. The interpreted the Latin correctly. If you do not grant this we cannot even talk.

Yes, but they were FAR FAR FAR from believing that non - Catholics can be saved without even an explicit belief in Christ, as you do. Or to believe in salvation by "justification alone", like you do. Again, NONE of these saints that you are fond of citing believe in the heresy that you actually believe in and promote: salvation of the invincible ignorant via implicit desire.

You care not for BOD or BOB. As a matter of fact, the case for BOD had never even been relevant or an issue with EENS. the Americanists made it one. The error of invincible ignorance comes from the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and was carried over Vatican II docuмents and rapidly spread by the modernist liberals who are in power and control all channels of information.

Alphonsus and Bellarmine would be totally horrified to see how you have twisted and abused their teachings to promote your novel heresies. I doubt that these sedevacantists BOD adherents are actually taking the Sacraments dispensed only by the Catholic Church, to nourish their spiritual lives and achieve salvation (after all, they don't even think that the sacraments are necessary for salvation). I am willing to bet that most do not. That would explain a lot for their spiritual blindness.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #37 on:** July 07, 2014, 07:48:02 AM »

Okay. You are right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong. I get it. I don't understand why I did not see this before.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** July 07, 2014, 10:02:14 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

[Say what you want, but one thing you'll never say, is anything in defense of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - and you never have and you never will as long as you preach they are not an absolute necessity - while you yourself presumably partake of them every week, this is hypocrisy.

I gave credit to Nishant for using the formulation receiving Baptism in voto, but these other guys are obstinate in their denial of the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** July 07, 2014, 10:03:36 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Okay. You are right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong. I get it. I don't understand why I did not see this before.

Again, you hide behind Aquinas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus by pretending that their understanding of BoD backs up your heretical view of Faith of Desire, denying the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and Vatican II subsistence ecclesiology. Not even close. Don't pretend that you have these Doctors on your side. They would anathematize you.

Stubborn · « **Reply #40 on:** July 07, 2014, 10:09:48 AM »

You don't see it because you choose blind and bind yourself to saints speculation instead of the infallible decrees of the Church. You have some misguided idea that the Church submits to the judgement of saints instead - as your own signature teaches - the other way around.

You need to believe that: Trent is right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong.

You need to believe that: The Church is right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #41 on:** July 10, 2014, 09:47:52 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

You don't see it because you choose blind and bind yourself to saints speculation instead of the infallible decrees of the Church. You have some misguided idea that the Church submits to the judgement of saints instead - as your own signature teaches - the other way around.

You need to believe that: Trent is right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong.

You need to believe that: The Church is right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong.

Father forgive them for they know not what they do. I'm fully aware of the "no one is infallible" objection. It doesn't work. It is a tactic used by non-believers to believe what they want or prefer to believe.

Stubborn · « **Reply #42 on:** July 10, 2014, 01:24:32 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Stubborn
You don't see it because you choose blind and bind yourself to saints speculation instead of the infallible decrees of the Church. You have some misguided idea that the Church submits to the judgement of saints instead - as your own signature teaches - the other way around.

You need to believe that: Trent is right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong.

You need to believe that: The Church is right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong.

Father forgive them for they know not what they do. I'm fully aware of the "no one is infallible" objection. It doesn't work. It is a tactic used by non-believers to believe what they want or prefer to believe.

Wrong again.

We have the use of reason for a reason, all you need do is use it.

The saints you keep invoking to support your error, as your own signature testifies, are not the Church. Why don't you do like your signature and submit to the judgement of the Church?

You must understand the dogma as the Church Herself understand it - per the First Vatican Council, the Church Herself understand the meaning "as once declared", not as explained by the likes of Fenton.

Trent, is "the Church".

Trent decrees the sacraments are necessary unto salvation.
Trent decrees the sacrament of baptism is a necessity, not an option unto salvation.

Whoever disagrees with this, always is and always was, wrong.

As Fr. Wathen writes: "Such a dogmatic statement is the most certain knowledge that men have, more certain than metaphysical principles, or mathematical formulas, or historical accounts. It is the revelation and proposition of God Himself."

JPaul · « **Reply #43 on:** July 10, 2014, 08:34:41 PM »

Quote

As Fr. Wathen writes: "Such a dogmatic statement is the most certain knowledge that men have, more certain than metaphysical principles, or mathematical formulas, or historical accounts. It is the revelation and proposition of God Himself."

Is it any small wonder as to why he has often been maligned by the weak minded. A man who never compromised Catholic Truth.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #44 on:** July 10, 2014, 08:39:18 PM »

.

The Church has never taught that everything the saints say is definitive.

The Church has ALWAYS taught that the Pope and the Pope ALONE has the power of the Keys, which Our Lord gave to St. Peter, and by extension, to all the popes who would succeed him.

The Pope ALONE has this power, and it is only because the pope approves of the canons and decrees of Trent and all the other TWENTY Oecuмenical Councils, that the Councils carry the note of infallibility.

Anything the pope ONCE CONDEMNS in regards to faith or morals (inclusive!) is condemned in eternity, that is, it is the revelation of God. The pope cannot condemn such a thing in error.

But there were no papal condemnations in Vatican II (the twenty-first Oecuмenical Council), and this is emphasized by the Opening Speech of John XXIII, in which he said, no more condemnations.

He said the Church would now rely on the "medicine of mercy" instead of papal condemnation of error, but he forgot to point out that God's mercy is NOT MEDICINE. Therefore, "medicine of mercy" is NONSENSE. And yet, he was 'replacing' papal condemnation (the power of the Keys) effectively, with NONSENSE!!!

This egregious error has not been rectified yet, and it has been now 52 years running. And don't say that a 'real' pope cannot make such an error, because he was not defining nor was he condemning error. He was COMMITTING ERROR, and it was not protected by the Holy Ghost when he did so. This is how Modernism is so dangerous even for a pope.

Pope St. Pius X defined Modernism infallibly, and nowhere in his encyclical Pascendi did he say that the pope is in any way immune from Modernism. On the contrary, he said that Modernism would rise again, and it has the power to become the wreck and ruin of ALL RELIGION. That includes what the pope does and says.

.