Another example is Ladislaus getting angry when I post something more than once with more than 24 hours in between whereas just now he posted the exact same thing 4 times within a couple of minutes.
Ladislaus does not cease calling the repeated teaching of the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes into question and calumniates the revered Father Fenton who did everything who could to prevent Vatican 2 from preaching error.
When I conclusively proved him wrong he reverted to accusing me of hating Aquinas taking a quote out of context in order to make me look bad.
The Sacrament of Baptism, which was instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ, imprints a "character" on the soul, admitting the recipient to membership in the Catholic Church. The matter of Baptism is natural water poured over the head of the person to be baptized. Throughout the history of the Catholic Church it has been unanimously taught that both Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, while not Sacraments in themselves, can supply the grace of the Sacrament, when Baptism of Water becomes a physical or moral impossibility.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a Jesuit priest named Father Leonard Feeney was known to publicly oppose the doctrine on the threefold Baptism, where he accepted only water Baptism. His doctrinal position came to be known as Feeneyism, and those supporting his position came to be known as Feeneyites. Since Father Feeney passed away in 1978, Feeneyism has become an epidemic among Catholics today. The main reason this epidemic exists is because Catholics do not understand the concept of the Magisterium of the Church. This website was created to set the record straight, showing that Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood, and Baptism of Water (the three-fold Baptism) is a Catholic doctrine taught since the earliest days of the Catholic Church.
Show the link where you quote me hating Aquinas so we can see the context you underhanded liar.
Look it up yourself. It's your "BAM" post where you attack Stubborn for his belief that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation by citing St. Paul in Scripture saying that belief in a Rewarder God is necessary for faith. You made the sarcastic comment that "I guess St. Paul forgot to mention" the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. You therefore concluded that this Scripture was teaching Rewarder God theory and slamming Stubborn for not understanding this Scripture. Except that you forgot that you were thereby attacking St. Thomas as being an idiot who doesn't know Scripture also ... since he, knowing this Scripture, still held the 4-part explicit faith requirement.Provide the link or retract your calumny. Was it your intention to give people the impression that I had Aquinas?
This website was created to set the record straight, showing that Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood, and Baptism of Water (the three-fold Baptism) is a Catholic doctrine taught since the earliest days of the Catholic Church..
· Council of Nicaea I (325): condemned the heresy of Arius, and defined the Divinity of the Son of God and the Nicene Creed.Here we can clearly see that in the first 7 centuries of the Church, the Solemn Magisterium was not used often, and very little was solemnly defined. So at least 7 generations of Catholics lived and died during this time with very little solemn teaching by the Church. This is because the majority of what Catholics believe comes from the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (see next).
· Council of Constantinople I (381): condemned the heresy of Macedonius, and defined the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, confirmed and extended the Nicene Creed.
· Council of Ephesus (431): condemned the heresy of Nestorius, and defined that there was one person in Christ, and defended the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
· Council of Chalcedon (451): condemned the heresy of Eutyches (Monophysitism); declared Christ had two natures, human and divine.
· Council of Constantinople II (553): condemned, as savoring of Nestorianism, the so-called Three Chapters, the erroneous books of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the teaching of Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa.
· Council of Constantinople III (680-681): declared against the Monothelites, who taught one will in Christ, by defining that Christ had two wills, human and divine.
Provide the link or retract your calumny. Was it your intention to give people the impression that I had Aquinas?
You look it up. It was treated extensively on the thread where you made it. There's no calumny here, just fact. You on the other hand constantly calumniate us and never retract any of it.You are an incredible liar. You purposely try to deceive. You took it out of context and you know it.
I assume you mean "hate" Aquinas. No, that's how YOU think. I never said that you "hate" Aquinas. You're the one who keeps saying that we "hate" Trent and "hate" the Magisterium. I said that you berated St. Thomas Aquinas (on this point), not that you had a generic contempt for St. Thomas. YOU are the one who keeps saying that about us when we happen to disagree with him on one or another point.
You are an incredible liar. You purposely try to deceive. You took it out of context and you know it.
Hebrews 11: 6 - But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must [1]]believe that he is, and [2] is a rewarder to them that seek him.
BAM!!!
Did Saint Paul forget to mention the Incarnation and Holy Trinity? Why did he not consult Stubborn first!
It is more probable that explicit faith is necessary for all four as I have maintained and as I have stated publicly several times.
I hereby clarify my statement from earlier and amend it to the following:You are the idiots who keep using John 3:5 as if it undermines BOD when Aquinas was quite aware of the verse. My point is why didn't he get it? It is sarcasm to make a point which of course goes ungrasped.
Lover of Truth most likely is just too stupid to recognize the logical implications of his attack against Stubborn. In attacking Stubborn he was also attacking St. Thomas Aquinas (by implication). He didn't explicitly intend to do this, but nevertheless did so (in complete ignorance).
Here I clarify with benefit of the doubt regarding your intentions.
At what point does a public accusation of "detraction!" itself constitute detraction?
Bovine excrement, you idiot. You're too stupid to understand that in ripping on Stubborn you were also ripping on St. Thomas Aquinas. I told you that this was the implication of your quote, that you could substitute the word "St. Thomas Aquinas" where you put Stubborn because St. Thomas taught the Holy Trinity and Incarnation requirement as well:I do not say anything suffices I simply show what was written and that the other two that were not mentioned as they were not in the Bible verse, Aquinas, Suprema Haec which clarified the issue as much as it could be clarified, and in Fenton who would know whether it was settled or not. I also proved it was not settled by Alphonsus but you lack the intellectual honesty to grant the point. But instead resort to underhanded tactics.
from Lover of Heresy:
You're saying that Rewarder God suffices based on this quote and that to believe that the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are also required means that St. Paul "forgot to mention" them.
You were attacking those who hold 4-criterion explicit faith requirement as implying that St. Paul forgot to mention the other two criteria. Among those who hold 4-criterion explicit faith are St. Thomas. So in attacking Stubborn you were attacking St. Thomas.
What you fail to comprehend (unlike St. Thomas) is that St. Paul lists these two criteria as NECESSARY for salvation but not necessarily SUFFICIENT for salvation ... which is why St. Thomas didn't teach Rewarder God theory but rather the 4-criterion explicit faith requirement. But St. Thomas, unlike you, must have thought that St. Paul "forgot to mention" them also.
I can give you the benefit of the doubt in that it's quite possible that you were just too stupid to understand the logical implications of your attack against Stubborn.
You are the idiots who keep using John 3:5 as if it undermines BOD when Aquinas was quite aware of the verse.
That's a good question. He starts a thread calumniating me as a calumniator ... with the title standing out there for all to see.I state the facts and you imply I think Aquinas is an idiot.
So, for instance, one of his accusations of "calumny" is that I calumniated Msgr. Fenton. How does pasting a quote FROM HIS OWN DIARIES, a direct quote, without any comment on my part, constitute CALUMNY? Fenton stated in his diaries that Vatican II ecclesiology does not change Traditional ecclesiology but even improves upon it. FACT. How is this calumny? In fact, LoT commits calumny by declaring me guilty of calumny for this.
Because John 3:5 can be reconciled with BoD ... as I have mentioned, provided that one has a Catholic understanding of BoD. I've explained this 100 times already, that I have no problem with a Catholic articulation of BoD, such as St. Thomas made. So this is calumny against me ... again.You act as if I disagree with Church teaching which I do not. You act as if Fenton did the same which he did not. You are an underhanded liar.
In attacking Stubborn I preserve the integrity of Aquinas who clearly teaches BOD and had a far better grasp of scripture than he does or anyone who posts here by far.
I did absolutely nothing but quote Fenton's own words, and this lowlife calumniates me for "calumniating" Fenton. He's repeatedly calumniated us as "hating" Trent and the Magisterium.You try to make it seem like he is a liberal you professional idiot when true Catholics take him for what he was. A highly respected Catholic theologian who taught other theologians theology.
You act as if I disagree with Church teaching which I do not.
You absolutely do. You promote Pelagianism at every turn. Last time I checked, the Church did not teach Pelagianism.Give us a quote you underhanded lying dingbat.
I've told you 100 times that I have no problem with a Catholic believing in BoD. But you need to articulate BoD in a CATHOLIC and not a heretical way. You have chosen the latter path. In charity, I've even given you the SOLUTION, about how you can maintain BoD WITHOUT at the same time promoting various heretical propositions. But you REFUSE to go that route ... because you LIKE the heretical propositions you promote, the feel-good Pelagianism that "sincerity saves" and that "nice, sincere" people are rewarded supernaturally with the beatific vision as if they have a right to it by nature and only active mortal sin can take away that right. Every bit of this is almost verbatim the doctrine of Pelagius. You are a lover of Pelagius. You would have been one of his most zealous followers and the most bitter enemy of St. Augustine if you were alive during their time. I've ready every one of St. Augustine's works in the original Latin and I know what Pelagianism is.
You try to make it seem like he is a liberal you professional idiot when true Catholics take him for what he was. A highly respected Catholic theologian who taught other theologians theology.
You absolutely do. You promote Pelagianism at every turn. Last time I checked, the Church did not teach Pelagianism.A thousand times I have said that sincerity neither saves nor damns. But I did not get this from my head as you get your theology.
I've told you 100 times that I have no problem with a Catholic believing in BoD. But you need to articulate BoD in a CATHOLIC and not a heretical way. You have chosen the latter path. In charity, I've even given you the SOLUTION, about how you can maintain BoD WITHOUT at the same time promoting various heretical propositions. But you REFUSE to go that route ... because you LIKE the heretical propositions you promote, the feel-good Pelagianism that "sincerity saves" and that "nice, sincere" people are rewarded supernaturally with the beatific vision as if they have a right to it by nature and only active mortal sin can take away that right. Every bit of this is almost verbatim the doctrine of Pelagius. You are a lover of Pelagius. You would have been one of his most zealous followers and the most bitter enemy of St. Augustine if you were alive during their time. I've ready every one of St. Augustine's works in the original Latin and I know what Pelagianism is.
Is it because I say that as far as I know the Church hasn't settled whether all four beliefs are intrinsically necessary in all instances for all individuals?
A thousand times I have said that sincerity neither saves nor damns. But I did not get this from my head as you get your theology.
Yes, he was "highly respected" in the era that BROUGHT US VATICAN II. His ecclesiology was IDENTICAL to that of Vatican II. He ATTESTS TO THIS HIMSELF when he states that V2 ecclesiology did not change pre-V2 ecclesiology but improved upon it. I'm pointing out the contradiction of you citing him as an authority on ecclesiology when YOU consider the ecclesiology of Vatican II to be heretical and Fenton endorsed that ecclesiology.Detraction plain and simple. I guess John Daly is a V2 liber as well. Right Ladislaus. He respects Fenton and his theology on BOD and quotes him at length on the issue.
That's why you got so ticked off. I pointed out your hypocrisy.
You have stated that the subjective dispositions save (intending to do God's will, etc.) ex opere operantis, without a need for the ex opere operato grace of the Sacraments. That's Pelagianism. I used the term "sincerity" as shorthand for the subjective dispositions you claim are salvific. I've TOLD you how to get out of this, but you're too damn arrogant to adjust your heretical rhetoric.Give me a quote or shut up calumniating detractor. You lie. I say that those who are ignorant through no fault of their own will not be damned for that reason. I opened up completely on the issue. The intellectually honest know what I believe. I don't trust myself to teach from my own head as you do.
That by itself is not Pelagianism. That doctrine HAS been settled definitively by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, and even more solemnly by the Athanasian Creed. Whether you want to see that or not is personal preference ... because you don't LIKE that particular teaching. That's the same reason it was thrown out there by a few heterodox Jesuit innovators in the first place.Then Alponsus was mistaken. He showed the opinion of his day on the issue was not settled. Who would care what theologians taught if the issue was already settled. Yet Alphonsus gave their varying opinions. He said one opinion was probable and the other probable enough. Aquinas was careless when he only mentioned 2 when addressing BOD specifically. Saint Paul of course only mentioned two. And Suprema Haec which clarified it as much as it could be clarified at the time mentioned only two without saying anything either way about the other two or even mentioning them.
Detraction plain and simple. I guess John Daly is a V2 liber as well. Right Ladislaus. He respects Fenton and his theology on BOD and quotes him at length on the issue.
Then Alponsus was mistaken.
Correct.
Correct.I rest my Case. Ladislaus says Alphonsus was mistaken on whether all four beliefs are intrinsically necessary under all circuмstances and each individual. And all he did was present what had been taught on the issue. He must be a Pelagian as well.
We must keep in mind, however, that docuмents and other information back then were not as readily available as they are to us now,
Detraction plain and simple. I guess John Daly is a V2 liber as well. Right Ladislaus. He respects Fenton and his theology on BOD and quotes him at length on the issue.What is incorrect above? Lover of your own intellect.
He fought tooth and nail to keep the V2 ecclesiology out of it. He and the minority who fought this fight clearly lost. And you act like he is a V2 liber. You are incredibly dishonest because Fenton refutes your modern "theology" invented by Feeney in the 40's.
Fenton, whose diaries I read myself in Washington DC. Never thought the stuff would go through a V2 because he was convinced that a valid Pope could not approve it. When it got approved he figured the problem was with him and not the "Pope".
That is humility. Something you are not familiar with.
Ladislaus says Alphonsus was mistaken on whether all four beliefs are intrinsically necessary under all circuмstances and each individual.
:laugh1: :laugh2: :laugh1: :laugh2:Internet dingbat. Internet. Again pretending the point isn't valid when it certainly is. He figured if it was approved by a valid Pope it could not contradict doctrine.
Yeah, that's right, I almost forgot; Fenton lived in an age when Church docuмents were etched on stone tablets and one had to trek across the globe on the backs of camels to get access to copies of them.
I rest my Case. Ladislaus says Alphonsus was mistaken on whether all four beliefs are intrinsically necessary under all circuмstances and each individual. And all he did was present what had been taught on the issue. He must be a Pelagian as well.
:facepalm:
Another calumny rooted in sheer stupidity. St. Alphonsus believed that all four were necessary under all circuмstances. He was not mistaken on that. He was mistaken about lending any semblance of probability to the contrary opinion. He was wrong not about the substance of the teaching but about the theological note he assigned to the contrary opinion.
:facepalm:
Calumnious idiot. I JUST told you that the 2- vs. 4- belief debate is not related to Pelagianism.AGAIN. Show me my pelgainism. Where is the quote?
Man are you stupid.
I really DO waste my time ... arguing with an idiot.
:facepalm:
I do as he. He presents all the teachings and says the one that is less probable is "probable enough".
You admit he was, according to you "mistaken".
AGAIN. Show me my pelgainism. Where is the quote?
You try to make it seem like he is a liberal you professional idiot when true Catholics take him for what he was. A highly respected Catholic theologian who taught other theologians theology.Gotta give credit where credit is due - LoL is correct here - Fr. Fenton certainly spread his errors far and wide.
What a complete and utter moron! He was NOT mistaken on the substance of the issue because HE HIMSELF BELIEVED IN THE FOUR ARTICLES. He was mistaken in his assignment of theological note to the contrary opinion ... which he did NOT hold.He taught either is plausible. I do not more. You are the uncharitable wretch that hates truth. That is why you reverted to making it look like I thought Aquinas was an idiot. You were defeated on the issue and switched to another topic as you do sense you can neither grant a point or admit you are wrong.
You are a complete and utter idiot, Lover of Truth. I have to explain EVERY FREAKING THING to you fifteen times because you are too dull witted to get it the first fourteen.
That is why you reverted to making it look like I thought Aquinas was an idiot.
You know, this baboon considers us guilty of "Calumny" and I see the thread currently right below this one started by him:This morning I looked - he had the last posts in 42 different threads in the BOD forum, most were ones he started.
"WHY FEENEYITES HATE CATHOLIC TEACHING".
Lover of Heresy calumniates us by claiming that we "HATE" Catholic teaching ... when in point of fact we merely happen to disagree on the interpretation of what that teaching is with regard to a very specific theological subject. So from this Lover of Hypocrisy extrapolates the calumny that we "HATE" Catholic teaching.
When I criticized him for his IMPLICIT attack against St. Thomas Aquinas, he asked whether I was claiming that he thereby "hates" St. Thomas. I pointed out that I said no such thing and do not believe that he "hates" St. Thomas.
Yet he declares us guilty of "hatred" for Catholic teaching.
Think twice about what you're doing, Lover of Hypocrisy.
This morning I looked - he had the last posts in 42 different threads in the BOD forum, most were ones he started.
There is no conversing with him, there is only a semblance of the modernist "dialoging" with him. He has infected himself with liberalism and he has it bad.
Pardon me. But I humbly interject here to ask, when is "Lover of Truth" going to address the issue of his calumny against Monsignor Francis Cassano?
Answer: Never. LoT is the most arrogant son of a female dog that I have ever encountered. He will NEVER EVER admit that he's made a mistake. All he would have to say is, "I shot from the hip with this statement and retract it. I apologize." Admission of error or mistake or even sin ... are completely beyond the capabilities of this incredibly arrogant man-child. In fact, he perseveres in heresy simply because he refuse to make a couple small adjustments in how he defines and promotes Baptism of Desire. That's all it would take to climb out of his heresies. He wouldn't have to reject Baptism of Desire. But he refuses to do this because it would be an admission of fault on his side.
LoT is the most arrogant son of a female dog that I have ever encountered. He will NEVER EVER admit that he's made a mistake. All he would have to say is, "I shot from the hip with this statement and retract it. I apologize." Admission of error or mistake or even sin ... are completely beyond the capabilities of this incredibly arrogant man-child. In fact, he perseveres in heresy simply because he refuse to make a couple small adjustments in how he defines and promotes Baptism of Desire. That's all it would take to climb out of his heresies. He wouldn't have to reject Baptism of Desire. But he refuses to do this because it would be an admission of fault on his side.
St. Cyprian, Church Father (3rd Century): ...
You've spammed the Tertullian quote several times now, LoT. Running out of material and beginning to recycle? Jackass.The devil keeps poking him with his pitchfork to keep the heretical spambot, spambotting.
.Sociopath -- A person who lacks empathy. All sociopaths are antisocial; they ignore the rules and laws of society so they can live by their own norms. Cold, callus, and calculating, they stop at nothing to get what they want, and they are impervious to consequences and punishment. They all have the same clinical diagnosis: antisocial personality disorder. No sociopath particularly likes people. They see them as mere objects to be toyed with, used, and then dismissed or disposed of. Some sociopaths happen to have more skill than others, and thus the ability to do more damage.
Quote from: Merry on August 29, 2017, 07:46:52 PM (https://us.hideproxy.me/go.php?u=qELg0ifSyFAjOYB9O8LWaUrU33ZTRSZ1m1I%2FVGg3BVGOEnRdpi5dJPEQjQ%2BhybV1J7ZP4zU3LJYyXnpLsjYtB1FfnrTfl04R7Ns%2BoT5YBLywKpv%2FsWAY%2Fugkru1q%2BwsPmqiipysvK44v8pu7huVi2lnxUbOSrMzsfThgIcrSLsD2SJ2hdhyX1HF6z4c2zMNOC%2Fa2FciiMFjzYblTbnky9CJ3462fy4WV3w9sTjtcs6gtJA%3D%3D&b=5#msg562814)QuotePardon me. But I humbly interject here to ask, when is "Lover of Truth" going to address the issue of his calumny against Monsignor Francis Cassano?
.
Answer: Never. LoT is the most arrogant son of a female dog that I have ever encountered. He will NEVER EVER admit that he's made a mistake. All he would have to say is, "I shot from the hip with this statement and retract it. I apologize." Admission of error or mistake or even sin ... are completely beyond the capabilities of this incredibly arrogant man-child. In fact, he perseveres in heresy simply because he refuse to make a couple small adjustments in how he defines and promotes Baptism of Desire. That's all it would take to climb out of his heresies. He wouldn't have to reject Baptism of Desire. But he refuses to do this because it would be an admission of fault on his side.
I think we've all realized that LOT is incapable of explaining what he believes because he doesn't fully understand himself.
I think we've all realized that LOT is incapable of explaining what he believes because he doesn't fully understand himself. He reads quote after quote after quote from various theologians - some orthodox, some modern - and, adding to his blind hatred of feeneyism, his mind is muddled. This is why he posts quotes to answer our questions.I pegged him many,many months ago when I told him that he had a blind hatred for Father Feeney; not an intellectual hatred, not a just hatred, but an emotional, undeserved hatred. I will refer to LoT from now on as LoH: Lover of Hate.
You do wonder about this crusade to take back the parking spots closest to the Church when the Muslims are overrunning Europe and . . . real calamities are about.Sounds like you're saying he's incoherent due to undiagnosed Diabetes; I hadn't looked at it that way.
Perhaps a better analogy: he vigorously attacks his dry skin while ignoring the weight problem that is killing him.
Or something like that.
Ladislaus has repeatedly shown himself to be a lying heretic claiming I'm a pelagian for claiming the issue hadn't been settled as to whether 2 or 4 minimal beliefs are intrinsically necessary in order to have a supernatural faith.
When I conclusively proved him wrong he reverted to accusing me of hating Aquinas taking a quote out of context in order to make me look bad.
Ladislaus is a sinful dishonest heretic who could find himself damned if he dies in this current state.
Rufinus, Church Father (4th Century): ... Yet it might be understood also as prefiguring the ...
singular
... twofold grace of baptism,...
singular
... one that which is given by the baptism of water,...
Only one? Wait, how many baptisms do we profess again?
... the other that which is sought through martyrdom ...
which is what? What does martyrdom do that the sacrament doesn't unless, perhaps this refers, for example, to the baptism of S. John, but how can this be, for note the word "prefiguring" and the us of the present tense. Also first he speaks of one grace "...twofold... ". He also at least seems to take one away from whichever baptism he's initially referring to.
... in the outpouring of blood, for both are called...
not are, but "... are called... "
... baptism."
This isn't doing or saying what many wish it to.
Ladislaus does not cease calling the repeated teaching of the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes into question
St. Pope Siricius (4th Century): Letter to Himerius, 385:
Ladislaus ... calumniates the revered Father Fenton who did everything who could to prevent Vatican 2 from preaching error. This is a lowlife scuмmy tactic of one who is beaten, a non-Catholic who hates truth.
St. Ambrose, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): From his writing "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio": "But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it."""But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism."
What a pathetic little childish pissant this guy is.He did not take his meds again.
He did not take his meds again.
So now directly quoting a person without any other commentary qualifies as "calumny".Kinda "Jewey" that, sad to say.
Yeah, yesterday he was posting completely incoherent gibberish that made me question whether he was drunk or on drugs or something.Could be either, no way to know but he needs help. His sin of heresy is making him worse all the time.
He did not take his meds again.
They see inaccurately. Nothing to understand. They cannot provide proof. But will see that I have said things such as "Desire is not a sacrament" and "ignorance, in and of itself, neither saves or damns a man."
But no see. Why? Lies. Ladislaus says over and over again. Must be true. He defends BOD too much must undermine. How? Lies.
I have nothing against you. Feel free to talk anytime.
The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary. - St. Alphonsus
The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary. - St. Alphonsus
""But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism."Nvm:
Let us stop St. Ambrose at this point and reflect on what was just quoted.
All of the faithful that have gathered for the memorial services of the Emperor were grieved. And why were they grieved? St. Ambrose says they were grieved because there was no evidence that the Emperor, who was known to be a catechumen, had been baptized. Now If "Baptism of Desire" was something contained in the "deposit of Faith" and part of the Apostolic doctrine, why then would these faithful be grieved that Valentinlan had not been baptized with water?
St. Augustine, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th-5th Century): The Seven Books of Augustin, Bishop of Hippo, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, Ch 22: "That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise." On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment."Are we being punished?
Ch23: "But as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it was spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself is present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably wanting."
Ch24: "And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity..."
Ch25: "By all these considerations it is proved that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another; but that man's salvation is made complete through the two together. Nor are we to suppose that, if one of these be wanting, it necessarily follows that the other is wanting also; because the sacrament may exist in the infant without the conversion of the heart; and this was found to be possible without the sacrament in the case of the thief, God in either case filling up what was involuntarily wanting. But when either of these requisites is wanting intentionally, then the man is responsible for the omission. And baptism may exist when the conversion of the heart is wanting; but, with respect to such conversion, it may indeed be found when baptism has not been received, but never when it has been despised."
From City of God, Book XIII, Chapter 7: "Of the Death Which the Unbaptized Suffer for the Confession of Christ: For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, "Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," John 3:5 made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;" Matthew 10:32 and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it." Matthew 16:25"
A Treatise on the Soul and Its Origin, Book II, Ch17, Disobedient Compassion and Compassionate Disobedience Reprobated and Martyrdom In Lieu Of Baptism: "Truth, by the mouth of Itself incarnate, proclaims as if in a voice of thunder: "Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." And in order to except martyrs from this sentence, to whose lot it has fallen to be slain for the name of Christ before being washed in the baptism of Christ, He says in another passage, "He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."
A Treatise On the Soul and Its Origin, by Aurelius Augustin, Bishop of Hippo; In Four Books, 419, Book 1, CH 11, Title Of Chapter 11: "Martyrdom for Christ Supplies the Place of Baptism. The Faith of the Thief Who Was Crucified Along with Christ Taken As Martyrdom And Hence for Baptism".
On the Soul and Its Origin, Book 1, Ch 10: "Moreover, from the time when He said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;" and again, "He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it; " no one becomes a member of Christ except it be either by baptism in Christ, or death for Christ."
Sorry, LoT, but if the shoe fits ...LoT preparing for his diatribe on Cathinfo.
St. Fulgentius (6th Century): Enchiridion Patristicuм 2269: "From the time when Our Saviour said 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' without the sacrament of baptism, apart from those who pour forth their blood for Christ in the Catholic Church without baptism, no one can receive the kingdom of Heaven, nor eternal life."The Council of Trent corrected this and other saints. There is no justification or salvation without the sacrament of Baptism.
The Council of Trent corrected this and other saints. There is no justification or salvation without the sacrament of Baptism.Which post Trent theologian (or above) verifies it. We already understand Bellarmine's and Alphonsus' (Pius IX, X, XII) understanding of Trent. I say this respectfully, because that should settle it, but I am just seeing if you have any leg to stand on.
Which post Trent theologian (or above) verifies it. We already understand Bellarmine's and Alphonsus' (Pius IX, X, XII) understanding of Trent. I say this respectfully, because that should settle it, but I am just seeing if you have any leg to stand on.We've been through this. Trent's canons on Baptism speak for themselves. Collectively, these Canons do not admit the non-baptized into heaven. Drawing inferences, or exchanging other statements as modifying these in any way makes these statements false. Which is IMPOSSIBLE. If every other statement in contention with these canons can undo them, there is no Catholic teaching that matters. However, if these stand true, as written, and the saints (theologians, etc) were indeed corrected, all remains as the Church teaches. Observations by saints cannot trump, modify, or change the canons of the greatest Council in the Church.
Is it your contention that Bellarmine and Alphonsus did not properly understand Trent?All I contend it's that Trent is the measure when there is a contradiction. Trying to reconcile the difference by gutting Trent using saints and theologians does not resolve anything, but complicates everything, while also rendering null the teachings of that great Council.
BOD according to the authoritative sources does not teach salvation by faith alone but clearly teaches that one must have perfect charity in order to be saved. Of that there can be no doubt. There is no such thing a supernatural charity by desire. So please remove that as one of your objections.
Is it your contention that Bellarmine and Alphonsus did not properly understand Trent?Since supernatural Charity is that great virtue provided in Baptism, perfect Charity without Baptism is a false hope.
BOD according to the authoritative sources does not teach salvation by faith alone but clearly teaches that one must have perfect charity in order to be saved. Of that there can be no doubt. There is no such thing a supernatural charity by desire. So please remove that as one of your objections.
All I contend it's that Trent is the measure when there is a contradiction. Trying to reconcile the difference by gutting Trent using saints and theologians does not resolve anything, but complicates everything, while also rendering null the teachings of that great Council.This means you understand Trent better than those qualified to understand it and teach us what it means. You are more qualified than two sainted doctors for instance. This puts you in rather elite company and we are honored to have you posting here but your time would be better served authoring theology manuals to clarify controversial issues for the clergy.
This means you understand Trent better than those qualified to understand it and teach us what it means. You are more qualified than two sainted doctors for instance. This puts you in rather elite company and we are honored to have you posting here but your time would be better served authoring theology manuals to clarify controversial issues for the clergy.No, it means I'm not trying to make a case for bod. Clearly, they were. They were mistaken. It happens.
No, it means I'm not trying to make a case for bod. Clearly, they were. They were mistaken. It happens.I'll leave it at that. Thank you for being honest and not avoiding the question.
St. Fulgentius (6th Century): Enchiridion Patristicuм 2269: "From the time when Our Saviour said 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' without the sacrament of baptism, apart from those who pour forth their blood for Christ in the Catholic Church without baptism, no one can receive the kingdom of Heaven, nor eternal life."
Pope Innocent II (12th Century): From his letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona, "We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the 'priest' whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the Faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys of the heavenly fatherland. Read [brother] in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written: 'Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion, but death excludes.' Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the 'priest' mentioned." (Denzinger 388)The only thing learnt from thrown books is how to take cover.
You are more qualified than two sainted doctors for instance.
Pope Innocent II (12th Century): From his letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona, "We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the 'priest' whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the Faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys of the heavenly fatherland. Read [brother] in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written: 'Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion, but death excludes.' Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the 'priest' mentioned."
More feminine emotional "argumentation" from LoH. Doctors, as holy and learned as they may be, CAN be mistaken, and one can, from time to time, disagree with one or another of their opinions on a subject ... especially on those matters where they are expressing their own opinion vs. a teaching or position of the Church. That can be done without any disrespect and can be done without someone claiming that they are more qualified or more learned and more holy than the Doctors. Abelard, by all accounts NOT a saint, questioned an opinion put forward by St. Augustine and held unanimously for 700 years before him. And the Church sided with Abelard (who lived a scandalous life) over the holy St. Augustine ... on this particular issue.If we can't "know better", then what is dogma for example, chopped liver?
So, yes, yes indeed, I disagree with St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine on the meaning of Trent. Most Feeneyites do not.
St. Bonaventure, Doctor of the Church (13th century): In Sent. IV, d.4,P.2,a.I,q.I: “God obliges no one to do the impossible and therefore it must be admitted that the baptism of desire without the baptism of water is sufficient, provided the person in question has the will to receive the baptism of water, but is prevented from doing so before he dies."
St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church (13th century): Summa Theologica, Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ's body?
“Consequently, just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally.”
Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism."
Whether the Baptism of Blood is the most excellent of these?
"The shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated. These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act."
Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century): Dialogue of St. Catherine: Baptisms:
This passage from Aquinas is riddled with mistakes. Bases it on the authority of St. Augustine, without realizing that Augustine retracted the opinion. And Augustine cited Cyprian, who reasoned falsely from the Good Thief because Baptism had not been made obligatory yet.Bad matter, not bad form at least in your first instance though, to be completely fair.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church (13th century): Summa Theologica, Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ's body?"...Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
“Consequently, just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally.”
Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism."
Whether the Baptism of Blood is the most excellent of these?
"The shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated. These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act."
Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
"...Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."He is quoting Augustine.
It is clear here that St Thomas only considered bod a possibility, showing his uneasiness, having weighed it time and again. Fortunately for him, and us, Trent since clarified that you cannot have Baptism without water, and you cannot have salvation without Baptism.
The New Testament, translated to English at the College of Rheims, 1582 (16th century): Annotations for John Chapter 3: "Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remedilesse necessity could not obtain it."LoHate: in many of these cases the omnipotence of God is doubted or ignored. This is an insult to Him. "Nothing is impossible with God".
LoHate: in many of these cases the omnipotence of God is doubted or ignored. This is an insult to Him. "Nothing is impossible with God".another conflation anyway. God not contradicting Himself is =/= to "binding himself"
Maybe so... But the words of Saint Augustine are certainly wavering. He had to weigh Cyprian's argument again and again because he couldn't point to any Church teaching on a BOD - He's merely stating his opinion, based on the opinion of another fallible human being.
Also, it should be noted that by considering the example of the good thief, we can already see where St. Cyprian has erred in his argument. Of course, we know that the Sacrament of Baptism wasn't obligatory until AFTER the resurrection, so the good thief died under the old law.
The New Testament, translated to English at the College of Rheims, 1582 (16th century): Annotations for John Chapter 3: "Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remedilesse necessity could not obtain it."Sounds reasonable. From a practical POV, since God is the author of the Sacraments, why would He be only able to work within the confines of the sacraments. It seems that in certain circuмstances, he could offer his grace outside of the Sacraments, if He so chooses.
Sounds reasonable. From a practical POV, since God is the author of the Sacraments, why would He be only able to work within the confines of the sacraments. It seems that in certain circuмstances, he could offer his grace outside of the Sacraments, if He so chooses.Because He does what He says? Again, this is conflation.
Sounds reasonable. From a practical POV, since God is the author of the Sacraments, why would He be only able to work within the confines of the sacraments. It seems that in certain circuмstances, he could offer his grace outside of the Sacraments, if He so chooses.
“. . . we have to admit . . . that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus,’ and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory nαzιanzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.” (Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40, 41, 57)Thank you. It's pretty bad when Stalin questions the validity of the gulags.
Evacuatur autem (scil. crux Christi) si aliquo modo praeter illius sacramentum ad iustitiam vitamque aeternam pervenire posse dicatur (Aug. de nat. et grat. 7. 7). [Whoever thinks that one can arrive at justification and eternal life in any other way than through the sacrament of the cross of Christ empties it of value].
Absit enim, ut praedestinatus ad vitam sine sacramento mediatoris finire permittatur hanc vitam (Aug. c. Julianum. 5, 4, 14) [Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator]
An eos et ipse praedestinat baptizari et ipse quod praedestinavit non sinit fieri? (Aug. de nat. et orig. an. 2, 9, 13). [Is it possible that (God) himself predestines people to be baptized and then he himself does not allow to happen what he has predestined?]
But the grace of faith in some is such that it is insufficient for obtaining the kingdom of heaven, as in the catechumens and in Cornelius himself before he was incorporated into the Church by receiving the sacraments; in others, the grace of faith is such as to make them the body of Christ and the holy temple of God. As the Apostle says: ‘know you not, that you are the holy temple of God’ (1 Cor. 3:16); and also the Lord Himself: ‘Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore, the beginnings of faith have a certain similarity to conceptions, for in order to attain life eternal, it is not enough to be conceived, but one must be born. And none of these is without the grace of the mercy of God, because when works are good, they follow that grace, as was said, they do not precede it.
Thank you. It's pretty bad when Stalin questions the validity of the gulags.
BOD is completely negotiable and means something different to each person you speak with.
Sounds reasonable. From a practical POV, since God is the author of the Sacraments, why would He be only able to work within the confines of the sacraments. It seems that in certain circuмstances, he could offer his grace outside of the Sacraments, if He so chooses.The whole concept that God, who in all of His acts and attributes is infinitely perfect, would need to circuмvent what He has decreed to be the order of Salvation for all men who will be saved. One must make the presumption upon the Divine Perfection to propose that it is in someway deficient and thus imperfect as to accomplishing what He has willed.
The whole concept that God, who in all of His acts and attributes is infinitely perfect, would need to circuмvent what He has decreed to be the order of Salvation for all men who will be saved. One must make the presumption upon the Divine Perfection to propose that it is in someway deficient and thus imperfect as to accomplishing what He has willed.
This is not Faith in His omnipotence and perfection, it is a speculation about how He would correct some problem with any given man which He did not forsee.
Christ has said what He has said. It is ours only to accept and submit and not to question or add. If He has said that water Baptism is necessary, then true Faith dictates that we do not guess, but only to know with certainty that it will be done to all who will be saved.
The New Testament, translated to English at the College of Rheims, 1582 (16th century): Annotations for John Chapter 3: "Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remedilesse necessity could not obtain it."I am unable to determine how annotations in a particular Bible can be used in order to contradict the Council of Trent.
another conflation anyway. God not contradicting Himself is =/= to "binding himself"You are certainly correct here--that God cannot lie. So apply this to His declaration: "Unless a man be born again of water..." Now,when you purposely deny this declaration, and you will do this, LoHate, you know you will, then you call His Majesty a liar. All Father Feeney wanted to do was to protect the Veracity of God, a divine attribute equally as important as is his Goodness and Mercy. This is an attribute none of you Boders consider and respect. For you people there is always something impossible for the Divine Omnipotence; hence the insult to Him.
That's like, if you'll pardon the comparison, saying that water is "bound" to be wet.
GOD CAN'T LIE.
I've found that everything concerning a BOD is negotiable... Implicit desire, explicit desire, only applies to Catechumens, implicit faith, explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, is a sacrament, not a sacrament, etc.SEZ YOU!!!...
BOD is completely negotiable and means something different to each person you speak with.
One must make the presumption upon the Divine Perfection to propose that it is in someway deficient and thus imperfect as to accomplishing what He has willed.:applause:
For you people there is always something impossible for the Divine Omnipotence; ...... except for true impossibilities like violation of metaphysical certainties, God being able TO LIE, God needing, by extension, nigh infinite "Mulligans", creating, well, creation yet not being able to "fork over" a thimbleful of water, not being ABLE to have an INFALLIBE transmission be INFALLIBLY received, therefore rendering the INFALLIBLE teaching FALLIBLE for everyone else, (if we can't know "for sure", then what exactly do we really know at all, or believe? "What's that Lord? I'm sorry, I know you did that gift of tongues thing, but you're really not making yourself very clear today" etc., etc, ad nauseam.
One must make the presumption upon the Divine Perfection to propose that it is in someway deficient and thus imperfect as to accomplishing what He has willed.
Since God does not command impossibilities (Council of Trent), and he commanded that one must be born again of WATER to be saved (John 3:5), how could it ever be impossible to receive the Sacrament of Baptism?
It is not God who is imperfect or in anyway deficient. It is us humans who are imperfect and deficient, especially when it comes to allowing what God wants to accomplish. I can give quite a few examples of this, if you like.Correct, and when a such man is deficient in following God's law he is lost, and loses salvation. The doctrine of the fewness of the saved adverts to this.
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned
Correct, and when a such man is deficient in following God's law he is lost, and loses salvation. The doctrine of the fewness of the saved adverts to this.
It could not be clearer.
Regarding what you said about it being speculation about how He would correct some problem with any given man which He did not foresee, I'd like to ask how freewill fits into this. I don't know if it's a matter of a problem which God does not foresee; it may be a matter of freewill, in that God allows it, and as such, circuмstances can be altered due to our own freewill choices, or that of others who cross our path.Freewill enters in when a man chooses to follow the Divine precepts and do what God has decreed must be done. It is up to each man to answer the sufficient grace with which God has endowed him.
the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world
Freewill enters in when a man chooses to follow the Divine precepts and do what God has decreed must be done. It is up to each man to answer the sufficient grace with which God has endowed him.
If it could not be clearer, then why have there been saints and doctors of the Church who taught BoD?Christ's word is all truth and irreducible, the opinions, speculation, and formulae of fallible men is not God's word, it is theirs or their interpretation thereof. This was never a unanimous or even a majority opinion in the early Church, and as it is being proposed today is a relatively recent addition which took on an expansion life of its own during the Gibbons nacent Americanist and ecuмenist era.
Is there something in Scripture or Tradition which says that we are automatically guaranteed to be baptized, if we choose to be (after instruction, of course)?"He who believeth and is Baptized shall be saved" That is to say, if you DO these things. We are not saved without our co-operation. The only guarantee is our diligent effort to fulfill our obigations to God.
"He who believeth and is Baptized shall be saved" That is to say, if you DO these things. We are not saved without our co-operation. The only guarantee is our diligent effort to fulfill our obigations to God.... and if there were such a guarantee of being baptized by choice i.e volition, then what are we addressing again and, more to the point, why?
If we live up to our part, God is always true to His Word. That is the guarantee.
It is not God who is imperfect or in anyway deficient. It is us humans who are imperfect and deficient, especially when it comes to allowing what God wants to accomplish. I can give quite a few examples of this, if you like.1. God knew from all eternity that you and I would be born. He knew our parents, the color of our hair, our favorite ice cream, etc. He knew all this before He even created Adam and Eve. He knows what we will do tomorrow; what prayers we will or will not say; what we will eat; who we will talk to.
Permit me to "modify" that a bit.This is a very " traditional" back and forth, not quite as prone to error as the Trinity, but seems to be, for the aforementioned cause and because it is a distinct topic, I suggest searching for it or creating it if it doesn't already exist.
God chose His elect before the foundation of the world. Not based on what prayers he heard us say before we said them, etc. - based purely and gratuitously on His choice.
We're staring to get to the top of the water slide that leads to this cesspool of heresy we're in.
Good idea.About all that I have to contribute in this instance. Thanks.
Did St. Thomas say he had "trepidations" abou this subject? I don't recall that.Not exactly in those words. More a distinct impression.
BOD is an attempt to become 'like God' and to understand/explain the impossible.
Did St. Thomas say he had "trepidations" about this subject? I don't recall that . . . but understand the sentiment.PS.
"He who believeth and is Baptized shall be saved" That is to say, if you DO these things. We are not saved without our co-operation. The only guarantee is our diligent effort to fulfill our obigations to God.
If we live up to our part, God is always true to His Word. That is the guarantee.
Actually, I believe that it is the opposite. Some people are repelled by the idea of mystery, and need to have everything cut-and-dry. Sedevacantistism tends toward this - no mystery - everything black-and-white."Si si! No no!" (https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-asks-seminaries-teach-life-isnt-black-and-white-shades-grey)
And what about areas of the world where there is strife and war? Or in the Communist countries during the Soviet era? Or Syria or China today? Are those who seek baptism under God's special protection to ensure that they will be baptized after instruction? What I want to know is if there is a Catholic teaching that says that catechumens will have the protection of God to ensure that they will be baptized. Could you please address this specifically?No, there isn't. How could there be? What are we even talking about if it were otherwise? History and simple reason alone shows this not to be the case. "Contra factum..."
And what about areas of the world where there is strife and war? Or in the Communist countries during the Soviet era? Or Syria or China today? Are those who seek baptism under God's special protection to ensure that they will be baptized after instruction? What I want to know is if there is a Catholic teaching that says that catechumens will have the protection of God to ensure that they will be baptized. Could you please address this specifically?Why do you ask miss/ma'am?
What I want to know is if there is a Catholic teaching that says that catechumens will have the protection of God to ensure that they will be baptized. Could you please address this specifically?
Therefore, if a soul dies without baptism, God allowed him to die for a reason and this soul's lack of baptism can only be blamed on his lack of cooperation with grace.
I clarified it below, to make you happy. It is now more exact, but my point still stands. I was talking about adults, originally. You're the one who brought up infants, which is an exception to the rule.How are two distinct objects "it"?
Therefore, if a soul dies without baptism, God allowed him to die for a reason and this soul's lack of baptism can only be blamed on his [parent's] lack of cooperation with grace. [Parents are responsible for their children's souls, therefore, any child that is not baptized is due to the parents' sin. And the sin of the parents will affect the child, even though they are not liable.
If I sin through anger and slap you in the face, my sin inflicts pain upon you, even though you aren't liable.
Why God allows this? Only He knows. Perfect example is the situation of abortion. How many millions upon millions of children are aborted and die unbaptized each year. Is this their fault? No. Do they still suffer? Yes. Do they still lose out on heaven and go to limbo? Yes. Why does God allow this?
I've heard some saints explain that the mystery of salvation is so great that God knew these children would, if they grew up, lose their souls, and He in His infinite mercy, hears the prayers of the despairing mother or family or those praying at the abortion clinics and, while He does not will their murder, His permissive will allows the sin to take place, due to free will, but, as only God can do, He brings goodness out of evil by sending these children to Limbo, where they otherwise would be in hell, if He allowed them to live.]
O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! (Rom 11:33)
And what about areas of the world where there is strife and war? Or in the Communist countries during the Soviet era? Or Syria or China today? Are those who seek baptism under God's special protection to ensure that they will be baptized after instruction? What I want to know is if there is a Catholic teaching that says that catechumens will have the protection of God to ensure that they will be baptized. Could you please address this specifically?And what about those areas of the world Meg? Certainly you would never say that strife, wars, communism and etc. are obstacles to God - or is that what you are actually saying?
Your new reformulation - "if a soul dies without baptism, God allowed him to die for a reason and this soul's lack of baptism can only be blamed on his parent's lack of cooperation with grace" - also fails, for many a man dies without baptism due not to his parent's failure, but his own. You asserted a new principle that conflicts with your first principle - that should have clued you into something right there.We were taught as children that in this world, we will never know why, that only God knows the reasons for taking unbaptized infants, aborted babies and adults not yet baptized.
And what about areas of the world where there is strife and war? Or in the Communist countries during the Soviet era? Or Syria or China today? Are those who seek baptism under God's special protection to ensure that they will be baptized after instruction? What I want to know is if there is a Catholic teaching that says that catechumens will have the protection of God to ensure that they will be baptized. Could you please address this specifically?
Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator. (Saint Augustine)
Yes, this actually turned into a decent discussion once LoT dropped off. I imagine it won't be long before he resumes his disruptive spamming.C'mon just admit it, you miss your bud LoT. You aren't fooling anyone.
C'mon just admit it, you miss your bud LoT. You aren't fooling anyone.
It was nice to see the rational discussion that ensued after his departure yesterday.
Maybe so... But the words of Saint Augustine are certainly wavering. He had to weigh Cyprian's argument again and again because he couldn't point to any Church teaching on a BOD - He's merely stating his opinion, based on the opinion of another fallible human being.So you pit yourself against Saint Cyprian and a host of others and we are to believe you are in the right. Saint Augustine was not wavering in his other quote. Aquinas settled it Trent proved it settled. Are you one of those who claim that Trent did not teach that the desire for the sacrament could be salvific?
Also, it should be noted that by considering the example of the good thief, we can already see where St. Cyprian has erred in his argument. Of course, we know that the Sacrament of Baptism wasn't obligatory until AFTER the resurrection, so the good thief died under the old law.
Is the Catechism of the Council of Trent wrong when it states that the Sacrament of Baptism became obligatory AFTER the Resurrection?Of course not.
You see contradiction where the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes do not.Seeing contradiction where it is goes far in explaining dogmatic definitions in the first place, where "baby dogmas come from."
Do you admit then that the Holy Innocents and the Good Thief cannot be brought forward as examples of BOB? And that you will stop citing those sources who say they are?You have "met" LoL before, right?
Then how can the Good Thief, and the Holy Innocents for that matter, be used as an argument in favor of BOD?It is the same principal. But if you want do discredit what legitimate authorities have given as example would you say that Emerentiana counts? Or are those who reject the teaching of the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes on the issue forced to say "she must have been secretly water baptized when no one was looking or there to make record of it"?
So what's your answer?Saint Emerentiana is a Saint who was not baptized with water. She lived after the promulgation of the Gospel.
To this:Do you admit that authoritative sources quoted are more reliable on Catholic doctrine than you? Why do you ignore Saint Emerentiana? For convenience?
We can address Saint Emerentiana some other time.We can get to it now as she is an example that the Feeneyites cannot use the above excuse for.
We're discussing whether or not the Good Thief can be used as an argument for BOD, when Baptism wasn't a requisite for salvation at the time.
What BOD principles can be applied to the Good Thief when there was no requirement for him to be Baptized?
Saint Emerentiana is a Saint who was not baptized with water. She lived after the promulgation of the Gospel.Seven, LoL; LoL, Seven.
We can address Saint Emerentiana some other time.I can trust 21st century lay-bloggers or Sainted Doctors on the issue?
We're discussing whether or not the Good Thief can be used as an argument for BOD, when Baptism wasn't a requisite for salvation at the time.
What BOD principles can be applied to the Good Thief when there was no requirement for him to be Baptized?
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church (18th century): Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" (Note: Unbelievers can see the original book in Latin here (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/alphonse_theologia_moralis_5.pdf). Turn to page 310 in the book (or page 157 of the PDF file).
Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: "Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious."
On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."
Dear Calumniating Lover of Truth (remember: Monsignor Cassano - who said Fr. Feeney's Bread of Life book had no errors in it, and you said the Monsignor must have therefore been a Mason - duh) - if St. Emerentiana has been held as a Saint by the Catholic Church, she had to have been baptized by water at some point, and God of course would know this -- even if no one else did -- and even if she herself did not know it!! Even if she was baptized as an infant and was not informed of it, or aware of it -- what matters is that God knows she is baptized.Dear Yuck. Quite pretending you know anything.
Baptism of water was not of necessity until Pentecost Sunday when the Church was born.
The Holy Innocents and the Good Thief did not have "Catholic" requirements.
After Pentecost, one had to have Baptism of Water in order to have Original Sin removed and have the indelible mark put on your soul.
Even Our Lady had to have Baptism of Water in order to receive the other sacraments, although she did not need it of course, to remove Original Sin.
Our Lord says this. The Council of Trent says this. The Church says this. NO ONE ELSE'S OPINION MATTERS. ALL ELSE IS ERROR OR SPECULATION.
WATER is DOCTRINE - the MATTER of the sacrament of Baptism.
Some people don't know their faith. Some people just like a ruckus - they like attention on a website.
Dear Yuck. Quite pretending you know anything.Okay dude, the "yuck" thing? Yeah Liberace spoke from the hereafter and told the Village ppl to tell Elton John to tell you "That's really gαy."
The guy with the most ironic username ever, will not even be so honest as to answer this question.I have answered the question. Name-calling. A great sign of intellectual prowess. Regurgitating the objection someone else came up with like you are doing something fancy. You wish you could trip up Alphonsus and Augustine and thereby discount what all the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and Popes who spoke to the issue taught:
St. Augustine, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th-5th Century): The Seven Books of Augustin, Bishop of Hippo, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, Ch 22: "That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise." On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment."The feeneyites think they can just blow off Augustine and Alphonsus and ignore Emerentiana or make up a ferry tale to get out of it. Yuck.
Ch23: "But as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it was spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself is present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably wanting."
Ch24: "And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity..."
Name-calling. A great sign of intellectual prowess.Oh YUCK!
LoT, it's only impossible because you won't stay on topic and answer some simple questions.Please go back and see my responses. Augustine and Alphonsus use the examples. Do the 21st century lay-bloggers teach them? Not me. Maybe you? And then I bring up Saint Emerentiana which was after good thief no? Then I wait for response. Get None. But get accuses of not responding. Over and over again. And you wonder why I :barf:
I said that we could circle back to Saint Emerentiana, but I'd like to have my questions answered. You accused me of pitting myself against St. Cyprian and I've proven that his example of using the Good Thief as an argument in favor of a BOD is flawed.
You have yet to respond to my questions, or show what principles of a BOD can be applied to the Good Thief.
Is Lover of Hate a girl? I think she is. She writes like a girl. And she spells like a cretin. Sorry Cretins--didn't intend to insult you.Ah. Scholarly. That should settle the debate. Next topic.
Please go back and see my responses. Augustine and Alphonsus use the examples. Do the 21st century lay-bloggers teach them? Not me. Maybe you? And then I bring up Saint Emerentiana which was after good thief no? Then I wait for response. Get None. But get accuses of not responding. Over and over again. And you wonder why I :barf:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx9DTDDG8lc
Please now answer my question once after I have answered yours three or four times.
Ah. Scholarly. That should settle the debate. Next topic.One can't debate with a Hater and a dodger.
Your responses were citations from Augustine and Alphonsus, but I don't see where you applied the principles of a BOD to the Good Thief, nor do I see the relevance in the citations. Are you claiming that the Good Thief desired "the true baptism of water"?They use the Good Thief as an example. So according to Feeneyites not only was Augustine wrong for using the example but Alphonse after all that time still didn't see that it was wrong to give the example. My answer is that I trust Sainted Fathers and Doctors who are in agreement on the same issue and then I bring up Emerentiana for the 20th time with still no response. She was after the Gospel was promulgated no?
To keep things neat and orderly (I was a Marine, man, I like to keep things in an orderly fashion), let's first discuss the issue of the Good Thief, since that was the original intention of your post addressed to me, accusing me of pitting myself against St. Cyprian. Once we get through this topic, we can move on to the next.
Can you please show us how the principles of a BOD can be applied to the Good Thief...
They use the Good Thief as an example. So according to Feeneyites not only was Augustine wrong for using the example but Alphonse after all that time still didn't see that it was wrong to give the example. My answer is that I trust Sainted Fathers and Doctors who are in agreement on the same issue and then I bring up Emerentiana for the 20th time with still no response. She was after the Gospel was promulgated no?Well now that we've been excommunicated, who's for flan?
The above is perfectly acceptable and frankly, blatently obvious to Catholics. Where is the problem?
These types of posts, while amusing sometimes, do nothing to further the conversation. I'm not saying that they don't have their place every once in a while, but multiple posts like this only clog up the thread.Thank you.
Let's try and keep LoT on topic and engaged in the discussion.
These types of posts, while amusing sometimes, do nothing to further the conversation. I'm not saying that they don't have their place every once in a while, but multiple posts like this only clog up the thread.He isn't willing. It's a sad joke, .^. the jokes.
Let's try and keep LoT on topic and engaged in the discussion.
Thank you.Baloney.
He isn't willing. It's a sad joke, .^. the jokes.A Catholic Dictionary (~1931-1958): Baptism, The Sacrament of: "Baptism by water, blood, or desire is necessary to salvation".
Speaking of staying on point, what's the topic of the thread again?
His response shows that the Saints he quoted and the Roman Catechism contradict eachother and he prefers to ignore one and appeal to the other depending on what he's arguing at the time.Again. The "contradiction" is only apparent to 21st century feeneyite lay-bloggers. Not to the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes. I wonder why this is so difficult to grasp.
The Douay Catechism cites as PROOF of BOB the Holy Innocents but the Roman Catechism says that Baptism wasn't obligatory yet when the Holy Innocents were martyred. This would make the Holy Innocents NOT proof of Baptism of Blood.
Douay Catechism: " Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ."
Catechism of the Council of Trent: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.” (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn413)
Good pointThanks. I'm not disagreeing with BD, but that's just it, if things are orderly, then they are easier to find, and that include topics which someone else may find useful or instructive.
I understand that they use the Good Thief as an example... C'mon man!!Conversion of the heart.
When I asked how the Good Thief could be used as an argument in favor of a BOD, YOU said that "it is the same principal".
I'm asking you - what principles of a BOD can be applied to the Good Thief?
I'll discontinue the conversation on this thread and move to the new one...in an orderly fashion.I'm the one that started the thread.
Thanks. I'm not disagreeing with BD, but that's just it, if things are orderly, then they are easier to find, and that include topics which someone else may find useful or instructive.He means, quotes from the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes. Feeneyites don't like that when it contradicts their novel interpenetration of EENS.
If naught else, it saves them time looking through the trash for garbage; it permits them to drive on.
I'm the one that started the thread.The thread about not what it now is, whatever that is. :fryingpan:
The thread about not what it now is, whatever that is. :fryingpan:You hate truth.
You hate truth.If truth were what is being peddled here, then this charge would stick; but as it is, "SAYIN' STUFFFFFFFFFF...."
If truth were what is being peddled here, then this charge would stick; but as it is, "SAYIN' STUFFFFFFFFFF...."You believe no salvation apart from water?
You believe no salvation apart from water?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQcweQO7Shk
Lover of Heresy: you called the teaching of Fr. Fahey and Fr. Bernard Welp (of the CMRI), that Jews who reject Jesus Christ can be in the state of grace, “excellent”. Since you’ve seen the Church’s dogmatic teaching on that matter, your statement in that regard proves that you are demonic. It is not a pre-Vatican II Catholic position to hold that Jews can be saved or in the state of grace. It is, in fact, a blatant heresy, which you obstinately hold. Thus, you are not remotely Christian. You are a non-Christian, like the leader of a mosque or a rabbi is a non-Christian. In fact, if you spent nearly as much time trying to spread the Catholic faith as you do denying Catholic teaching and spreading error, then you might begin to get the grace to see that you are not even Catholic and that you are definitely on the road to Hell.Name caller. I'm sure the rest of the post was more yuck.
Also, as part of your false claim to uphold Catholic teaching, you frequently mention that one needs ‘supernatural faith’, but you don’t mention the dogma that one must have ‘Catholic faith’. That’s because if you insisted that one must have Catholic faith to be justified and saved, your position that Jews, Muslims, etc. can have ‘Catholic faith’, while not believing in Jesus and even rejecting Him, becomes even more obviously absurd and heretical.
Name caller. I'm sure the rest of the post was more yuck.Judgement, Rash (https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=C111US752D20170824&p=define%3Arash+judgment)
Judgement, Rash (https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=C111US752D20170824&p=define%3Arash+judgment)More yuck. Nothing to contribute. Double yuck.
More yuck. Nothing to contribute. Double yuck.Judgement, Rash (https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=C111US752D20170824&p=define%3Arash+judgment)
Lover of Heresy: You believe Jews who reject Jesus Christ can be in the state of grace. You're not a Catholic. That's a fact.Yuck. Name caller. Double yuck. :barf:
Also, the Church dogmatically teaches that all infants and martyrs who get to Heaven from the New Covenant period have received sacred baptism, the same baptism received by infants. That's Church teaching, unlike the non-magisterial errors you consistently promote. See the video below, and the section on Pope Benedict XII's solemn definition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztqdmCIGSDY
More yuck. Nothing to contribute. Double yuck.Yuck, yourself, Calumniator.
Saint Emerentiana is a Saint who was not baptized with water. She lived after the promulgation of the Gospel.How do you know she wasn't? God knew she was. His providence saw to it. That is DE FIDE, as she has been held as a saint through the ages.
Dear Yuck. Quite pretending you know anything.You are such a child.
These types of posts, while amusing sometimes, do nothing to further the conversation. I'm not saying that they don't have their place every once in a while, but multiple posts like this only clog up the thread.You don't know yet there is no orderly fashion, or logic, with LoT. He started in with the yuck thing - and it can receive an answer as well as anything else he says.
Let's try and keep LoT on topic and engaged in the discussion.
Yeah, and I asked him about that . . . crickets.I ignore Catholic Culture and may have skipped over you because I am used to nastiness from feeneyites. Please feel free to ask a legitimate question if you have one.
He will answer it if he feels it's legitimate. Don't hold your breath.Nasty.
HAHAFeeneyitism.
HAHABack off man, nobody wins a slap-fight and you don't know what's in the purse.
Ignore me, fine, I get that (lol) but - You ignore "Catholic Culture"? :oI respect you some. If I don't answer your question I simply missed it. Catholic Culture yuck. And other stuff.
Ignore me, fine, I get that (lol) but - You ignore "Catholic Culture"? :oIf he really means that then he'll ignore the question, at least the last bit of it or maybe read it as "... ignore emoti."
This is all so ridiculous! I think everybody needs to go play some good action/adventure video games to relieve/forget their stress (which is all self-inflicted?). Really, it's more fun. I promise!Has he told you that if you are a "Feeneyite" - you are like a pedophile? Take it up with him.
This is all so ridiculous! I think everybody needs to go play some good action/adventure video games to relieve/forget their stress (which is all self-inflicted?). Really, it's more fun. I promise!Very true. Good Catholics and those with a modicuм of intelligence give sources for their beliefs as I do over and over again. Not good Catholics and the ignorant resort to name-calling and false accusations, over and over again as the Feeneyites do.
Very true. Good Catholics and those with a modicuм of intelligence give sources for their beliefs as I do over and over again. Not good Catholics and the ignorant resort to name-calling and false accusations, over and over again as the Feeneyites do."Citation" ala Lover of Lies (https://loc.gov/)
If I don't answer your question I simply missed it.:laugh1:
:laugh1:I thought that only BK sold "Whoppers".
Has he told you that if you are a "Feeneyite" - you are like a pedophile? Take it up with him.:o
:oNever said that.
In the years I've known this site, I've never heard of someone to level THAT sort of accusation. It's a good thing banter is electric, because where I'm from LoH prossibly wouldn't leave with his teeth, whether they are dentures or not already.
Seriously, if any of you folks know exactly which post he says that in, click the report button already! I know the Moderators don't watch the BoD thread novellas, but LoH should go. If Sedevacantists can get the boot for heresy/making dogma that doesn't exist, this nut job can too since there seems to be enough incriminating evidence against him.
Never said that.Ooo, I don't know about that. You lumped us in with murderers, and pedophiles, and a few other things, like Masons.
Ooo, I don't know about that. You lumped us in with murderers, and pedophiles, and a few other things, like Masons.Odd thing:
And you still calumniated Monsignor Cassano.
Fr. Feeney was the best kind of Jesuit. He called out T. de Chardin at a conference when he was speaking heresy, accused him of it to his face, and left the room. He converted Dr. Paul Dudley White of Boston to the Faith. And many Jews, also.
And all you can come up with your FENTONITE stuff - and "yuck."
You embarrass yourself and as a mouthpiece of the modernist anti-Feeney's, you embarrass them, too.
Last line mined by Merry
Odd thing:
I've keyword site mined that others are asserting LoLies has said and I ~have read (at least similar) as well, and what I keep getting are blank entries from LoLies.
Someone else care to try?
Ooo, I don't know about that. You lumped us in with murderers, and pedophiles, and a few other things, like Masons.
And you still calumniated Monsignor Cassano.
Fr. Feeney was the best kind of Jesuit. He called out T. de Chardin at a conference when he was speaking heresy, accused him of it to his face, and left the room. He converted Dr. Paul Dudley White of Boston to the Faith. And many Jews, also.
And all you can come up with your FENTONITE stuff - and "yuck."
You embarrass yourself and as a mouthpiece of the modernist anti-Feeney's, you embarrass them, too.
Never said that.
:o
In the years I've known this site, I've never heard of someone to level THAT sort of accusation. It's a good thing banter is electric, because where I'm from LoH prossibly wouldn't leave with his teeth, whether they are dentures or not already.
Seriously, if any of you folks know exactly which post he says that in, click the report button already! I know the Moderators don't watch the BoD thread novellas, but LoH should go. If Sedevacantists can get the boot for heresy/making dogma that doesn't exist, this nut job can too since there seems to be enough incriminating evidence against him.
Never said that.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/useroff.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/pm/?sa=send;u=519) Lover of Truth (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Lover%20of%20Truth/)(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/post/xx.gif)
- Hero Member
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/star.gif)(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/star.gif)(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/star.gif)(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/star.gif)(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/star.gif)
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/avatars/stock/519.jpg) (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Lover%20of%20Truth/)
- Posts: 8317
- Reputation: +1085/-799
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/default/images/up.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/people-needing-baptism-raised-from-the-dead-etc/60/?action=modifykarma;sa=applaud;uid=519;m=560951;fc0c6a1=888a821a0fccebf99e97dad8cd206d06) (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/default/images/down.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/people-needing-baptism-raised-from-the-dead-etc/60/?action=modifykarma;sa=smite;uid=519;m=560951;fc0c6a1=888a821a0fccebf99e97dad8cd206d06)
- Gender: (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/Male.gif)
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/icons/profile_sm.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Lover%20of%20Truth/)
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/im_off.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/pm/?sa=send;u=519)
Re: People needing baptism, raised from the dead, etc. (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/people-needing-baptism-raised-from-the-dead-etc/msg560951/#msg560951)
« Reply #65 on: August 21, 2017, 14:06:52 »You are ignoring this user.
- Quote (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/people-needing-baptism-raised-from-the-dead-etc/60/?action=post;quote=560951;last_msg=564149)
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/default/images/up.gif)1 (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/people-needing-baptism-raised-from-the-dead-etc/60/?action=modifykarma;sa=applaud;uid=519;m=560951;fc0c6a1=888a821a0fccebf99e97dad8cd206d06)
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/default/images/down.gif)1 (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/people-needing-baptism-raised-from-the-dead-etc/60/?action=modifykarma;sa=smite;uid=519;m=560951;fc0c6a1=888a821a0fccebf99e97dad8cd206d06)
QuoteQuoteKinda like a pair of old slippers after a while. Of course if this were so sure, certain other conclusion hoppers would be vindicated as well.
Hey, I MUST be going gangbusters as well. "I'd like to thank the Academy…"
The world would be a much better place if there were no schismatics, sodomites, feeneyites, pedophiles, heretics or apostates.
Odd thing:(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/useroff.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/pm/?sa=send;u=519) Lover of Truth (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Lover%20of%20Truth/)
I've keyword site mined that others are asserting LoLies has said and I ~have read (at least similar) as well, and what I keep getting are blank entries from LoLies.
Someone else care to try?
YES - and here it is. He did not say, murderers or Masons - so my apologies to murderers and Masons. But it's worse - the quote from L o Fenton starts at "The world..."
Kinda like a pair of old slippers after a while. Of course if this were so sure, certain other conclusion hoppers would be vindicated as well.
Hey, I MUST be going gangbusters as well. "I'd like to thank the Academy…"
Quote from a lover of liberalism:
The world would be a much better place if there were no schismatics, sodomites, feeneyites, pedophiles, heretics or apostates.
In other words, there is no reason apart from the positive will of God why a washing with water performed while the person administering the sacrament is uttering a definite formula should be necessary for the attainment of the Beatific Vision. There is no reason apart from the positive will of God why a man who is guilty of mortal sin committed after baptism cannot have this sin forgiven except by means of a judicial absolution pronounced by an authorized priest. Neither the baptism nor the sacrament of penance is by its nature part of the supernatural life itself in the way that sanctifying grace and charity are. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
8b. The Suprema haec sacra then brings out the fact that, in the merciful designs of God's providence, such realities as the Church itself and the sacraments of baptism and penance can, under certain circuмstances, bring about the effects which they are meant to produce as means necessary for the attainment of eternal salvation when a man possesses them only in the sense that he desires or intends or wills to have or to use them. Obviously the text cannot be understood unless we realize what the "certain circuмstances" mentioned in the text really are. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
As the text of the Suprema haec sacra reminds us toward the end of its doctrinal section, the desire or intention of using the means established by God can be effective for the attainment of eternal salvation only when this act of the will is enlightened by true supernatural divine faith and animated by genuine charity. This, of course, holds true, not only for the intention of entering the Church, but also for the desire of the sacraments of baptism and penance - which desire may suffice for the forgiveness of sin when the sacraments themselves are not available. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
(10) Previous paragraphs of the Holy Office letter had brought out the validity of two distinctions, long contained in the traditional works of Catholic theology, but never before stated so explicitly in an authoritative docuмent of the Holy See. The first was the distinction between the necessity of means and the necessity of precept. The second was the distinction of belonging to the Church in re and in voto. This second distinction is used, in theology and in the text of the Suprema haec sacra, in explaining how the Church is a means genuinely necessary for all men for the attainment of eternal salvation. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
It is to be noted here that, according to the language of the Suprema haec sacra and of all the other authoritative docuмents which have dealt with this matter, the desire of entering the Church does not give a man anything like "a real though incomplete membership in the Church." [Cf. Henry St. John, O.P., Essays in Christian Unity: 1928-1954 (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1955), p. 139.] Those who, like Father St. John, speak in this way, simply fail to take the meaning of the expressions in the Church's docuмents into consideration. A man who intends or wills to enter the Church is really not a member of it in any way whatsoever. If he were already a member, his desire would be absurd. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
On the contrary, a man has only an implicit desire when he wants a thing but does not realize definitely what it is that he desires. The word "implicit" has the sense of something "folded in". When a man desires an objective which cannot be obtained without the attainment of something else, and does not have any clear and distinct awareness of this other thing, he is said to have an implicit desire of this latter. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
(11) In this paragraph the Holy Office docuмent cites the passage in the encyclical Mystici Corporis dealing with membership in the Church, the genuine supernatural kingdom of God of the New Testament. In this context it is interesting to note that the text of the Mystici Corporis does not imply that there is some other sort of real though incomplete membership possessed by persons who do not have the qualifications mentioned here. The encyclical is teaching about those who actually (reapse) are to be counted as members of the Church. It insists that only these people who have the qualifications mentioned are to be enumerated reapse as members. All others, then, simply are not members. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
(13) The Suprema haec sacra shows that the text of the Mystici Corporis, particularly those sections of the encyclical mentioned in the Holy Office letter, reproves two mutually opposed errors. The first error condemned in the Mystici Corporis is that according to which a man who has merely an implicit desire of entering the Catholic Church is in a situation in which it is impossible for him to attain to his eternal salvation. The second error proscribed is that which holds that men can be saved equally in every religion. Those who taught either error after the publication of Mystici Corporis were guilty of ignoring or defying the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, teaching in his ordinary doctrinal activity or magisterium. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
The expression "perfect charity," here in the context of the Suprema haec sacra, means a genuine and supernatural love of friendship for God based on the awareness of divine faith. It is, in other words, a love of God known as He has told us about Himself in the content of divine public revelation. In the love of charity, as distinct from the merely natural love of God which definitely does not suffice for the attainment of eternal salvation, there is a love of friendship for God known, at least in a confused way, in the Trinity of His Persons. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
The Holy Office letter also teaches that "no implicit intention can produce its effect [of eternal salvation] unless the man has supernatural faith." Here it is imperative to remember that the docuмent speaks of that faith which is defined by the Vatican Council as "the supernatural virtue by which, with the impulse and aid of God's grace, we believe the things He has revealed to be true, not because of their intrinsic truth, seen in the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself revealing, Who can neither be deceived nor deceive." This is the faith which the same Vatican Council described as "the beginning of human salvation". Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
When the desire is merely implicit, then a man's faith in the divinely revealed truths about the Church is likewise implicit. The point made here by the Holy Office letter is precisely that there must be some definite and explicit content to any act of genuine supernatural faith. If a man is to be saved, he must accept as true, on the authority of God revealing, the teaching which God has communicated to the world as His public and supernatural message. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
(3) The dogma must be understood and explained as the Church's magisterium understands and explains it. Fenton on EENShttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
(6) The Church is a general and necessary means for salvation, not by reason of any intrinsic necessity, but only by God's Own institution, that is, because God in His merciful wisdom has established it as such. Fenton on EENShttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
(9) The Mystici Corporis reproved both the error of those who teach the impossibility of salvation for those who have only an implicit desire of entering the Church, and the false doctrine of those who claim that men may find salvation equally in every religion. Fenton on EENShttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
· Council of Nicaea I (325): condemned the heresy of Arius, and defined the Divinity of the Son of God and the Nicene Creed.Here we can clearly see that in the first 7 centuries of the Church, the Solemn Magisterium was not used often, and very little was solemnly defined. So at least 7 generations of Catholics lived and died during this time with very little solemn teaching by the Church. This is because the majority of what Catholics believe comes from the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (see next).
· Council of Constantinople I (381): condemned the heresy of Macedonius, and defined the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, confirmed and extended the Nicene Creed.
· Council of Ephesus (431): condemned the heresy of Nestorius, and defined that there was one person in Christ, and defended the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
· Council of Chalcedon (451): condemned the heresy of Eutyches (Monophysitism); declared Christ had two natures, human and divine.
· Council of Constantinople II (553): condemned, as savoring of Nestorianism, the so-called Three Chapters, the erroneous books of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the teaching of Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa.
· Council of Constantinople III (680-681): declared against the Monothelites, who taught one will in Christ, by defining that Christ had two wills, human and divine.
1. Solemn Magisterium: Defined as Church teaching “which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes. Its matter comprises dogmatic definitions of ecuмenical councils or Popes teaching "ex cathedra." (Definition from “A Catholic Dictionary”, 1951)https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
Examples of the Solemn Magisterium would be decisions of any General Councils of the Church, or certain papal encyclicals, such as that defining the Dogma of the Assumption in 1950. Note that it is only in extraordinary circuмstances that the Catholic Church teaches in this manner, which historically has been to combat heresy. For this reason it is sometimes referred to as the “extraordinary magisterium”. For examples of the Solemn Magisterium, here is a list of all solemn teaching during the first 7 centuries of the Catholic Church:Here we can clearly see that in the first 7 centuries of the Church, the Solemn Magisterium was not used often, and very little was solemnly defined. So at least 7 generations of Catholics lived and died during this time with very little solemn teaching by the Church. This is because the majority of what Catholics believe comes from the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (see next).
So, according to this definition, the Ordinary Magisterium (also referred to as the Universal Ordinary Magisterium) is Church teaching that is continuous and unanimously consented to throughout the Church.https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
The Ordinary Magisterium is where the majority of Catholic beliefs are taught and learned; through unanimous teaching by preaching, by any written means, the approval of catechisms, the approval of textbooks for use in seminaries, etc.https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
For example, Arius was considered a heretic before his condemnation at the Council of Nicaea in 325, because the Divinity of Christ (which he denied) was part of the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium before that Council. The same applies to Nestorius regarding his denial of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin, where he was later declared a heretic by the Solemn Magisterium at the Council of Ephesus.https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
Finally, the most frequent reason why the Solemn Magisterium is used is in order to confirm a doctrine which already belongs to the Ordinary Magisterium, but which has come under attack, usually by heretics.Yes, and it did so three times of the matter of salvation outside of the Church, and needless to say it has been silent on the other matter.
Yes, and it did so three times of the matter of salvation outside of the Church, and needless to say it has been silent on the other matter.Yes and the theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes understand it correctly and Feeneyites do not.
Yes and the theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes understand it correctly and Feeneyites do not.
Now you're spamming ordinary Magisterium stuff on every thread.And caugt cold busted lying, which he now tries to ignore, on a thread the topic of which is what a big smelly meanie pants detractoratin' calmunificator "yur ar!"
BoD is not a teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium any more than was the opinion of St. Augustine that was universally held for 700 years but then eventually rejected.
It is a dogma of the Catholic Church that the Church is divinely kept from the possibility of error in her definitive teaching on faith and morals."And?"
It is a dogma of the Catholic Church that the Church is divinely kept from the possibility of error in her definitive teaching on faith and morals.
2. ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope;
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."