Quote from: LoT

BTW - Catholic Martyr cannot find a priest that believes the Feeneyite heresy.  I wonder why.

"But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"

Heresy?  So now you are saying that baptism of blood is a Dvinely revealed dogma?  Sorry, but that is quite ridiculous.

Quote from: LoT

And secondly, simply, definitively and dogmatically put - THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

This is, of course, an inconvenient belief for the modernists of our day but this is the truth nonetheless and the truth is what all true Catholics MUST accept in order to stay Catholic for if a Catholic rejects one truth of the faith he can no longer be considered a Catholic but a heretic.

Oh the irony.

The 'limbo question' is quite adequately answered by the ex cethedra decree Cantate Domino.  "...all those who are outside the Catholic Church ... will go into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels..."

Yet you Modernists try to deny and twsit what the words mean.  It is remarkably mind boggling.

If BoB and/or BoD do exist, can we all agree that such a desire must be explicit, that is, vowtum?  Is not this why sacramental Baptism is the only recourse for infants attaining the Beatific Vision?

They do not exist, except in the fallible speculation of human minds.  Once certain decrees had been promulgated, the 'doctrines' no longer exist except in the minds of the unwary and the rebellious infidelity of Modernists.

So, Saint Thomas Aquinas was a heretic?!

You folks still do not understand.  If Moses stood before you and said "Baptism of desire and limbo are true."  Would you believe it?  Probably.  But then if Jesus Christ stood before you and said "No, they are false."  You would all take Moses' word over Christ's because that is what this is.

You are all taking the word of Saint Thomas and others over the clear, simple and unambiguous words of God the Holt Ghost.

Clear as mud?

Blasphemy?


Which part is unlcear to you?

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that

Does this part require interpretation?  No, I don't think so.  The Church is proclaiming authoritatively a dogma.

all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives;

Where is the need for interpretation?  Where is the lack of clarity?  Where is the ambiguity?  Does it or does it not say ALL?  Does it or does it not say FIRE?

that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards;

I still am waiting to see what part needs to be interpreted, in this clear truth fallen from heaven.

and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

Gee willikers, C.M.M.M., what can you possibly take from the objective sense of these words, other than the position I hold?

The Tradition of the Church is to deny ecclesiatical burial to catechumens who OBVIOUSLY desired baptism.

C.M.M.M., what is the declaration of the dogma?  It is the ex cathedra decree of the pope.  So you MUST hold to the meaning of THAT, as it is irreformable.

Objective sense, means that you take it at face value.  If it is not a truth fallen from heaven, then it is something that can be subjective.  If it is a truth from heaven, then it is an OBJECTIVE truth, just as God is an objective concept, not a subjective concept.

Those are your only two choices.  On the one hand, you have ABSOLUTE truth, which is objective.  On the other you have subjective truth, which is not truth at all, since it is subject to change.

Modernism is the belief that such truths can be explained in a way contrary to how they were declared.  The declaration is the ex cathedra decree, not a theologians take on it, nor that of a catechism writer.

You are openly positing the heretical Modernist argument that you do not have to hold the dogma according to the meaning that has been declared in the definition of the Pontiff, which is irreformable.

The matter of heresy is the belief itself.  The form is the assent of the will to said belief, once it has been shown to be in opposition to something that is to be believed by Divine and Catholic faith.  You are demonstrating that you fit into both of these criteria.

How many different ways do I have to say the same thing?
And my name is David, not Robin.

Why don't you go ahead and explain to me then, based on a comprehensive breakdown of the declaration, what the 'original meaning' was that God, who spoke these words through the lips of the Pontiff, intended to convey to the faithful.