Author Topic: Justification (Read 15676 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #75 on:** August 05, 2017, 08:43:33 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 04, 2017, 05:29:22 PM

No one is debating the idea that one can be justified by desiring baptism! What we are debating is, does justification impart membership in the church? Does it impart the baptismal mark on the soul? Does it make one a child of God? No, it does not. Only baptism does this. Justification is NOT baptism. It simply puts one in the state of grace, which is 1 of the 4 main effects of baptism. You do not get the other 3 effects! For an adult, they would be similar to an infant who died before Baptism. The adult who dies before baptism, but is justified by desiring it, would go to Limbo. This is current Church teaching.

In my opinion, due to all the modernist attacks on this issue, the Church needs to clarify a lot in this area, but still, based on what She has said to date, this is church teaching.

This is great to read, Pax. This also happens to be my position as well. Although, I think that an adult who dies in a state of justification without Baptism could have SOME actual sins to expiate depending on how complete and thorough the remission of sin would have been through justification. But I don't believe that these souls would suffer much. And this is theoretical because I don't believe that God would allow such a souls to die before receiving the Sacrament (unless perhaps God foreknew that the person would not live up to that grace and ultimately merit eternal punishment). This also lines up with the quotes from Fathers who believed that souls could be "cleansed" of sin while lacking the seal (character) of Baptism.

BoDers do NOT take enough account of the CHARACTER of Baptism. For them it's reduced to little more than a badge of honor that some people in heaven have and others do not. No, it's MUCH more than that. It's this character that transforms souls into the likeness of Christ so that they can be recognized by the Father as His Son, and therefore enter into the interior (supernatural) life of the Holy Trinity, i.e. able to enjoy the beatific vision. It's the very likeness of God the Son imprinted in the soul ... just as happens more completely in the character bestowed upon men in Holy Orders. I've expounded this position many times before, but you're the first to echo this line of thinking.

But we need only look at the OT just. Even the likes of St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist could not receive the beatific vision (enter heaven) while SOMETHING ELSE was still missing. This ontological reality is what Father Feeney keyed on with regard to his justification/salvation distinction.

[PS -- No, Myrna, justification and salvation are NOT the same thing. That's clear in the teaching of Trent which defines that there's an additional grace of final perseverance that is required in order to transition from justification to salvation.]

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #76 on:** August 06, 2017, 04:11:16 AM »

I can clearly see how God always sends another person to patiently teach truth to these three person who keep these BOD debates going. Their errors just keep being repeated like a merry-go-round, a beginning point being "the Good Thief was saved without Baptism". No matter how many times they are told the answer to that quote, they always come back to it. From there, they learn NOTHING and the merry-go-round continuous and its way, circling around. If I left CI 4 years ago and came back today, everything would be the same with these people, they learn nothing, the only difference is that there is another person patiently teaching them the truth from a different angle.

If we didn't have obstinate deniers/twisters of EENS like these three, we would not have expounded the truth so thoroughly. That is why God allows heretics and enemies of the Church, so that Catholics really learn the faith.

I congratulate the latest expounder Pax Vobis on his patient exposition and of course all the others that have been at it all this time.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #77 on:** August 06, 2017, 10:09:29 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on August 06, 2017, 04:11:16 AM

I can clearly see how God always sends another person to patiently teach truth to these three person who keep these BOD debates going. Their errors just keep being repeated like a merry-go-round, a beginning point being "the Good Thief was saved without Baptism". No matter how many times they are told the answer to that quote, they always come back to it. From there, they learn NOTHING and the merry-go-round continuous and its way, circling around. If I left CI 4 years ago and came back today, everything would be the same with these people, they learn nothing, the only difference is that there is another person patiently teaching them the truth from a different angle.

If we didn't have obstinate deniers/twisters of EENS like these three, we would not have expounded the truth so thoroughly. That is why God allows heretics and enemies of the Church, so that Catholics really learn the faith.

I congratulate the latest expounder Pax Vobis on his patient exposition and of course all the others that have been at it all this time.

Why don't you post something, anything with substance/importance instead of just patting each other on the head as if they need you for security, or are you worried that those of your erroneous opinion might just be cooperating with
God's grace to do more research.
I challenge you to write here on the thread a definition of Justification and another definition on Sanctification, not just your opinion but what the Church teaches.
That might teach you something that you learned yourself, without just mindless parroting..

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #78 on:** August 06, 2017, 11:03:02 AM »

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. ( I Tim 2:12)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #79 on:** August 06, 2017, 12:22:45 PM »

Thank you all for the kind words. I've learned a lot about this topic from friends, from Fr Feeney and Fr Wathen's writings, and also from this site (which includes you). It's an interesting debate, although it is usually frustrating, so I usually steer clear of it. The lack of clarity in modern man's thinking is most greatly exposed on this topic. What should be the most simple truth of our Faith (EENS) - it has, with devilish cunning, become a most convoluted mess.

Myrna,
I like your passion for this topic and I can tell that you care about the Faith, but your most recent answer makes no sense and it purely based on your opinion. This is why:

Quote

On Resurrection Day when our body and soul will unite we will either be saved or damned. This character the mark placed upon our soul through the SACRAMENT and not the desire of Baptism which is not a Sacrament.

Ok. I agree. Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament and does not provide the mark of membership in the church on the soul. This agrees with the council of Trent.

Quote

Baptism of Desire or “flaminis” because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind. Baptism of desire is called baptism of the Holy Ghost.

You just said above that BOD was not a sacrament, and now you're calling it 'baptism of the Holy Ghost'. Where did you get this term? Please show me a pope, council or papal statement that explains this.

Quote

Since the Holy Ghost is God and can do all things it is possible that those baptized through His power are certainly members of the Church. Or do you deny that God can do all things?

It's POSSIBLE? That's what your basing your argument on - possibility? Do you also agree that it might NOT be possible? Again, please show me where the Church has officially taught this.

Quote

Perhaps they become member much of the same way that those just men in the Old Testament became members. Or would you rather believe that God did it for them, but now He is limited?

Perhaps?! Perhaps God will allow those in the new testament to reach heaven in the same way as the old testament? WHAT?! So God sent his Son to die a horrible death on the cross, to redeem mankind and to start a Church (which is all part of the new testament) but you're saying that some people can still get saved by the rules of the old law? Again, please show me where this is Church teaching. It sounds like this is from your own imagination.

Quote

Has it ever occurred to you that Father Feeney is wrong on this denial? Or would you rather believe that the whole church has been wrong all along till Father Feeney came along and corrected the Church? Remember too: Outside the Church, there is No Salvation.

Fr Feeney could be wrong, in certain details, yes. I do not label those who disagree with Fr Feeney as 'heretics', unlike you, who have called me a heretic multiple times. It's not my place to condemn anyone of heresy, only to ask questions, which you have not been able to answer satisfactorily.

However, when you say 'the whole church' agrees on the matter of BOD, show me a papal docuмent or council which says so, outside of Trent (because Trent deals with justification, not BOD). There is no agreement on this issue, which is why we are debating it now. The only agreement is that the Church/Bible teaches that baptism by water is necessary for salvation. But this doctrine has been under attack, slowly and cunningly, since the 1800s. We forget that the period of the 1800s was filled with turmoil and social change all over the world, being that the French revolution spread her errors globally, the pope was imprisoned in the Vatican and that V1 was almost hijacked by the liberals, just as V2 was. The 1800s were NOT a period of peace in the Church, yet many want to point to this time in history as evidence to support current liberal ideals, when in fact, this is when V2's errors were born.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #80 on:** August 06, 2017, 02:51:01 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 04, 2017, 05:29:22 PM

No one is debating the idea that one can be justified by desiring baptism! What we are debating is, does justification impart membership in the church? Does it impart the baptismal mark on the soul? Does it make one a child of God? No, it does not. Only baptism does this. Justification is NOT baptism. It simply puts one in the state of grace, which is 1 of the 4 main effects of baptism. You do not get the other 3 effects! For an adult, they would be similar to an infant who died before Baptism. The adult who dies before baptism, but is justified by desiring it, would go to Limbo. This is current Church teaching.

In my opinion, due to all the modernist attacks on this issue, the Church needs to clarify a lot in this area, but still, based on what She has said to date, this is church teaching.

BODers ask the question what happens to a person who is justified before baptism, and dies without baptism? The answer they all end at in my experience is: Jews, Hindus, Mohamedans, Buddhists.... etc can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards. What that has to do with the justification quote from Trent or a catechumen wanting to be a Catholic, I have not a clue. Reminds me of the joke about the scientist from country X (fill in your favorite according to your culture) who is carrying on an experiment with a frog:

He trains a frog to jump on command, and then yells at it to jump and it jumps 6 feet, and he records the number.
Then he cuts off one of the front legs and then yells at it to jump and it jumps 4 feet, and he records the number.
Then he cuts off the other front leg and then yells at it to jump and it jumps 3 feet, and he records the number.
Then he cuts off the left rear leg and then yells at it to jump and it jumps 1 foot, and he records the number.
Then he cuts off the right rear leg and then yells at it to jump and it won't jump, so he keeps yelling till he is exhausted. He then writes in his notes his conclusion, that frogs hearing is in the right rear leg.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #81 on:** August 06, 2017, 04:20:40 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on August 06, 2017, 11:03:02 AM

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. ( I Tim 2:12)

This explains why you have so many problems adhering to Holy Mother Church. I get it now!

MyrnaM · « **Reply #82 on:** August 06, 2017, 04:47:23 PM »

Pax, I will do my best to answer your questions, it is not always easy to find a source that those who deny BOD will accept; Try this one for starters; Moral Theology, 1949:
· "Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire of Baptism by water";
· "Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by water";
· "Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire... both cause sanctifying grace. ...Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial and temporal punishment..."

I was taught and you can find in old books or even the Internet the terms below:
Baptism of water is known as Baptism of fluminis
Baptism of the Holy Ghost as the Church teaches it is known as Baptism Flaminis
You would do better if you yourself looked up the wording “Baptism Flaminis” for an explanation of how the Holy Ghost is involved since you might not approve these sources, and there are several explanations on the Internet.
Baptism of blood is known as Baptism of sanguinis

Just to step back a little, sometimes we have to look at other teachings before we can understand another. I was taught about the Trinity, Three Persons in One, where God the Father is the Creator, God the Son the Redeemer and God the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier.   He is also known as the Soul of the Church because He, the Holy Ghost makes us holy. This I learned in grammar school, and it is docuмented in many Catholic books, stamped with Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur.

LastTRAD HERE WHO hates a woman who he thinks is teaching him, but I am not teaching anyone, the Church is the teacher, not me.
I also do not remember calling you a heretic, but I sometimes when speaking to those who deny BOD mention EENS to them because they enjoy the mistake of trying to convince others that we (those who do believe BOD/BOB) disbelieve EENS.
In my fallen nature, I will remind them that we must accept all the teachings of the Church and BOD/BOB is one of them because it is written that to refuse even one de fide teachings puts one outside the Church.   If by that you interprete my calling you a heretic, I apologize.

Once you realize that BOD is Baptism of the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier you will come to know that He the Holy Ghost Justifies and makes Holy, sanctifies the person who was gifted with the saving grace of Sanctifying grace due to BOD or BOB.

I don’t know if any theologian has explained how and why certain souls are counted as members because of the mark on their soul while others are also members because of the working of the Holy Ghost but do not have the mark. Could it be that they will have a lower place in Heaven, but still Heaven is theirs? Do we really have to know each and every detail of how God will work things out?

LastTrad says we, my ilk are on a merry go round but so are those who follow Father Feeney.
They like to say, we do not believe in EENS.
They say we deny the Sacrament of Baptism.
They say the Church has always been filled with Modernism, therefore Nihil Obstat/Imprimatur do not apply, which is why it is difficult to give you a source. Since so many have been given but they are explained away by Modernism by those who follow Father Feeney.

They will say, BOD was not necessary because God would not have allowed the just man to die before the Sacrament.
God allows things in motion. I would like to ask, where does the Church teach that?

There are also sins that call out to Heaven for vengeance because they upset the plan of God. Yes, He allows it, why? I do not know why.

It does make you wonder however, if they are correct in that God could have prevented death, why doesn’t He always step in.

If it is the Will of God that all men are saved, why did He allow so many then to be born that are lost?

You have to admit there are a lot of unanswered questions, things that God has not revealed to even the greatest Saints.

There can be no doubt that the Church teaches BOD/BOB, we can not deny that teachings, too many martyrs have shed their blood without Baptism and the Church recognizes them.

I read also that the Church prior to Vatican II will even bury the catechumen who died before water baptism in consecrated grounds in a Catholic cemetery. Interesting that unbaptized babies can not be buried in consecrated grounds. The only reason I can think of is the Church recognized that the adult catechumen was justified, being prepared to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, (see the original post here) but the infant never had an opportunity to exercise his/her freewill.

Stubborn · « **Reply #83 on:** August 07, 2017, 05:33:07 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on August 06, 2017, 04:11:16 AM

I can clearly see how God always sends another person to patiently teach truth to these three person who keep these BOD debates going. Their errors just keep being repeated like a merry-go-round, a beginning point being "the Good Thief was saved without Baptism". No matter how many times they are told the answer to that quote, they always come back to it. From there, they learn NOTHING and the merry-go-round continuous and its way, circling around. If I left CI 4 years ago and came back today, everything would be the same with these people, they learn nothing, the only difference is that there is another person patiently teaching them the truth from a different angle.

If we didn't have obstinate deniers/twisters of EENS like these three, we would not have expounded the truth so thoroughly. That is why God allows heretics and enemies of the Church, so that Catholics really learn the faith.

I congratulate the latest expounder Pax Vobis on his patient exposition and of course all the others that have been at it all this time.

Well said, every word of this post!

As for their errors repeating themselves no matter how many times they are corrected, it must be their pride that blinds them so badly. If it is not their pride, then what do you think it could be that blinds them to the obvious truth of the matter? I must be some combination of errors.

It's funny you mention if you left 4 years ago and came back.....it was about 4 years ago I tried to let them convict themselves of this blindness by challenging any of them to start a thread, championing the necessity of the sacrament for salvation. Since that time I made the same request dozens of times - but they ignore the challenge completely, they simply are unable to defend the necessity of the sacrament, for them, that whole idea is heretical.

That being the case, there was one BODer, he said he took me up on the challenge, but even then all he could get himself to do was do was to start a thread about, you guessed it, defending a BOD.

From the above link, here is the challenge I presented to BODers some +3 years ago which remains unanswered, thereby proving the truth of what I said below.

"I am of the opinion that you and the other BODers will remain obstinately attached to your error for as long as you continue with your lex orandi, which is to mock and despise the necessity of the sacraments and the Church for the hope of salvation. As long as you keep repeating the same error, the error will remain the way you believe, the error is your lex credendi.

NOTE:
If you do not believe me, if you think I'm wrong, if you want to get it off your chest and really prove and expose to everyone exactly how ignorant of a person I really am, then please prove me completely wrong by starting and participating in a thread in which you do the strictly Catholic thing and actually defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.

I maintain that you, SJB or Ambrose or any BODer who clings to the belief that salvation without the sacrament is possible, will be both unwilling and unable to get themselves to even think of doing such a thing much less actually do it - it is not just *not* a part of a BODers lex credendi, doing such a thing is actually opposed to a BODers lex credendi.

This is the easiest way I can think of for you and other BODers to discover for yourselves and on your own that you cannot do the Catholic and outwardly defend, that which you inwardly deeply despise.

I've asked this of BODers 5 or 6 times now and so far, not even one of them has even acknowledged the challenge, but new threads trivializing the necessity of the sacraments are started by a BODers regularly.

It is just not a part of a BODer's lex credendi to do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation."

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #84 on:** August 07, 2017, 07:33:54 AM »

The reason this is a merry-go-round always repeating the same complaints, for that is all they are doing, complaining about the "inequity" of God's clear dogmas on EENS, is because the three BODers who keep this going have no common sense. They are not mentally stable. No mentally stable person can have the face to defend what they expound here page after page. All they are saying is we will not accept these dogmas, then they seek teachers according to their own desire, creating a Frankenstein from all manner of disjointed quotes. This is the Frankenstein:

Quote

"BODers ask (they use) the question, what happens to a person who is justified before baptism, and dies without baptism? The answer they all end at in my experience is: Jews, Hindus, Mohamedans, Buddhists.... etc can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards. What that has to do BOB or the justification quote from Trent or a catechumen wanting to be a Catholic or St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, I have not a clue.

It is obvious now that God is using them to force us to learn to defend against all manner of errors concerning EENS and salvation.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #85 on:** August 07, 2017, 07:49:16 AM »

Quote

BODers ask (they use) the question, what happens to a person who is justified before baptism, and dies without baptism? The answer they all end at in my experience is: Jews, Hindus, Mohamedans, Buddhists.... etc can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards. What that has to do BOB or the justification quote from Trent or a catechumen wanting to be a Catholic or St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, I have not a clue.

That reminds me of the story of Rev. Dr. Father Gommar A. De Pauw, the leader of the American Catholic Traditionalist Movement when speaking to his bishop in response to some nouvelle teachings ordered by the bishop:

"You'll pardon me your Eminence, but you've either lost the Faith, or you've lost your marbles!"

Stubborn · « **Reply #86 on:** August 07, 2017, 07:55:32 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on August 07, 2017, 07:33:54 AM

The reason this is a merry-go-round always repeating the same complaints, for that is all they are doing, complaining about the "inequity" of God's clear dogmas on EENS, is because the three BODers who keep this going have no common sense. They are not mentally stable. No mentally stable person can have the face to defend what they expound here page after page. All they are saying is we will not accept these dogmas, then they seek teachers according to their own desire, creating a Frankenstein from all manner of disjointed quotes. This is the Frankenstein:

It is obvious now that God is using them to force us to learn to defend against all manner of errors concerning EENS and salvation.

I'd like to conclude the reason is that they have no common sense, but I don't think that's actually the case or perhaps saying they have no common sense is to broad of a reason.

Fr. Wathen concluded, and I believe rightly so, that adherents to sedevacantism "are people who cannot think
straight because they are anemic spirits." He then went into more detail. He availed this condition to be one of the reasons why we cannot communicate with them in regards to their pope problem. I don't know if this same anemia applies to BODers.

In my opinion, BODers have in a different state of mind. In The Great Sacrilege, Fr. describes the malady that the NOers have when he says: "They read meanings into words which the words they hear do not say, while they fail to advert to what the words do say" - but I don't know that this is due to the lack of common sense, could it more properly be said that it is due to a lack of, or a complete deprivation of sensus catholicus?

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #87 on:** August 07, 2017, 08:45:22 AM »

Expounders of error do serve a purpose in God's plan. Without them here on this ghetto forum of "Feeneyism", there would be no discussion or research into the subject of EENS, and the novel teaching of Vatican II that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists ect. can be saved by their belief in a creator God. the PILAR of the Vatican II religion.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #88 on:** August 07, 2017, 09:30:32 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on August 07, 2017, 08:45:22 AM

Expounders of error do serve a purpose in God's plan. Without them here on this ghetto forum of "Feeneyism", there would be no discussion or research into the subject of EENS, and the novel teaching of Vatican II that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists ect. can be saved by their belief in a creator God. the PILAR of the Vatican II religion.

Indeed, most of them here on CI do such a poor job of promoting BoD that they end up making the "Feeneyite" position appear very reasonable and much more attractive than it might otherwise.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #89 on:** August 07, 2017, 09:37:08 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on August 07, 2017, 08:45:22 AM

the novel teaching of Vatican II that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists ect. can be saved by their belief in a creator God. the PILAR of the Vatican II religion.

This is what is most perplexing. EVERY SINGLE ERROR in Vatican II leads directly back to the false ecclesiology and subjectivist soteriology that these so-called Trads themselves promote. And the most vocal about these "heresies" in Vatican II, the sedevacantists, are also the most vocal and obstinate in promoting the false ideas that are the very foundation of these same heresies. It's absolutely mind-boggling.

If you were to ask these sedevacantists what the chief heresies in Vatican II are, MOST of them will invariably start with "heretical subsistence ecclesiology". Bishop Sanborn did so in a public debate, for instance. But what IS subsistence ecclesiology? It's nothing more than the idea that there are different degrees of belonging to the Church. In other words, it's the EXACT SAME NOTION that LoT shamelessly promotes, namely, that not only actual members of the Church are within the Church but that non-members can be within the Church. And among these non-members, not only can you have schismatics and heretics ... but even infidels. In this notion of the Church, the Church has actual members as its subsistent core, while others can belong in varying degrees. Baptized Protestant heretics are closer to this core than are unbaptized Protestants, who in turn are closer to this core than various Jews or Muslims, etc.

Author Topic: Justification (Read 15676 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Justification

Last Tradhican

Re: Justification

MyrnaM

Re: Justification

Last Tradhican

Re: Justification

Pax Vobis

Re: Justification

Last Tradhican

Re: Justification

MyrnaM

Re: Justification

MyrnaM

Re: Justification

Stubborn

Re: Justification

Last Tradhican

Re: Justification

Last Tradhican

Re: Justification

Stubborn

Re: Justification

Last Tradhican

Re: Justification

Ladislaus

Re: Justification

Ladislaus

Re: Justification