Author Topic: NADIEIMPORTANTE - Roman Catechism, Baptism Accident (Read 8675 times)

Gregory I · « **Reply #60 on:** January 22, 2012, 12:30:43 AM »

Actually Nadie, Pope Pius VI didn't condemn it. THis is still an allowable position. What he said is that those who say:

"Those who believe infants who do not suffer fire are pelagian heretics."

are condemned.

HE NEVER CONDEMNED THE POSITION ITSELF, ONLY THOSE WHO SAID ANY OTHER POSITION WAS HERETICAL.

That is all. :)

Gregory I · « **Reply #61 on:** January 22, 2012, 09:26:12 AM »

So you deny the fallibility of human authors that are NOT part of the magisterium, whether ordinary or extraordinary, and you take no cognizance of the fact that Satan works to destroy the church by degrees, even through the innocent mistakes of others?

For it is enough for One person to make a mistake, and then another to adopt the mistake, even AFTER his position has been repudiated.

This is what St. Bernard did, and it is telling that Bernard not only believed in BOD, but he also believed that pelagian falsehood that an unbaptized child could attain to eternal life on the faith of its parents.

T Hat is what made St. Augustine great: He rejected comfortable "truths" that were illoogical and incompatible with the gospel for the hard truth which requires faith. Like predestination, reprobation, infant damnation and salvation through the saving waters of baptism absolutely and alone. These doctrines preserve the integrity of THE catholic dogma: EENS.

Almost without exception where BOD is present, there is some other theological quirk in the same writer. That is because of what it represents, and the kind of precedents it establishes:

"If God would allow this man by desire, well surely he would allow an infant..."

No. THIS is idle speculation.

Once again, it arises from hearts that have little faith.

BUT HUMOR ME:

Where do theologians UNANIMOUSLY teach that BOD is a truth revealed by God?

Where do the Fathers?

Where do the popes?

That's right, THEY DON'T. It's a tradition of men, the result of fruitless idle speculation.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #62 on:** January 22, 2012, 10:12:40 AM »

How many times will Pupatino get refuted before he actually addresses a legitimate objection put to him?

You know, there's a give and take in discussions like this. If you're just going to keep on rambling on with variations of the same points that have been refuted and you refuse to answer questions when you demand others answer questions, it's pretty much time to cut bait and go fish inmho.

Gregory I · « **Reply #63 on:** January 22, 2012, 04:39:29 PM »

Okay, so YOUR position is that AFTER a dogma is proclaimed, that the saints and doctor of the church cease to speak contrary to it? Otherwise they would not be saints.

Is that your position?

Gregory I · « **Reply #64 on:** January 23, 2012, 01:00:06 AM »

I think you need to restate your position, because I cannot quite understand it. I think you are saying that since the saints are saints, and the church is not stupid, that when a Saint is canonoized, that means De Facto that they are not guilty of material heresy or error. Because the Church is Holy, it cannot give sanction to impious writings.

Well, I hate to burst your Bubble, but that is false.

Let me tell you why:

We have two saints from the same era that co-founded heresies:

St. John Cassian, and St. Vincent of Lerins. They both contributed to the founding of Semi-Pelagianism, after Pelagius had already been condemned. They disliked St. Augustine.

Regarding St. Vincent of Lerins Catholic Encyclopedia Says:

"He was a Semipelagian and so opposed to the doctrine of St. Augustine. It is believed now that he uses against Augustine his great principle: "what all men have at all times and everywhere believed must be regarded as true". Living in a centre deeply imbued with Semipelagianism, Vincent's writings show several points of doctrine akin to Casian or to Faustus of Riez, who became Abbot of Lérins at the time Vincent wrote his "Commonitorium"; he uses technical expressions similar to those employed by the Semipelagians against Augustine; but, as Benedict XIV observes, that happened before the controversy was decided by the Church."

Regarding St. John Cassian: Catholic Encyclopedia

"Yet Cassian did not himself escape the suspicion of erroneous teaching; he is in fact regarded as the originator of what, since the Middle Ages, has been known as Semipelagianism. Views of this character attributed to him are found in his third and fifth, but especially in his thirteenth, "Conference". Preoccupied as he was with moral questions he exaggerated the rôle of free will by claiming that the initial steps to salvation were in the power of each individual, unaided by grace. The teaching of Cassian on this point was a reaction against what he regarded as the exaggerations of St. Augustine in his treatise "De correptione et gratia" as to the irresistible power of grace and predestination."

So here you have two saints in the Church who are considered the founders of a heresy.

I think your theory just exploded.

Saints are canonized for the HOLINESS OF THEIR LIFE, not for crossing every t and dotting every i theologically speaking, although that must always be considered.

Gregory I · « **Reply #65 on:** January 23, 2012, 01:04:29 AM »

Quote from: Cupertino

You will find no example of a solemnly defined dogma where AFTERWARD some Church approved writing called it into doubt. This is impossible. But this is what your Feeneyite stand believes can happen. And necessarily believes right now there can be things in the approved writings yet to be discovered that call into doubt solemnly defined dogma from before the date of authorship. This is impossible, but this is what you are saying with the CCT and St. Alphonsus.

Show me where BOD is taught by the Church in her magisterial docuмents, in the extraordinary magisterium, or in the universal consensus of the fathers of the church AND the Theologians who UNANIMOUSLY teach it as REVEALED by God.

If you can do that, you will be on to something.

Gregory I · « **Reply #66 on:** January 26, 2012, 12:19:58 AM »

Any takers?

Gregory I · « **Reply #67 on:** January 26, 2012, 12:35:27 AM »

Here is another demonstration from last year: on fisheaters, no one brought forth any credible evidence either: I started a thread on EENS that ran 50 pages.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3439099.0.html

Gregory I · « **Reply #68 on:** February 04, 2012, 06:10:14 AM »

I am bowled over by this, I will not lie:

St. Catherine of Siena (Doctor, A.D. 1380)

“By shedding both blood and water I showed you the holy baptism of water that you receive through the power of my blood. But I was also showing you the baptism of blood, and this in two ways. The first touches those who are baptized in their own blood for me. Though they could not have the other baptism, their own blood has power because of mine. Others are baptized in fire when they lovingly desire baptism but cannot have it. Nor is there any baptism of desire without [my] blood, for blood has been fused with the fire of divine charity, because it was shed for love.” (The Dialogue)

I love St. Catherine. I have never seen this before...

I am gonna be perfectly honest. I hate being this way, because I feel like the proverbial wave that the book of James talks about, "tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine." It is humiliating.

But, here is what I am thinking:

I honor St. Catherine very much. I love her. I have never read about another woman like her so full of the flame of God's love. I fully believe in the legitimacy of every one of her divine revelations. When I hear Christ speak to her, I hear him speak to me.

I had been praying that God would enlighten me about this issue, because I do not want to be a rebel. I prayed that I would be submissive to his will, and that if he wanted to show me that y view of BOD is wrong...well, convict me of it. I read the above quote and...I was simply bowled over. Because of my profound respect for St. Catherine, and the fact that I have this book called "The Dialogue" I really believe this to be true. Our Lord is not gonna tell her hundreds of pages of revelations and then all of a sudden let her be deceived for the space of one paragraph.

In terms of reconciling the issue, this for me is the key that unlocked the door to my mind:

It is an ERROR to conceive as baptism as simply PURELY incarnational. For example, just as Jesus Christ was hypostatically God united to flesh, so Baptism is Grace united to Water. BUt it is BIGGER than that. Baptism does not only have a CHRISTOLOGICAL dimension, but it in a certain sense mirrors the TRINITY OF GOD.

Baptism is TRINITARIAN as well as CHRISTOLOGICAL.

As in the Trinity you have ONE GOD, Yet three divine persons, and only one of these divine persons has hypostatically united himself to the flesh of man, in a similar way there is: ONE BAPTISM, which contains in it three elements: Water, Spirit and Blood. These Three are inseparable and indivisible, just as the Trinity itself is.

Yet who would deny that each person of the Trinity moves and operates not INDEPENDENTLY from the Other two, but that the other two are united wherever one person is to be found?

Remember, the efficacy of Water baptism comes from the fact that by it, we are configured to the death of the Lord, so that we may share in his ressurection. Those who are slain for Christ's sake without water baptism are literally being configured to the likeness of his death: for they die for HIS SAKE, and so they have sanctification in the spirit and are made participants in his ressurection.

"He who loses his life for my sake shall find it."

They are said to be baptized in their own blood by ANALOGY, not sacramentally. This is because the type of death they undergo does what baptism does, in a limited sense: It configures their death to Christ. Where this Charity of love is present, there is present the sanctifying action of the spirit and the redemptive blood of Christ. It has all the effects of water baptism with the single exception that it does not confer a sacramental character.

Those who are aflame with the love of God are participants in in divine charity. Their living of the commandments, their walking in righteousness and their solemn vow to receive baptism, acknowledging its necessity are signs of their being made just before God.

I know I just was saying the opposite yesterday....But I believe I can harmonize the concept. I can't explain it. I can do it now. I remember all the dogmas, I affirm them all, but somehow...It makes sense now.

Before I was TWISTING certain magisterial docuмents, like the condemnationd of Baius to say what I already believed.

Yet, when you read the condemnations IN CONTEXT WITH EACH OTHER and actually OPEN YOUR EYES, you realize that ANTI_Baptism of desire is what is being condemned!

31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
-Condemned.

In other words, it is CONDEMNED to believe that a Catechumen, who CAN HAVE perfect and sincere charity, will not thereby have his sins remitted, BY THAT SAME CHARITY. I know this is true, because read the Next condemnation:

32. That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
-COndemned.

Oh, SNAP! That is the Canon I never read before! CHARITY IS CONNECTED TO REMISSION OF SINS! It explicitly states it, right here.

So, if we realize that CHARITY is always connected with remission of sins, and if we RE-READ the 31st canon, we suddenly marvel at the fact that the notion of Catechumens, who are so disposed, cannot, by this disposition, obtain the remission of sins is what is being condemned!

That is a conceptual affirmation of BOD.

likewise:

33. A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.
-Condemned.

Here is condemned the notion that Charity is ONLY RECEIVED IN THE LAVER OF REGENERATION, AND the notion that the remission of sins can only be obtained through sacramental water baptism. We know this is not true BECAUSE we JUST READ that the notion that charity is not always connected with the remission of sins is CONDEMNED! Therefore, Charity IS connected with the remission of sins. And if a Catechumen lives holily, justly and rightly with divine charity BEFORE baptism, he can obtain the remission of his sins!

The bottom line is that Baptism must be understood Both in a CHRISTOLOGICAL (Water/grace) sense and in a TRINITARIAN (Water, Blood, Spirit) sense. And these three components of Baptism are ONE. THerfore, there is ONE baptism, just as there is one God.

AS the Council of Vienne says itself:

<< ONE BAPTISM, which regenerates all who are baptised in Christ, must be confessed by all the Faithful, JUST AS ONE GOD and One Faith; which celebrated in water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, we believe to be a perfect remedy for salvation, commonly for adults as for children. (Denz. 482)
>>

Baptism is one just as God is one. But God is a trinity.

This is the key.