Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video) (Read 42142 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #265 on:** October 07, 2022, 11:15:42 PM »

Quote from: praesul on October 07, 2022, 07:22:12 PM

I agree that Catholics do not get to pick and choose "what we are to believe." There are things that all Catholics must believe. There are things that some Catholics may believe but are not required to believe.

Now, can you please respond to my request for you to share with us the authority that binds a Catholic under pain of excommunication to hold and profess an idea that is *at best* a theological theory that is neither part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium or Dogmatic ?

epiphany is full of it to the point that his eyes are brown when he talks about not getting to "pick and choose what we are to believe". He's clearly "picked and chosen" what he wants to believe, but then to justify it, he claims that things are taught by the Church. This is how he fictitiously absolves himself from picking and choosing, by turning it into a tautology, and slandering the Church for teaching what he wants to believe, such as that unbaptized infants can go to Heaven.

People have cited one dogmatic definition after another, such as from the Council of Florence, which teaches that unbaptized infants have "no other hope of salvation" other than the SACRAMENT of Baptism. But he "picks and chooses" to ignore this, and by ignoring it can continue to pretend that he is following Catholic teaching. In fact, he is his own rule of faith but then attempts to impose his own beliefs on the Church. It's not enough for him to pertinaciously adhere to heresy, but he tries to slander the Church as teaching it.

Stubborn · « **Reply #266 on:** October 08, 2022, 04:52:22 AM »

Quote from: epiphany on October 07, 2022, 06:05:22 PM

There sould be no question to one and all that baptism of blood is also a legit form of baptism.

Those who do not believe in three forms of baptism are, like Fr. Feeney, not Catholic.

This is something that has always intrigued me, I mean, nobody, but nobody EVER hears this type of thing coming out of the mouths of non-baptized people. As a point of fact even epiphany would never say such an absurd thing if he was one of the billions of people who've never been baptized. And if he was a catechumen in imminent danger of death, who here thinks he'd still spout such nonsense?

You never hear an infidel or catechumen insisting that he can make it to heaven without the sacrament or by desiring the sacrament, and for the catechumen quite the opposite is actually true. For the catechumens who find the true faith, the most important and very first thing they seek is to be baptized immediately even before they begin to learn their faith - and they remain in a state of anxiousness to be baptized until the day finally arrives when they finally receive the sacrament and enter the Church. In fact, for fear of dying before they get baptized, catechumens would gladly make a deal to receive the sacrament first, then receive catechetical instruction after.

It's as if the whole mentality regarding a BOD is somehow tied to how BLM is championed mainly by white Libs. It's as if the same diabolical tactic is used repeatedly throughout history with only minor adjustments made based on the particular subject matter.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #267 on:** October 08, 2022, 05:55:13 AM »

Quote from: praesul on October 07, 2022, 12:56:30 AM

"Trent", as you call it, is not "ambiguous", but some people do not understand the inclusive use of the word or in the passage that is used by many who hold to the error of BoD.

Here are the words of our Savior:

John 3:5 – Amen, amen I say unto thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God

Some "people"? You mean like St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonus, the theologians of the Roman Catechism, or Catechism of Trent? Even Father Feeney read the "or" of Trent as disjunctive, since he recognized one could be justified by a desire for the sacrament, just like the Council of Trent said.

This would be hysterical were it not so sad, such a lugubrious irony. It is so outlandish and odd that a word like "lugubrious" fits precisely.

If we were Protestants, I'd say, "ok, bro, you have your argument from Scripture fixated on your reading of that verse - though JWs and all other heretics latch onto verses and do the same thing - but we disagree." But this is a Traditional Catholic forum, where Prot private interpretation is condemned.

Trad Catholics interpret Scripture as the Church and her authorized teachers, bishops, popes, etc. in catechisms and their ordinary teaching teach them to interpret it. So you do realize that Trent in the passage you - alone with other Feeneyites - with your interpretation controvert says this:

Quote

Session VI, CHAPTER IV.

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Every Catholic theologian, bishop, etc. who has commented on that "or" - even Father Feeney by necessary implication, since he acknowledged a BOD could justify - has held that "or' to be disjunctive: Every. Single. One.

Which means, unless you separate yourself from the faith of every single Catholic saint, theologian, bishop, etc. since Trent, that the Church above has interpreted John 3:5 to mean a man could be justified by, in the highlight in red from the following quote from Orestes Brownson (who commonsensically and and correctly acknowledged that to die in a state of justification meant one would be saved): "most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione."

How "Protestant" of you to read John 3:5 the way you and your cohorts do, though you won't see that elephant crossing your path.

Stubborn · « **Reply #268 on:** October 08, 2022, 06:19:11 AM »

Here's a question asked a few years ago by ihsv, a poster I liked a lot. I cannot remember if it was ever answered but I don't think so.

"Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?

Yes or no."

Stubborn · « **Reply #269 on:** October 08, 2022, 06:29:58 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on October 08, 2022, 05:55:13 AM

Some "people"? You mean like St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonus, the theologians of the Roman Catechism, or Catechism of Trent? Even Father Feeney read the "or" of Trent as disjunctive, since he recognized one could be justified by a desire for the sacrament, just like the Council of Trent said.

But Trent never said that "one could be justified by a desire for the sacrament" of baptism, what Trent taught is that without a desire for the sacrament, justification cannot be attained. We can say your statement is perhaps only a half truth, to attempt to make it accurate you would have to say "one could or could not be justified by a desire for the sacrament."

Note too, in virtue of the opening sentence of that canon, Trent was referring to those already baptized.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video) (Read 42142 times)

Ladislaus

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

Stubborn

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

DecemRationis

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

Stubborn

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

Stubborn

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