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

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)  (Read 42172 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #140 on: August 25, 2022, 09:05:17 AM »
Another question unanswered, same o same o.

Lad, you are the one with a strange reading of Trent where you entirely ignore the justification "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration."

Unfortunately for you, it is there.

:facepalm:  Neither one is there JUST BY ITSELF.  Debate is over how the two are related to one another.  You can't simply truncate the second part.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #141 on: August 25, 2022, 09:08:07 AM »
One could make the case either way, but there's nothing "novel" about it ... unless you simply ignore the "or the desire thereof" part, which Stubborn did when he cited Trent initially in objecting to it.  This is in fact how the various Doctors (and Father Feeney) interpreted it, that it mean that the desire by itself could suffice for justification.  Of course, from there it was extrapolated that this state of justification could suffice for salvation ... and that's Father Feeney's point of contention.
Your idea is novel because YOU ignore justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration. Even now,  after having asked a few times and after me repeatedly bringing it up, you ignore it as if it doesn't even exist, or if it does, is so meaningless that it's not worth any mention at all.

If you aren't afraid to mention it then I don't know what other reason you have for wholly ignoring it.


Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #142 on: August 25, 2022, 09:08:53 AM »
:facepalm:  Neither one is there JUST BY ITSELF.  Debate is over how the two are related to one another.  You can't simply truncate the second part.
:facepalm: But you can truncate the first part.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #143 on: August 25, 2022, 09:30:46 AM »

Quote
But didn't Father Wathen (whom Stubborn uses as a rule of faith) have the Feeneyite view?
He definitely was against the idea of BOD = salvation.  I'm not sure he ever got into the weeds of justification (i'd bet he consider it a distraction for most people...and it can be); he concentrated mostly on the modernists who were using BOD to push universal salvation and V2.

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #144 on: August 25, 2022, 09:41:39 AM »
No, I don't see how this is possible.  The gates of heaven were closed to every person from the time of Adam's sin til Christ's ascension.  No person entered heaven until Ascension Thursday, when Christ entered first, as the new-Adam, reversing the sin in the Garden of Eden.


If the Old Testament martyrs (i.e. Maccabees) didn't get into heaven but went to Limbo to wait, then how does the "good thief" get to heaven, when he wasn't even a martyr?  Makes no sense.
Why couldn't the OT martyrs and righteous, along with the good thief, be released from limbo into Heaven at the moment Christ died on the cross? The Divine Sacrifice, alone, saves us, so did it not save and release them into Heaven at the moment of His Consummation?

Again, Christ's Divine Naure always remained in Heaven while His Human Nature descended into limbo for three days. The righteous were joined with Christ (His Divine Nature) in Heaven that same day. To me, that makes more sense than having to wait a bunch of days before Christ's Physical Body ascended into Heaven. Even with God's Incarnation in Flesh on earth during those days/weeks before He ascended, He was also in Heaven. He had to be, for He is God.