Author Topic: NADIEIMPORTANTE - Roman Catechism, Baptism Accident (Read 8679 times)

Gregory I · « **Reply #45 on:** January 18, 2012, 01:22:42 AM »

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

St. Alphonsus has no argument because his foundation is, unfortunately, erroneous, I think even RC could see that.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #46 on:** January 19, 2012, 08:52:54 AM »

Quote from: Cupertino

What is amazing, is that Nadie STILL avoids giving a direct answer to my questions! ....

Reading whatever you write in excruciating, I just don't bother with it. First I have to understand what you are asking, which is hard enough, then when in the past I responded, you keep telling me that I don't respond. I don't think that you know what you want. Have someone else ask it in their manner of thinking, in their words, maybe that's a solution. Other than that, just come to the reality that I don't read what you write anymore. Nevertheless, I'm here giving you a way to get a response, get yourself an "interpreter", that can elucidate to me what you are asking and where you are going.

This is not a language problem, for I am educated all my life in English since 1st grade, and have lived in the USA for 51 years, and have an American wife.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #47 on:** January 19, 2012, 01:10:33 PM »

A clanging symbol, really.

Augustinian · « **Reply #48 on:** January 19, 2012, 02:02:34 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Esto puede ayudar ...

Es la cotización publicada por San Alfonso peligroso dogma solemne que se definió anteriormente? O no?

Si, or no?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This may help...

Is the quotation published by Saint Alphonsus dangerous to solemn dogma that was previously defined? O not?

Yes, or no?

I don't know why you want him to answer so badly since he said so implicitly, and at least two of us have already explicitly answered 'yes'.

But anyway, since I answered, I would like you to answer a question for me:

Do you believe that one can be invincibly ignorant that adultery is a sin? Or is the evilness of adultery, just like contraception and murder, written on the hearts of all men and inexcusable?

nadieimportante · « **Reply #49 on:** January 19, 2012, 04:22:50 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Esto puede ayudar ...

Es la cotización publicada por San Alfonso peligroso dogma solemne que se definió anteriormente? O no?

Si, or no?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This may help...

Is the quotation published by Saint Alphonsus dangerous to solemn dogma that was previously defined? O not?

Yes, or no?

A quotation with 4 errors as I pointed out in detail, is good for nothing. It's nodifferent than St. Cyprian teaching that the heretics baptism is invalid, or St. Augustines teaching that unbaptized children suffer the sense pains of hell, and all the other errors taught by the Saints. Of course it's harmful, just look at how many people quote it as evidense for implicit BOD, and implicit faith.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #50 on:** January 20, 2012, 07:19:08 AM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: nadieimportante
A quotation with 4 errors as I pointed out in detail, is good for nothing. It's nodifferent than St. Cyprian teaching that the heretics baptism is invalid, or St. Augustines teaching that unbaptized children suffer the sense pains of hell, and all the other errors taught by the Saints. Of course it's harmful, just look at how many people quote it as evidense for implicit BOD, and implicit faith.

Actually, since a good thing can be later abused, that misuse and its bad effect doesn't necessarily signify whether that thing itself is good or bad. My question was not about later, or whether it was abused, but whether the writing, when it was written, called into doubt previous solemnly defined EENS dogma?

There you go again, just like I said you do:

Quote

nadie wrote to Cupertino: Reading whatever you write in excruciating, I just don't bother with it. First I have to understand what you are asking, which is hard enough, then when in the past I responded, you keep telling me that I don't respond. I don't think that you know what you want. Have someone else ask it in their manner of thinking, in their words, maybe that's a solution. Other than that, just come to the reality that I don't read what you write anymore. Nevertheless, I'm here giving you a way to get a response, get yourself an "interpreter", that can elucidate to me what you are asking and where you are going.

Quote

Actually, since a good thing can be later abused, that misuse and its bad effect doesn't necessarily signify whether that thing itself is good or bad.

That's irrelevant in this case, since this is not a "good thing", that we are talking about here. This quotation is not good, in fact it's good for nothing. Error is not good. Read what I wrote:

Quote from: nadieimportante

A quotation with 4 errors as I pointed out in detail, is good for nothing. It's no different than St. Cyprian teaching that the heretics baptism is invalid, or St. Augustines teaching that unbaptized children suffer the sense pains of hell, and all the other errors taught by the Saints. Of course it's harmful, just look at how many people quote it as evidense for implicit BOD, and implicit faith.

Add that to all the contradiction you have to deal with.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #51 on:** January 20, 2012, 01:08:42 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Nadie,

I am taking your advice you just gave to another to post a separate topic so it would be easier for you to see and answer. So far, it is like pulling teeth to get a simple answer out of you on this, and I have asked multiple times, where you still reply in the same thread but avoid answering.

Do you reject what the Catechism of the Council of Trent taught about how adults may die by accident before receiving water baptism and still be saved?

No.

I don't reject anything taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Anyone who rejects what was taught there betrays a rebellious spirit and deformed intellect.

This is how sedevacantists are born.

Augustinian · « **Reply #52 on:** January 20, 2012, 03:31:31 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

No.

I don't reject anything taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Anyone who rejects what was taught there betrays a rebellious spirit and deformed intellect.

This is how sedevacantists are born.

Benedict XVI doesn't even believe in the Council of Trent. Or Vatican I.

So saying that rejecting a catechism "betrays (I think you meant portrays) a rebellious spirit" means nothing coming from you. You have to betray the faith itself to defend Benedict XVI.

Augustinian · « **Reply #53 on:** January 20, 2012, 03:34:37 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

So, we have four, what I call "Feeneyites", here in this thread. Baker refused to answer at all. The other three say that what St. Alphonsus wrote is harmful to the dogma of EENS. I will continue, later, in a few hours, if there is no objection so far.

I need thumbscrews to get an answer out of some of you guys too. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you missed my question on St. Fulgence and the other one on adultery?

Gregory I · « **Reply #54 on:** January 21, 2012, 04:27:37 PM »

By what authority do you consider the isolated teachings of saints, which are actually factual ERRORS, the teaching of the church?

Gregory I · « **Reply #55 on:** January 21, 2012, 07:14:41 PM »

Wow, cupertino, that is the weakest argument I have ever seen. You actually confuse the Universal and Ordinary Magisterial teaching of the church, which consists of the unanimous consent of the fathers and the unanimous teaching of theologians that a doctrine is REVEALED by God---with the ideas of particular saints.

Really?

I will address your whole post shortly.

Gregory I · « **Reply #56 on:** January 21, 2012, 07:55:05 PM »

Quote

So, we have four, what I call "Feeneyites", here in this thread. Baker refused to answer at all. The other three say that what St. Alphonsus wrote is harmful to the dogma of EENS. I will continue, later, in a few hours, if there is no objection so far.

I object to the term for myself, but okay. I prefer Roman Catholic. You may as well call me an Augustine-ite, or a Gregory nαzιanzen-ite, or a St. Basil-ite, or an Ambrose-ite, etc.

Quote

Okay, more than a few hours has gone by. Augstine Baker, in all his convictions, refused to give his Yea or Nea to my question. Anyway, the other 3 blusterers for Feeneyism say that what St. Alphonsus wrote was harmful to the dogma of EENS.

I think I have done a good job of being fair and even charitable. I don't believe I warrant the term "blusterer." I prefer orthodox.

Quote

I say, their notion is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE and is in fact a blasphemy against "Holy" Mother Church. They truly do not understand that the Church is "holy". Truly.

Okay, so the Fathers don't exist so far, and the universal ordinary magisterium has nothing to do with them. Already, we see the beginnings of a repudiation of Tradition.

Quote from: [i

Mortalium Animos[/i], 1929]The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain for ever intact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men.

Exactly! And the IRONY here is that all the BOD'ers say that we are only giving our INTERPRETATION of the Dogma. Really? THe dogma is what it is. The Fathers say what they say, and they say it ALOT. That is with what ease and security the true understanding of EENS can be understood. The semantics of men similar to Cupertino are what obscure the truth; by insisting that we are giving an interpretation, or that the dogmas need to be "interpreted" ad nauseam et infinitum. Here Cupertino is contradicted out of his own mouth.

Nadie contradicts this "ease and security" by saying the CCT quote is: "one unclear paragraph"

FIRST of all, a CATECHISM does not constitute an immediate source of faith. A catechism is a COMPENDIUM of the immediate sources of faith. The immediate sources of faith are the magisterial docuмents themselves. Tradition and scripture are remote sources of faith. Because of your confusion over what constitutes a teaching authority, you have started an erroneous conclusion.

Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa

"it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain"

Like relying on the unanimous consent of the Fathers?
Where does the CHURCH teach that BOD is a truth revealed by GOD? WHERE?

Quote

Nadie contradicts this by saying the quote by St. Alphonsus is: "good for nothing"

It is good for nothing because his conclusions were based on factual errors. The section of Trent he quotes is about PENANCE, not baptism! Look it up for yourself.

Quote from: NadieImportante

It's nodifferent than St. Cyprian teaching that the heretics baptism is invalid, or St. Augustines teaching that unbaptized children suffer the sense pains of hell, and all the other errors taught by the Saints.

Exactly.

Quote

It is as if Nadie completely has the reversed concept of BEFORE and AFTER. Notice the examples Nadie gave? None of them pertain to where a solemnly defined dogma was already defined BEFORE. So, his idea of "it's nodifferent" turns into - it IS different, which converts his idea from true, to false.

Your point has no bearing so far because it is not based on anything. What dogmas teach BOD? What magisterial docuмents teach it as revealed by God? YOu have brought fortho nothing,

Quote

The Feeneyites say that the Catechism of the Council of Trent and St. Alphonsus call into doubt the solemnly defined dogma of EENS. But!....we see what the Church says about calling into doubt a solemnly defined dogma after it has been defined. In 1950 the Church defined the dogma of the Assumption:

Quote from: [i
Munificentissimus Deus[/i], 1950]...by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

This is irrelevant, because BOD is not taught by the Church's magisterium, either ordinary or extraordinary. Demonstrate WHERE the unanimous connsent of the fathers teach it, or the UNANIMOUS opinon of theologians that it is REVEALED BY GOD.

Quote

So, according to Feeneyites here, both St. Pius V and St. Alphonsus Liguouri fell away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith...and nobody noticed for centuries! In fact, St. Alphonsus had his writings scrutinized upon beatification, canonization and before he was declared by Holy Mother Church as "Doctor of the Church", and nobody noticed their teaching against previously solemnly defined dogma! That is equivalent to me now saying I believe someone can find the skeleton of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and for nobody to notice, and for me to be scrutinized by Holy Mother Church solemnly and declared a "Doctor of the Church".

WOW. First of all, BOD is NOT taught by the ORDINARY and universal magisterium, which is NOT a solemn declaration, but is nonetheless infallible. The absolute Necessity of baptism without excuses IS taught unanimously. No Father denies it, and even the ones that contradict themselves teach it. It was also infallibly taught in the dogmatic letter to flavian by Pope St. Leo the great that the redeeming blood of Christ, the sanctifying action of the holy spirit, and the baptism of water CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER. This is dogmatic and infallible. Read Leo's tome to Flavian.

Quote

This is impossible. This is blasphemous. This is heretical. Pray for these poor people like Nadie who think they know better than centuries of clergy, popes and Saints!

Pray for those who cannot grasp the most elementary of theological distinctions.

[/quote]

nadieimportante · « **Reply #57 on:** January 21, 2012, 11:59:30 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Gregory, you so entirely missed the point...

the Feeneyite position

Meanwhile, Cupertino believes in implicit faith, the belief that someone who has no desire to be baptized, or to be a Catholic, and even hates the Church, is virtually inside of the Church, and can be saved. Of course, in doing this he opposes St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, but yet he quotes them to defend his beliefs?

Before anyone begins a conversation with an oxymoronic person like this, a person who breaks the law of non-contradiction at every turn, as in my experience 99% BODers do, the first question to ask is:

Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved, by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith"?

Gregory I · « **Reply #58 on:** January 22, 2012, 12:02:04 AM »

Code: [Select]

[quote]Gregory, you [i]so[/i] entirely missed the point...

What comes directly out of the Feeneyite position is the tenet that any and all writings approved by the Church for the faithful (from Saints, from Doctors, from Imprimatured books), all can contain things that call into doubt previously defined solemn dogmas, and [i]can contain them where nobody has yet even discovered them![/i] [/quote]

I disagree. Satan has been working to destroy the church. You think his henchmmen never infiltrate the ranks of the faithful? You think he doesn't cause shifting, not in the dogmas, but in the hearts of theologians, a degree at a time, century after century? 

Did you forget that Christianity is a WAR waged between rational intellects?

[quote]This makes a shambles of the divinity of the Church; it's to say Holy Mother Church uselessly created the system of imprimatur, uselessly scrutinized works before canonizations and before raising a Saint to the title of Doctor, uselessly and dangerously offers the faithful potentially heretical books. [/quote]
The churches divinity lies not in herself, but in her Author, Jesus Christ, and in her SOUL which is the Holy Spirit. It does NOT lie within the judgements of men, or the idle speculations of a scholastic, it lies with Christ. Saints can make doctrinal error. That is a fact. and a whole bunch of them can make the same error, that is also a fact. Both St. Bernard and St. Thomas denied the immaculate conception. Yet nobody censors the Summa.

[quote]It precisely denies the passive infallibility of the members of the believing church, and is a blasphemy just as St. Thomas said. [/quote]

You are wrong on both counts: It is no blasphemy to say theologians have been confused, and that whole groups of theologians in certain eras have made mistakes. Once again, look at St. Thomas and the Dominicans. The Franciscans as a whole upheld the immaculate conception, the Dominicans as a whole, rejected it in favor of the teaching of St. Thomas. You need historical perspective.

The Church is infallible SOLELY in her Extraordinary magisterium, and in her universal and ordinary magisterial teaching.

The Sense of the Faithful you are referring to, the Sensus Fidei is not infallible, or we would all be Arian by now. Or did you forget that 90% of the church in the 4th century was in heresy?

[quote]What is more, for this sick tenet of the Feeneyites, they can't point to any other instance in the whole history of the Church except for baptism of desire,[/quote]

Wait, you mean we can't point out where the majority of the churches theologians were heretics? Sure, the Arian Crisis. 90%. 4th century. 

The Monothelite Heresy, every major see in the world had capitulated to Monothelitism, except for Rome. once again, the majority of the theologians were heretics. 7th century.

The Iconoclast Heresy. about 50-70% of the churches bishops and theologians were heretics on this issue, which forbade the portrayal of images. 9th century.

20th century liberal modernistic heretic theologians are responsible for the degradation of faith and morals that preceded the second Vatican Council.

 [quote]to say it attacked previously defined solemn dogma, and nobody in the whole Church noticed even though the Apostolic See for hundreds of years has allowed it and has been promoting it to the faithful even [u]after[/u] the dogma of EENS had been so long ago solemnly defined.[/quote]

You are not listening. Others in the church DID notice it. Pope Gregory XVI noticed it when he wrote Mirari Vos, Paragraphs 13 and 14.

[quote]It is impossible. It's absurd. It attacks the very holiness of the Church. But that is what the term "heresy" actually means, from the Greek - choice. Heretics have a free will and make their choice, and shipwreck their Faith.

Only a person totally devoid of any faith could make that statement. When did it become heresy to proclaim the churches dogma from the rooftops? When did it become heresy to repeat, in the company of the saints and fathers, the "He who does not enter by the gate is a thief and a robber!"

When did it become heresy to proclaim with Augustine, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Pope Siricius, Hermas, and a whole multitude of others, in company with our blessed savior:

"Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven."

The church has declared what these words mean. They are no metaphor. And those who would take them as such, and tread upon the teachings of the Fathers, their UNANIMOUS teaching, and tread upon the declarations of the most Holy Synod of Trent and the Council of the Vatican, and upon the Authority of the words of Christ himself:

These are those who are true heretics, and the truth is not in them. They have no faith. They do not believe that God can save people according to his own commandments! They make the commandments of God impossible to fulfill, which is a heresy! Trent clearly condemned those who said the commandments of God were impossible to fulfill, and Christ COMMANDED that men are to be baptized for their salvation.

Or did you forget we were in a battle with spies and infiltrators?

nadieimportante · « **Reply #59 on:** January 22, 2012, 12:26:05 AM »

Quote

Cupertino wrote: What is more, for this sick tenet of the Feeneyites, they can't point to any other instance in the whole history of the Church except for baptism of desire

Gregory I replied: Wait, you mean we can't point out where the majority of the churches theologians were heretics? Sure, the Arian Crisis. 90%. 4th century.

The Monothelite Heresy, every major see in the world had capitulated to Monothelitism, except for Rome. once again, the majority of the theologians were heretics. 7th century.

The Iconoclast Heresy. about 50-70% of the churches bishops and theologians were heretics on this issue, which forbade the portrayal of images. 9th century.

20th century liberal modernistic heretic theologians are responsible for the degradation of faith and morals that preceded the second Vatican Council.

Nadie adds:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Limbo,” p. 257: “After enjoying several
centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine’s teaching on original sin was
first successfully challenged by St. Anselm, who maintained that it was not
concupiscence, but the privation of original justice, that constituted the essence of inherited sin. On the special question, however, of the punishment of original
sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that
unbaptized infants share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and
Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition
on this point.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia is saying here that basically from the time of Augustine (4th century) to Abelard (12th century), like 800 years, it was the common and almost unanimous teaching of theologians that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of Hell after death, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius VI. This proves that the “common” error of one period (or even for hundreds of years) is not the universal and constant teaching of the Church from the beginning.