Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ladislaus on August 01, 2017, 09:02:35 AM
-
LoT, do you know that you're actually doing a great service to our defense of Catholic ecclesiology, soteriology, and Sacramental theology by posting here? I've had several people PM me to let me know that I've helped open their eyes on this issue ... because my responses to you were so strong and so convincing.
In fact, it's very easy. Your grasp of theology and even basic logic are so poor that anyone with even a slight training can rip you to shreds.
So, while you think you might be doing your cause a service by posting here, you're actually hurting your cause. You may want to rethink what you're doing.
-
LoT, do you know that you're actually doing a great service to our defense of Catholic ecclesiology, soteriology, and Sacramental theology by posting here? I've had several people PM me to let me know that I've helped open their eyes on this issue ... because my responses to you were so strong and so convincing.
In fact, it's very easy. Your grasp of theology and even basic logic are so poor that anyone with even a slight training can rip you to shreds.
So, while you think you might be doing your cause a service by posting here, you're actually hurting your cause. You may want to rethink what you're doing.
"…every idle word…" Speaking of basics, esp. those prescribed as both innoculation and remedy for these sorts of things by numerous popes, wouldn't time and effort be better spent on, for example, a dedicated thread on Scholastic Philosophy? de Poissy is free on archive.org. "Teach a man to fish"
With all due, these sorts of places tend to become an exercise in sophistic and rhetorical weed-wacking. Seemslike with a slight shift of fires they could be pulled up or denied fertile terrain to begin with. Prevention/preemption over cure. Make any sense? Yea/nay?
-
LoT, do you know that you're actually doing a great service to our defense of Catholic ecclesiology, soteriology, and Sacramental theology by posting here? I've had several people PM me to let me know that I've helped open their eyes on this issue ... because my responses to you were so strong and so convincing.
In fact, it's very easy. Your grasp of theology and even basic logic are so poor that anyone with even a slight training can rip you to shreds.
So, while you think you might be doing your cause a service by posting here, you're actually hurting your cause. You may want to rethink what you're doing.
If this is the case you why are you telling me?
-
St. Recipicius, Nov 10, p. 1095: “During the reign of the emperor Decius, as Tryphon was preaching the faith of Jesus Christ and striving to persuade all men to worship the Lord, he was arrested by the henchmen of Decius. First, he was tortured on the rack, his flesh torn with iron hooks, then hung head downward, his feet pierced with red hot nails. He was beaten by clubs, scorched by burning torches held against his body. As a result of seeing him endure all these tortures so courageously, the tribune Respicius was converted to the faith of Christ the Lord. Upon the spot he publicly declared himself to be a Christian. Respicius was then tortured in various ways, and toggether with Tryphon, dragged to a statue of Jupiter. As Tryphon prayed, the statue fell down. After this occurredboth were mercilessly beaten with leaden tipped whips and thus attained to glorious martyrdom.”
And as we know some feeneyites insist that they could not have been saved because no water was poured on their head. :barf:
-
How do you know that no water was poured? Just because the account doesn't specifically say so, how do you know it didn't happen? And how do we know that he wasn't a fallen away and already baptized - but then stepped forward and declared? What about all the accounts of miraculous water that God brings forth when baptism is necessary? How about Sts. Peter and Paul in the Mamertine Prison - a spring came up there so they could baptize the guards they had converted.
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom" - Jesus Christ
And Monsignor Cassano who declared Fr. Feeney's Bread of Life book free of errors, how about him LoT?
You are kicking against the goad. You have maligned and calumniated him by calling him a mason when he isn't.
Keep running, "Lover" of Truth...
-
How do you know that no water was poured? Just because the account doesn't specifically say so, how do you know it didn't happen? And how do we know that he wasn't a fallen away and already baptized - but then stepped forward and declared? What about all the accounts of miraculous water that God brings forth when baptism is necessary? How about Sts. Peter and Paul in the Mamertine Prison - a spring came up there so they could baptize the guards they had converted.
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom" - Jesus Christ
And Monsignor Cassano who declared Fr. Feeney's Bread of Life book free of errors, how about him LoT?
You are kicking against the goad. You have maligned and calumniated him by calling him a mason when he isn't.
Keep running, "Lover" of Truth...
That is a double edge sword that shows the desperateness of the feeneyites. How do you know it was? The Church assumes it was not in her official liturgy and in the official account. Your beef is with the Church not me. Please gain the humility to accept this. All the theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors, Popes cannot be wrong on the same issue but Feeney can be.
-
Baltimore Catechism (19th and 20th centuries): Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church? A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.
[Note: The Baltimore Catechism was issued by the Third Council of Baltimore in 1884, and was approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885 as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States, where it remained the standard for nearly a century. Even after extreme scrutiny and corrections after being published, the content on the threefold baptism has remained in the catechism to this day.]
-
St. Recipicius, Nov 10, p. 1095: ...
Now you're trying to derail this thread off topic with your spam. That's just nasty boorish forum behavior. You need to respect the topic of the thread as established by the OP. It's one thing for you to spam stuff into your own threads. If you try to pull this garbage again on this or any other thread that I start, Matthew will hear about it.
-
Feeneyites think the official teaching of the Church is spam:
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): Baptism: Substitutes for the Sacrament: “The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.”
Baptism: The Baptism of Desire: “This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto).
The Church: "Thus, even in the case in which God Saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church's graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body."
-
And as we know some feeneyites insist that they could not have been saved because no water was poured on their head. :barf:
I have had just about enough of your vile blasphemies. You deride the water that Our Lord established as the matter for this Sacrament. In the Sacred Liturgy and among the Church Fathers, they absolutely REVERE the water because Our Lord chose it to be the instrument of our salvation. You are a filthy vile scuм. You've insulted the Church and Our Lord. If I knew where you lived, I'd go to your house and beat the crap out of your filthy blaspheming mouth ... no differently that if you were to insult my mother to my face.
-
Feeneyites think the official teaching of the Church is spam:
Idiot. What you're doing is spamming -- it has nothing to do with the contents of what you're spamming.
I dare you to PM me your home address.
-
Feeneyites think the official teaching of the Church is spam:
Get off my thread immediately.
-
Idiot. What you're doing is spamming -- it has nothing to do with the contents of what you're spamming.
I dare you to PM me your home address.
This is the typical defense of the Feeneyites against their errors when they are stifled. Two-year-old's get their way when they fall into a fit sometimes. Maybe it will work with an adult who has a temper-tantrum.
-
The Monsignor, LoT.
-
It's about me. He said I was helping his cause by posting. But this does not really seem to be the case does it?
-
Canon Law (1917): Canon 737: “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.”
Canon 1239: “Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.”
-
The Monsignor - Lover of Calumny....
-
You can see the feeneyites true stripes when confronted repeatedly with truth:
A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law (Augustine, 1918): Canon 737: "The Church has ever taught that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, - either really or by desire - and that consequently no other sacrament can be validly received without it."
Canon 1239: "Baptism may be received by desire - baptismus flaminis - and this is generally supposed in those who had received instructions in the faith (catechumens)." [Note: "baptismus flaminis" is Latin for "baptism of desire"]
Canon 2258: "The relation of the individual Catholic to the body of the Church is sometimes styled external communion, whilst his connection with the soul of the Church is called internal communion. This latter communion is not per se severed by excommunication, as grace and charity can not be taken away by the penal sword of the Church, but are lost only through grievous personal guilt. And as this guilt can be repaired by perfect contrition, it may happen that one is excommunicated and yet lives in the friendship of God. Besides, faith and hope may coexist with mortal sin."
-
More Spam......plain and simple.
-
More Spam......plain and simple.
Undermining the messenger of truth's positing of Catholic teaching with false accusations.
-
More Spam......plain and simple.
Yes, I'm going to have to take this take this up with Matthew again. It's one thing if this rectal orifice wants to spam his own threads, quite another to go one someone else's thread and spam it up with off-topic cut-and-paste jobs.
-
Mention that you do not want me to post on a thread about me and that you call me idiot and moron among other things. And that I post only Catholic teaching. If this is enough to get one banned I don't want to be here.
Pope Pius XII (Oct. 29, 1951): Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives: "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..."
-
Mention that you do not want me to post on a thread about me and that you call me idiot and moron among other things. And that I post only Catholic teaching. If this is enough to get one banned I don't want to be here.
I said for you to stop SPAMMING my thread with off-topic garbage. If you want to respond to the charge that you are a moron and/or idiot and/or heretic and/or blasphemer, then you are free to do so.
But stop this spam -- it's the sign of a serious mental disorder.
-
This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent - says “Lover of Truth.” Well, how about THIS from Trent -
If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and on that account wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...," Let Him Be Anathama. -COUNCIL OF TRENT Sess VII Canon II “On Baptism"
- Even Our Lady had to be baptized. Though not needing it to remove Original Sin, she of course being free from it, IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE OTHER SACRAMENTS, she had to receive the Sacrament of Baptism - by water. And so do we.
-
Looking over this thread I am confused as usual! Why is it Lad when you started this thread you included his name in the Title, yet you demand he does not post as well as some of your peanut gallery. ( by peanut gallery meaning childish)
As defined: a group of people who criticize someone, often by focusing on insignificant details.
I would think that inserting anothers username would be an invitation, am I wrong on that point?
Just curious!
anyone!
-
Looking over this thread I am confused as usual! Why is it Lad when you started this thread you included his name in the Title, yet you demand he does not post as well as some of your peanut gallery.
I would think that inserting anothers username would be an invitation, am I wrong on that point?
Just curious!
anyone!
I did not demand that he not post in general. I insisted that he stop posting irrelevant off-topic spam in order to destroy / derail my thread. It's basic forum etiquette all over the internet. If he wants to respond on topic, that's perfectly acceptable. But he's pasting in generic BoD quotes that have nothing to do with this thread. I only told him to get off this thread immediately after he refused to abide by my request that he stop spamming generic BoD quotes into this thread.
-
Looking over this thread I am confused as usual! Why is it Lad when you started this thread you included his name in the Title, yet you demand he does not post as well as some of your peanut gallery. ( by peanut gallery meaning childish)
I would think that inserting anothers username would be an invitation, am I wrong on that point?
Just curious!
anyone!
The patently obvious is obscure to these people. Actually my guess is it is a plan by Ladislaus. He has tried this before. He is a defeated man and turns into the poor little boy on the playground and tells the teacher hey is being bullied. He starts a thread with my name on it on purpose, KNOWING I will respond and then cry to Matthew that I'm derailing his thread. Perfect for the underhanded. These is a feeneyite forum and I'm posting on feeneyism. This is what you are dealing with when dealing with the feeneyites.
He also smugly said my post were convincing others against me and proving him right and then starts crying about my posts. His actions contradict his words, but I don't think we should be surprised.
-
LoT, do you know that you're actually doing a great service to our defense of Catholic ecclesiology, soteriology, and Sacramental theology by posting here?
-
Looking over this thread I am confused as usual! Why is it Lad when you started this thread you included his name in the Title, yet you demand he does not post as well as some of your peanut gallery. ( by peanut gallery meaning childish)
As defined: a group of people who criticize someone, often by focusing on insignificant details.
I would think that inserting anothers username would be an invitation, am I wrong on that point?
Just curious!
anyone!
Yes, well, the red letters above are really LoT's. My post was supposed to go elsewhere, not on this thread - but I was interrupted by the this website's software alert telling me not to post yet as someone else had posted something new and perhaps it should be checked. In the going back and forth, my post above ended up here, instead of where it should have been placed. Childish? Childlike, it is hoped. Mea culpa.
-
He also smugly said my post were convincing others against me and proving him right and then starts crying about my posts. His actions contradict his words, but I don't think we should be surprised.
Your thick brain is utterly incapable of rational thought or logical distinctions. I am complaining about your SPAM behavior, where you pick one of your favorite little theological pieces, and paste it in one paragraph at a time, post after post after post. I am not complaining about your posting in general. I am complaining about this specific behavior. But you are playing with a single digit IQ and cannot comprehend this ... or any other ... distinction. In addition, I can't stop you from doing this spamming nonsense on your own threads, but it's a violation of universal forum etiquette to go onto someone ELSE's thread and pollute it this way, derailing the main point under discussion. That is the very specific behavior to which I object. In fact, Matthew, who's no friend of "Feeneyites", similarly reprimanded you for this kind of thing. You were even more wild back then. You would start about ten threads per day and paste these huge articles into them so that everything else in a forum or sub-forum got squeezed down to the bottom ... rendering it useless for anyone who doesn't want to read your stupid articles (which were 99.999% of CI members). He restricted you to one such spam thread per day. Now you're pulling this same crap in other people's threads, and you need to stop it.
-
He also smugly said my post were convincing others against me and proving him right and then starts crying about my posts. His actions contradict his words, but I don't think we should be surprised.
This is quite true. People have PMed me that they saw the light about this subject (not all became Feeneyites, but most saw through the deeper errors of your position) ... in responses I made to your posts, because they were so incredibly lame and so easily refuted.
-
In regards to magisterium and infallibility above, I have presented quotes from the Council of Trent, "A Commentary on Canon Law", Catholic Encyclopedia, and "A Catholic Dictionary" to support the teaching of that the soul can be cleaned from Original Sin apart from water. The first reference is obviously an infallible General Council, while the latter three are trusted Catholic references, each with their own imprimatur. For those who insist on stating these trusted Catholic sources are erroneous, we ask you to present something more trustworthy from the Church that trumps these references we have used. So far no one has responded to this request.
-
From John Daly:
Mgr. Fenton’s credentials as a theologian are irreproachable. He was a Doctor of Sacred Theology and a Bachelor of Canon Law; he was professor of theology in several seminaries and at the Catholic University of America; he was editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review; and he was Secretary of the Catholic Theology Society of America, member of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy, and Adviser to the Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities. Nor could any reader of his excellent book The Catholic Church and Salvation in the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See deny that the various accolades he has thus received from the Church were well merited. Let us therefore allow him to guide us to a correct understanding of Pope Pius IX’s words.
-
From John Daly:
The Feeneyites beg to differ of course. But why would a Catholic be interested in what those of the Feeneyite bent would have to say? I ask this most sincerely in light of the overwhelming evidence against them. The other traditional Catholic forums do not allow them to post on the issue because they are such a menace and this one was forced to relegate them to their own separate section so they would not bug everyone else.
-
In regards to magisterium and infallibility above, I have presented quotes from the Council of Trent, "A Commentary on Canon Law", Catholic Encyclopedia, and "A Catholic Dictionary" to support the teaching of that the soul can be cleaned from Original Sin apart from water. The first reference is obviously an infallible General Council, while the latter three are trusted Catholic references, each with their own imprimatur. For those who insist on stating these trusted Catholic sources are erroneous, we ask you to present something more trustworthy from the Church that trumps these references we have used. So far no one has responded to this request.
Well, at least this isn't spam. Still off topic though.
Why don't you actually start separate threads on individual subjects and stick to those subjects on those threads? Would make the experience much more pleasant for everyone.
-
Well, at least this isn't spam. Still off topic though.
Why don't you actually start separate threads on individual subjects and stick to those subjects on those threads? Would make the experience much more pleasant for everyone.
I'll try again until you start with the name-calling. What is the point on this thread that you would like me to refute, admit I was wrong about, or claim I am not sure of the answer?
-
I'll try again until you start with the name-calling. What is the point on this thread that you would like me to refute, admit I was wrong about, or claim I am not sure of the answer?
Whether you have anything to offer in response to this thread or not, that's a separate issue entirely from spamming unrelated material onto this thread or any other thread I start.
Let's say I start a thread about a very specific subject, say, whether explicit belief in the Holy Trinity is necessary for salvation. I would object if you started spamming in quotes about Baptism of Desire that had nothing to do with the subject under consideration. Get it?
-
Whether you have anything to offer in response to this thread or not, that's a separate issue entirely from spamming unrelated material onto this thread or any other thread I start.
Let's say I start a thread about a very specific subject, say, whether explicit belief in the Holy Trinity is necessary for salvation. I would object if you started spamming in quotes about Baptism of Desire that had nothing to do with the subject under consideration. Get it?
Okay.
-
Ladislaus, you have to be honest and admit that by starting a thread with his name in the title you are egging him on. Or daring him.
That is not nice especially when you claim you don't want to read his notes, so then why are you reading them?
-
Ladislaus, you have to be honest and admit that by starting a thread with his name in the title you are egging him on. Or daring him.
That is not nice especially when you claim you don't want to read his notes, so then why are you reading them?
I see that you too are logically challenged. I never said he couldn't respond to this thread at all. I asked him to stop spamming unrelated material onto it. How difficult is this for you to understand?
PS -- I don't read his spam. I simply look at the title and skim past them.
-
I see that you too are logically challenged. I never said he couldn't respond to this thread at all. I asked him to stop spamming unrelated material onto it. How difficult is this for you to understand?
PS -- I don't read his spam. I simply look at the title and skim past them.
The Feeneyite trick. If some one opposes you call them a name or accuse them of being stupid. You also respond to my [spam] Church teaching quite frequently.
-
I see that you too are logically challenged. I never said he couldn't respond to this thread at all. I asked him to stop spamming unrelated material onto it. How difficult is this for you to understand?
PS -- I don't read his spam. I simply look at the title and skim past them.
Big Deal, I see many threads here go off topic in fact almost all of them. What else is new!
-
Big Deal, I see many threads here go off topic in fact almost all of them. What else is new!
The difference here being that LoT does this maliciously. Yes, threads drift off topic on their own sometimes. That's annoying too. But when it's being done on purpose, that's where it crosses the line of being contrary to forum etiquette.
-
The difference here being that LoT does this maliciously. Yes, threads drift off topic on their own sometimes. That's annoying too. But when it's being done on purpose, that's where it crosses the line of being contrary to forum etiquette.
Now Ladislaus knows the inner workings of my mind. Feeneyites are amazing the reject Aquinas, Bellarmine and Liguori rather easily and make false accusations just as easily.
-
The difference here being that LoT does this maliciously. Yes, threads drift off topic on their own sometimes. That's annoying too. But when it's being done on purpose, that's where it crosses the line of being contrary to forum etiquette.
Well then, I really don't know why you started this thread, you know he will come and that is something that bothers you so.
Getting back on topic:
I know you said, you wanted everyone to know that you had PMs and followers, but so did Martin Luther. Not sure that is a reason to start a thread.
-
Oooo... Martin Luther. What are you saying Myrna, or need it be asked?
-
Oooo... Martin Luther. What are you saying Myrna, or need it be asked?
His claiming that he has followers does not mean anything. The point seemed rather obvious as does you obvious bias.
-
Oooo... Martin Luther. What are you saying Myrna, or need it be asked?
Tell me Merry, do you feel it necessary to start a thread everytime someone PM's you and tells you they agree with you.
I call that insecurity. Insecure perhaps about the denial of BOD/BOB, he needs those pats on the back.
Or
Do you Merry not know that Martin Luther had followers much like your founder or misunderstanding of him.
Don't act so shocked Merry, unless you also shame those who name call those who you disagree with.
-
Idiot. What you're doing is spamming -- it has nothing to do with the contents of what you're spamming.
I dare you to PM me your home address.
Easy. Don't play into it. It seems pretty clear that this place serves as a feeder bar for attention monkeys.
The intent may not be trolling, but the acts and effects surely are. That Church Fathers, saints etc are used as fodder makes it that much more despicable.
Don't knowhow to PM this or I would have.
-
His claiming that he has followers does not mean anything. The point seemed rather obvious as does you obvious bias.
I don't know if he has followers or not, but from what I read of him on this website, I don't think he would.
I just picked up on, as many others probably did, the fact of throwing the name of Luther out there. You know, as in heretic.
By the way, since you are reading me, how about Monsignor Cassano? Not convenient, is it, that he found Fr. Feeney's Bread of Life flawless?
-
The Feeneyites beg to differ of course. But why would a Catholic be interested in what those of the Feeneyite bent would have to say? I ask this most sincerely in light of the overwhelming evidence against them. The other traditional Catholic forums do not allow them to post on the issue because they are such a menace and this one was forced to relegate them to their own separate section so they would not bug everyone else.
That's super. Why should we care?
-
I don't know if he has followers or not, but from what I read of him on this website, I don't think he would.
I just picked up on, as many others probably did, the fact of throwing the name of Luther out there. You know, as in heretic.
By the way, since you are reading me, how about Monsignor Cassano? Not convenient, is it, that he found Fr. Feeney's Bread of Life flawless?
I meant, that what I see of him on this site, I don't think he would LIE about having people PM him.
-
Tell me Merry, do you feel it necessary to start a thread everytime someone PM's you and tells you they agree with you.
I call that insecurity. Insecure perhaps about the denial of BOD/BOB, he needs those pats on the back.
Or
Do you Merry not know that Martin Luther had followers much like your founder or misunderstanding of him.
Don't act so shocked Merry, unless you also shame those who name call those who you disagree with.
Tell me Myrna, the way LoT starts threads, are you really comparing Ladislaus to that?!
Myrna, other than Jesus Christ, who do you think is my "founder"? And what do you mean by "misunderstanding of him"?
I am not shocked - ?? -- at what? You are presuming something here. If, in general, you might be speaking of Fr. Feeney and the Doctrine of EENS, with the liberal BOB/BOD flushed out of it, then, yes: I don't like to see a self-sacrificing - and innocent - priest get maligned.
-
In all my life I have never met an incessant pusher of BOD & BOB, that was not hiding behind them while really wanting to push salvation by belief in a God that rewards, that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist etc. can be saved without explicit belief in Chist and the Holy Trinity, without explicit desire to be a Catholic or baptized. Even when they insisted that they limit their belief to say BOD of the catechumen, upon further pressure I always found them to be liars. Those who incessantly push BOB and BOD are obsessed in their mission to infect others to believe that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist etc. can be saved. They do not feel altogether convinced about their belief, so they seek company
-
In all my life I have never met an incessant pusher of BOD & BOB, that was not hiding behind them while really wanting to push salvation by belief in a God that rewards, that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist etc. can be saved without explicit belief in Chist and the Holy Trinity, without explicit desire to be a Catholic or baptized. Even when they insisted that they limit their belief to say BOD of the catechumen, upon further pressure I always found them to be liars. Those who incessantly push BOB and BOD are obsessed in their mission to infect others to believe that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist etc. can be saved. They do not feel altogether convinced about their belief, so they seek company
The above falls under the category of I would not believe such a thing would be posted on a Catholic forum unless I saw it and warrants a brief description accurately summarized which is as follows:
:barf:
-
Anyone else notice that all of LoE's posts from yesterday seem to have disappeared?
:applause: :applause:
-
Pope Innocent III (13th century): From the letter "Debitum pastoralis officii" to Berthold, the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206: "You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: 'I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.' We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: 'Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.," the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another...If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith."
-
Forgot your meds again?
-
Get out of the fourth grade and try to at least act Catholic:
St. Catherine of Sienna: Dialogue of St. Catherine: Baptisms: "I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of an, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin, unless he wish to do so; by falling, as he will, into the guild of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But if the soul is unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood... Thou seest then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite..."
-
you wanted everyone to know that you had PMs and followers, but so did Martin Luther.
Martin Luther got PMs? Interesting.
-
Martin Luther got PMs? Interesting.
You don't refute here point but engage in classic sarcasm that avoids the point.
-
Anyone else notice that all of LoE's posts from yesterday seem to have disappeared?
:applause: :applause:
Rest assured that they will be repeated again....and again...and soon.
-
Still waiting about Monsignor Cassano, Lover of Truth. You know, the priest you called a Mason, who on the bidding of the Vatican evaluated Fr. Feeney's book "Bread of Life" and declared it free from error.
Do you stand by this - a calumny if you cannot prove he was a Mason.
-
Please pray for all non-Catholics who reject the following:
3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.”