Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video) (Read 41935 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #65 on:** August 22, 2022, 10:36:33 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on August 22, 2022, 10:22:19 PM

Yes, they can be wrong. They don't have the charism of papal infallibility. St. Thomas was wrong about the Immaculate Conception, and that was in the Summa.

No one is pretending they had such a charism, so that point misses the mark and only serves to muddy the waters. Furthermore, the IC was defined centuries AFTER St. Thomas died; that is not the case with EENS, neither in the case of St. Thomas nor St. Alphonsus.

You are basically positing the idea that two Doctors of Holy Church speculated erroneously, maybe even in an arguably-heretical manner, about a well-known dogma -- perhaps the most well-known dogma of all -- and that is perfectly acceptable. How can that be so?

Water Baptism is either absolutely necessary -- no exceptions whatsoever -- or it is not.

As I mentioned before, please refrain from discussing or worrying about the modern insanity; stay focused on the two Doctors in question. Thank you.

FWIW, a joke is a jocose lie.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #66 on:** August 22, 2022, 10:39:17 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on August 22, 2022, 10:22:19 PM

There's even a possible way to interpret "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" without denying the Dogma of John 3:5. As BoD could simply be interpreted as perfect contrition for those validly baptized, in mortal sin, as it has a similar efficacious nature as baptism since you go straight to heaven. And BoB can basically be seen in the same light, excepting that the validly baptized are giving up their lives for Christ.

I have never heard this. I candidly admit that such an interpretation sounds like a bunch of nonsense. No disrespect, DL, but that is my reaction.

augustineeens · « **Reply #67 on:** August 22, 2022, 10:56:34 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2022, 10:07:04 PM

"I can't believe that relative x is in hell because they weren't catholic. They were a good person."

There is an interesting quote of St. Robert Bellarmine on this.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis, Book 3, Chap. 4: “I say in the third place: the fact that among the kings of Israel no one was good is attributable to the striking providence of God. For God willed to permit it because that rebellion of the Israelites from the tribe of Judah signified the schisms of heretics from the Church, as Eucherius teaches at the end of Book 3 on the Book of Kings. For just as among Catholics there are good and bad people, but among heretics no one can be good, in like manner among the kings of Judah many were good, and many were evil. But from the kings of Israel absolutely no one good was found.”

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/st-robert-bellarmine-among-heretics-no-one-can-be-good/

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #68 on:** August 22, 2022, 11:19:07 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2022, 10:07:04 PM

Also add feelings and sentimentality. The biggest obstacle to the strict interpretation of EENS is human emotion. "I can't believe that relative x is in hell because they weren't catholic. They were a good person."

It really is. And then this emotion is applied to God and His judgments. Take the Catechumen example, some will look at a Catechumen dying right before Baptism and then presume that since he was almost there, surely God would bend the rules in His mercy. Yet, no thought is really given that perhaps the death of said Catechumen before Baptism was the mercy of God. Perhaps God, in His Providence, knew that this individual would merit a worse place in Hell for their sins after Baptism, so, better they die now rather than later.
God is always looking for the best outcome for every soul dependent upon their will and the circuмstances. And trying to apply emotion to the Divine judgment has led to nothing but error and, dare I say it, heresy in this case and many others in history.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #69 on:** August 22, 2022, 11:20:30 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis on August 22, 2022, 10:39:17 PM

I have never heard this. I candidly admit that such an interpretation sounds like a bunch of nonsense. No disrespect, DL, but that is my reaction.

That's fair, no disrespect taken.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video) (Read 41935 times)

gladius_veritatis

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

gladius_veritatis

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

augustineeens

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

DigitalLogos

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

DigitalLogos

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)