Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: nadieimportante on December 19, 2011, 01:25:47 PM
-
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?
Read my thread "Dying by "Accident" before being baptized, and BOD"? You'll find me answering this question quite a few times.
Besides, what do you care, you don't believe that desire is necesary for salvation.
Dear Cupertino,
Let's deal in reality, the reality is that you don't really believe that desire for baptism is necessary to save a non-Catholic. So, you are only fooling yourself by calling it baptism of desire. What is the point of debating about the desire for baptism of a catechumen, when people like you don't even believe that desire is necessary to save non-Catholics?
So much for explicit desire to be a baptized Catholic, or a catechumen, or a martyr (baptism of blood), anyone can be saved in your belief system!
Your Belief system is Schizophrenic
The Fathers were unanimously against BOD of the catechumen. The Fathers and St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus are all against invincible ignorance being salvific, and against implicit faith. They were also opposed to any implicit desire that did not explicitly include a desire to be a Catholic. Therefore, your belief system pits your very own sources of evidence one against the other, your beliefs are schizophrenic. You only quote St. Thomas when he suits you, and ignore him when he opposes your beliefs.
Nadie, your position is patently absurd. I don't need to write much, nor scream my words, as you do.
Everyone knows and accepts the solemn teaching there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Quotes have been given for that here.
It is also known that anyone who calls into doubt solemn teaching has fallen away completely from the Faith.
Nadie, your position makes the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguouri and Pius IX all call into doubt previous solemn teaching...but nobody in the whole Church noticed, and it was never an issue!!
You are smarter than them all! Your position is absurd.
Below is quoted a previous posting response which sums up my position on baptism of desire of the catechumen, and baptism of blood. My position is clear, it is out in the light for all to see.
Your position on the other hand is hidden, either due to ignorance, or on purpose, I can't judge hearts.
Cupertino said: "Everyone knows and accepts the solemn teaching there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (EENS). Quotes have been given for that here."
Nadie answers: All the quotes on EENS were posted by me.
Cupertino said: It is also known that anyone who calls into doubt solemn teaching has fallen away completely from the Faith.
Nadie responds: Yes, EENS is dogmatic, and anyone who calls it into doubt has completely lost the faith
Cupertino said Nadie, your position makes the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguouri and Pius IX all call into doubt previous solemn teaching...but nobody in the whole Church noticed, and it was never an issue!!
Nadie responds: That is a perfect example of Protestant self opinion on your part. Not one authoritative quote from you, just your opinions. Are we supposed to take your word for it?
What previous "solemn teaching", dogmatic teaching, that can't be denied, are you referring too? Not even BOD of the catechumen has been solemnly declared, infallible declared, nor declared by the universal ordinary magisterium! More importantly, you have not clearly limited your "baptism of desire", to the (only real) baptism of desire which finds support from St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and St. Thomas. You are hiding behind baptism of desire of the catechumen, of the Catechism of Trent, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, when you really believe in all the MUTANT false forms, which are actually opposed by The Catechism of Trent, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus. Read below, and come out into the light and explain yourself.
Question for Nadie:
Were there not many and numerous medieval saints who believed in baptism of blood and desire? According to your logic, they would had to have been heretics.
Don't mix baptism of blood with baptism of desire of the catechumen, and all the other modern offshoots of it. That is just a tactic to FIND the support of some saints. A few saints don't make doctrine. Read all the dogmatic decrees I posted, not one mention of an excuse like BOD or BOB, not one in the history of the Church.
There are maybe like 10 examples of baptism of blood saints in the 2000 year history. Not one can be proved not to have been baptized. Now, there are thousands upon thousands of examples of people who are incomprehensible just hanging on to life for the longest time, then they are baptized and immediately die. Fr. DeSmet details thousands of such infant and elderly baptisms he administered himself in his book written in the 1850's. There are hundreds of examples of people sent back from the dead just to be baptized.
Why would God not provide any examples of baptism of blood except like 10 back 1800 years ago, and then God provides hundreds of thousands of examples of persons who scarcely held on to life and died by the groves (as described by Fr. Smet), immediately upon being baptized? Why would God provide so many examples of people sent back from the dead just to be baptized?
That's baptism of blood, and as for baptism of desire of the catechumen (forget all the other offshoots of it, they have no support from the medieval saints )there is not one single example in 2000 years.
Read all the dogmatic decrees I posted, not one mention of an excuse like BOD or BOB, not one in the history of the Church. Catholics follow dogma, not a story here and there over 2000 years.
As for calling anyone a heretic, I don't do that, not for BOB or BOD of the catechumen. If a person wants to believe in baptism of blood, it's no big deal, a non-baptized person who dies wanting to be a baptized Catholic, where are they? I've never seen one. BOD of the catechumen, how many catechumens who died before being baptized can there be? One hear one there? Those theoretical loopholes, are not the problem, the problem is today that there are scarcely any believers in BOD and BOB that restrict their belief to just baptism of blood and baptism of desire of the catechumen, ALL of them believe in all the other offshoots to different levels, offshoots like implicit desire of those that don't even want to be Catholics or baptized, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people, and universal salvation for all. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, that seed brought us the false ecuмenism of Assisi, and Vatican II, what Catholics believe today, that basically outside of the church there IS salvation. That's the root cause of why we are in the predicament that we are in.
:applause: :applause:
-
Why are you afraid to say YES, or NO right now?
I'm only afraid of going to hell, as far as the rest, nothing scares me.
Why should I answer just yes or no, when I've answered this in great detail before, and the answer is complete, not just yes or no. it's an entire thread on the catechism of Trent quote, what can one add to it. Do you have trouble reading? Here's the lead comment that IS the thread:
Dying by "Accident" before being baptized, and BOD?
Catechism of the Council of Trent p. 179:
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
VS.
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
Can someone die by accident before God has accomplished what he has preordained?
-
When I asked the question in the other thread you said you wouldn't answer until I explained my "brand" of BOD, which implies both that you didn't, and that you would once I fulfilled that requirement. Now you say you did answer it before, and won't now.
You spend all you time typing and pasting information when all you have to do is say YES, or say NO to whether you accept the Catechism of the Council of Trent's teaching about how it is possible for a catechumen to be saved if he accidentally dies before being baptized with water.
I say YES. Very easy.
What do you say?
Post here where you "asked the question in the other thread and I said I wouldn't answer". The whole thread is about that Catechism of Trent quote. Read the thread. You are playng games again.
-
Can someone die by accident before God has accomplished what he has preordained?
No. Can and does God save people using His pre-ordained extraordinary means as well as His pre-ordained ordinary means? Yes.
We are bound by His laws. He isn't.
the problem is today that there are scarcely any believers in BOD and BOB that restrict their belief to just baptism of blood and baptism of desire of the catechumen, ALL of them believe in all the other offshoots to different levels, offshoots like implicit desire of those that don't even want to be Catholics or baptized, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people, and universal salvation for all. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, that seed brought us the false ecuмenism of Assisi, and Vatican II, what Catholics believe today, that basically outside of the church there IS salvation. That's the root cause of why we are in the predicament that we are in.
Almost true, but not quite.
Catechumens are not the only ones who may desire to enter the Church. St. Thomas says that somebody raised in the woods who has good will would be sent an angel or a preacher to enlighten him. Such a man would not be a catechumen, in the case of an angel sent to him at any rate, yet if he corresponded with the grace of enlightenment he would desire baptism.
Implicit faith and invincible ignorance are real things which play a real part in the lives of many men. There's nothing liberal about those concepts at all. They are abused by liberals, of course, but there's nothing less Catholic than throwing the baby out with the bath water. That's what Luther did, after all.
an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people, and universal salvation."
Yes, and unfortunately Fr. Feeney's campaign served partly to obscure the issues and made it harder for orthodox theologians to clarify matters. I'm sure he meant well - he was certainly arguing against real heresy.
-
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?
The catechism never said any such thing - http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=16991&min=10&num=10
You abandoned the discussion where I tried to show you that it never said any such thing.
-
Gertrude wrote: Implicit faith and invincible ignorance are real things which play a real part in the lives of many men. There's nothing liberal about those concepts at all.
Yes, ( an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people, and universal salvation.") and unfortunately Fr. Feeney's campaign served partly to obscure the issues and made it harder for orthodox theologians to clarify matters. I'm sure he meant well - he was certainly arguing against real heresy.
from the book : Who shall Ascend? by Fr. Waltham
15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine (of EENS) by explaining it away. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecclesiam, etc., and ends by denying it while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's lnfallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.END
There is no "invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people", you are using an old catechism.
Invincible ignorance being salvific, and Implicit faith (= people can be saved who have no desire to be Catholics of baptized) were rejected by St. Thomas, St. alphonsus Ligouri, and every theologian prior to the late 1800's. It is a liberalism.
BOND (baptism of no desire to be Catholic) people like yourself, liberal Americans, "affirming the truth of EENS and ending by denying it while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so", reminds of the girls on the beach with the dental floss bikinis, who when told that they are walking around in their underwear, answer: "this is not underwear, it's a bathing suit"!
On this subject, you are a brainwashed spineless political correct liberal American Catholic, you are naked and you don't know it, because you have been slowly stripped of your clothes since the late 1800's.
Here's a quote that better explains the correct and charitable attitude on this matter, from the convert Orestes Brownson 1874:
"There can be no more fatal mistake than to soften, liberalize or latitudinize this terrible dogma, "Out of the Church there is no salvation... If we wish to convert Protestants and infidels we must preach in all its rigor the naked dogma. Give them the smallest peg or what appears so, not to you, but to them;--- the smallest peg on which to hang a hope of salvation without being in or actually reconciled to the Church by the sacrament of Penance, and all the arguments you can address to them to prove the necessity of being in the Church in order to be saved will have no more effect on them than rain on a duck's back."
If every Catholic would think as Orestes Brownsen (like a manly Spaniard), they would not answer anything on this subject except:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews 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 Church before the end of their lives" (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra).
If the spineless American clergy had only taught the above, as all the Spaniards were taught prior to Vatican II, Americans would not have spread their spineless ecimenical teachings , and the world have avoided Vatican II, Assisi, and the dismantling of Catholicism as the state religion.
Let's deal in reality, the reality is that you don't really believe that desire for baptism is necessary to save a non-Catholic. So, you are only fooling yourself by calling it baptism of desire. What is the point of debating about the desire for baptism of a catechumen, when people like you don't even believe that desire is necessary to save non-Catholics?
-
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
Descending into the Vortex of Confusion
SSPX Fr. Rulleau's Baptism of Desire, A Patristic Commentary
Page 43
"The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith. Historically, the Fathers of the Church only the case of a catechumen who died before he could receive the sacrament without being guilty of any negligence or contempt of the sacrament. Following the same reasoning, however, should we not include in this category of saved by baptism of desire converts not yet catechumens who might desire baptism? If so, what kind of desire is necessary? Would a simple attraction towards the Catholic religion suffice? Again, following the same reasoning, should we not include someone who had never heard of the Faith for want of preachers to make it known? It becomes clear that by following this line of reasoning you would end by extending baptism of desire to every decent man seeking God. Consistent with the same reasoning, should we not go so far as to call "anonymous Christians" everyman whose vague belief in the beyond would take the place of "baptism"? When the Church was only confronted by a waning paganism, these questions did not come up. Since the beginning of the Modern Age, however, as the Church has found herself confronted by entire nations which do not know Christ, and, in the former Christendom, by Christians benighted by ignorance and unbelief, these questions have become unavoidable" END
Back to Reality:
Excerpts of the Nine Dogmatic Decrees that all agree with St. Augustine
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
What those dogmatic Decrees Mean
From: Who Shall Ascend, by Fr. Waltham
Being ex cathedra definitions, they must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them.
3. The doctrine says clearly that only Catholics go to Heaven; all others are lost, that is, they do not go to Heaven, but to Hell. All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous.
4. The pronouncements indicate that, by divine decree, those only will be saved who are members of the Church when they die. This membership must be formal, real, explicit, and, in those of the (mental) age of reason, deliberate. There is no such thing as "potential" membership in the Church, or "implicit" membership, or "quasi-membership," or "invisible membership," or anything of the kind. Neither can those who are catechumens, that is, those who are preparing to enter the Church, be considered members.
12. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so.[/size] They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labelled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they knew not what.
13. The dates of these definitions are extremely important. They mark the time when the Church terminated speculation and discussion among theologians on the subject of the conditions of salvation. All writings on this subject, therefore, which predate these definitions have value only in so far as they corroborate these definitions.
15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecclesiam, etc., and ends by denying it while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's lnfallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.
-
from the book : Who shall Ascend? by Fr. Waltham
Fr. Wathen, I presume, not Waltham.
But what does it matter what a post-Vatican II "theologian" says?
He's wrong.
-
Nadie, you wrote all that stuff and you can't simply put down a YES or a NO to my question. Why?
Do you accept the New Catechism?
-
I am speaking to Nadie, and about another specific subject, AB. Feel free to place that question elsewhere and PM me.
Do you accept the New Catechism?
Yes/No?
-
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?
It does not say "how adults may die by accident before receiving water baptism and still be saved.". So why would I answer yes or no to that? I was the one that did a entire thread on that quote from the catechism, I doubt anyone could have written more on the matter than what I wrote.
Dying by "Accident" before being baptized, and BOD?
Catechism of the Council of Trent p. 179:
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
VS.
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
In short I believe as St.Augustine says "they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined".
The catechism can be correct, however, there is no such thing as an unforeseen accident that makes it impossible for God to get the adults washed in the salutary waters.
As a matter of fact, I wish that you would believe in what the whole catechism says on salvation. Read it. If Catholics believed in everything that's taught in that catechism on salvation, and what St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus believed, I would not post one word on the subject. The reason why I write, is because of a problem, "your group" believes that no desire to be baptized or a Catholic, is necessary for salvation. Your groups teachings are opposed to that catechism , and what St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri taught.
I have never had any problem having a theological discussion on salvation with the true followers of that catechism, and of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, it's just rare to ever find such a person in the USA.
My reason for writing is to bring out into the light the liberal false teachers of BOND (baptism of no desire to be Catholic) , "the group", the hypocrites and schizophrenics who only give lip service to "desire", the catechism, and of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri.
-
I would continue the discussion if you were really a believer in baptism of desire of the catechumen, which is what the catechism of Trent is talking about. It would be a theological discussion between two Catholics on a fine point, of no significance, that would make you think about your conclusion. But what is the point today, of discussing this fine point if people like you don't believe that desire to be aCatholic or baptized, are necessary for salvation?
You are just giving lip service to baptism of Blood, Baptism of desire of the catechumen, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Alphonsus Ligouri. When you are totally rejecting them in your belief that no desire to be a a Catholic is necessary.
If Catholics believed in everything that's taught in the Catechism of Trent about salvation, and what St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus believed, I would not post one word on the subject. The reason why I write, is because of a problem, "your group" believes that no desire to be baptized or a Catholic, is necessary for salvation. Your groups teachings are opposed to that catechism , and what St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri taught.
I have never had any problem having a theological discussion on salvation with the true followers of that catechism, and of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, it's just rare to ever find such a person in the USA.
My reason for writing is to bring out into the light the liberal false teachers of BOND (baptism of no desire to be Catholic) , "the group", the hypocrites and schizophrenics who only give lip service to "desire", the catechism, and of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri.
In your present state, you are a disciple of the liberal false teachers of BOND (baptism of no desire to be Catholic) , "the group", the hypocrites and schizophrenics who only give lip service to "desire", the catechism, and St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri. Until you come to your senses, there is no point in discussing/debating anything but BOND with you (implicit faith, and invincible ignorance)
-
No, Nadie, stop contradicting me. I said categorically that desire is necessary, and I emphasized that.
Now, back to the matter at hand. What is the "accident" and how does it "deprive" an adult of baptism, if not death? Please explain a scenario you think fits the Catechism.
You are in denial. Here is what you wrote:
What you wrote does not explain what you believe.
Yes, it does.
Now, my comments in blue...
----------------------------
Do you believe in BOD of "the catechumen,who died before he could receive the sacrament without being guilty of any negligence or contempt of the sacrament"?
Yes, but not necessarily in every catechumen.
Do you believe in the salvation of "converts not yet catechumens who might desire baptism, if so, what kind of desire is necessary"?
Yes, and it is called baptism "of (the) desire" because it is truly baptism pertaining to "the will", not water (though it is implicitly part of the Sacrament by water). So we are not merely talking of any common "desire" as if intending or wishing for something in the future. The terminology "baptism of (the) desire" means that a person, by an act of perfect love & contrition of the will (now, not in the future), with the added grace of God, cleanses his soul of all mortal sin (including original sin).
Do you believe in the salvation of "those who had never heard of the Faith for want of preachers to make it known"?
The Church teaches that (while being invincibly ignorant of explicit particulars) a generic belief in a Supreme Being can suffice to be present for "baptism of (the) desire" to take place. Such a one would have implicit Faith in Catholicism. It is expected to be a rare thing only known to God.
Do you believe in the salvation of a "decent man seeking God".
Not every person who appears "decent", no way. However, if someone fits in the category of my previous answer, then that particular man is truly a decent man.
Do you believe in (Implicit Faith) that "everyman whose vague belief in the beyond would take the place of "baptism"?
No, and my previous explanations already give the answer to this question.
Here was my response.
Dear Cupertino,
Let's deal in reality, the reality is that you don't really believe that desire for baptism is necessary to save a non-Catholic. So, you are only fooling yourself by calling it baptism of desire. What is the point of debating about the desire for baptism of a catechumen, when people like you don't even believe that desire is necessary to save non-Catholics?
So much for explicit desire to be a baptized Catholic, or a catechumen, or a martyr (baptism of blood), anyone can be saved in your belief system!
Your Belief system is Schizophrenic
The Fathers were unanimously against BOD of the catechumen. The Fathers and St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus are all against invincible ignorance being salvific, and against implicit faith. They were also opposed to any implicit desire that did not explicitly include a desire to be a Catholic. Therefore, your belief system pits your very own sources of evidence one against the other, your beliefs are schizophrenic. You only quote St. Thomas when he suits you, and ignore him when he opposes your beliefs.
-
This question, and what immediately follows, appears to be the Achilles' Heel of Feeneyism. The chink in the armor.
The reality is that there are few people on CI, and even fewer that read a particular thread. State your case and stop wasting time with your own "suspense". You are not going to loose a patent by revealing your case in one posting. You created this thread long ago, and still have not presented your case. What are you waiting for? No one is going to read it anyway but me, get it over with already. I'm not going to be here forever
-
I'm just dying with anticipation.
-
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?
Actually, with respect Cupertino, the Catechism doesn't ACTUALLY say just that.
Allow me to present you with the Latin:
"...qui rationis usu praediti sint, Baptismi suscipiendi propositum, atque consilium, & male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam, & iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quominus salutari aqua ablui possint."
This is from a 1699 Edition of the Catechism. What it is LITERALLY saying is
If some impediment, obstruction, snare or difficulty (impediat) should be imposed, which holds (possint) a person back from receiving the sacrament then the intention and determination to receive the sacrament and their repentance of sins will avail them to grace and righteousness or justice.
The Problem here is that the ENGLISH translation dishonestly adds the word "impossible"
"...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
This is an important distinction, because from the Latin, it does not Necessarily mean BOD in any way. What it is saying is that if one who is impeded from receiving the sacrament , then their intention and determination will Avail them to grace and righteousness. But that does NOT NECESSARILY MEAN they are directly infused by sanctifying grace. It doesn't say,"by infusing sanctifying grace directly into the soul."
It simply says they will be justified, which also means that God will make available to them the MEANS of justification with Justification itself.
Now, The SOLE MEANS of Justification is Baptism. Therefore, those who are impeded from receiving baptism should not worry about their salvation, since their great desire for it can not escape the providence of God. THose whoa re sincere, he baptizes.
This is manifest in the many stories of miraculous persons and water appearing for the person to be baptized. We must trust that God would do no less for the sincere Catechumen.
Remember the providence of God. He commands all men to be saved. This is not impossible for he does not command impossibilities. IF a person is to be baptized, then if he is sincere, God will find a way to get him baptism.
Remember, the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church is that a Catechumen is NOT part of the faithful, and if he dies, he dies damned.
We are bound to follow the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
-
The Catechism of Trent also says specifically that it's not infallible. And as I continue to point out, many Catechism are filled with errors: Orange, the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc...
-
DO you think we have to interpret this passage to mean the unbaptized soul is immediate infused with sanctifying grace? Or Rather that God will ensure the means of grace are made available, i.e. Baptism?
This would conform to the Teaching of St. THomas and the Fathers.
Look at what St. Ambrose says! He flat out contradicts the Catechism, if it teaches BOD:
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”[ccxvii]
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.
-
The Catechism of Trent also says specifically that it's not infallible. And as I continue to point out, many Catechism are filled with errors: Orange, the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc...
On the contrary, please read this, for God's sake and for the sake of your eternal souls!
The Catechism of the Council of Trent
Excerpted from the:
PREFACE
ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN CATECHISM
JOHN A. MCHUGH, O. P.
CHARLES J. CALLAN, O. P.
Meanwhile Pius IV died and was succeeded on January 17, 1566, by Pius V. One of the first acts of the new
Pontiff was to appoint a number of expert theological revisers to examine every statement in the Catechismfrom the viewpoint of doctrine. Chief among these revisers were Cardinal Sirlet and the two Dominicans,
Thomas Manriquez and Eustachius Locatelli. By July of that year the work on the Catechism was finished. But
it was not until the close of the year that it appeared under the title, Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini
ad Parochos Pii V Pont. Max. jussu editus.
AUTHORITY AND EXCELLENCE OF THE ROMAN CATECHISMThe Roman Catechism is unlike any other summary of Christian doctrine, not only because it is intended for the
use of priests in their preaching, but also because it enjoys a unique authority among manuals. In the first place,
as already explained, it was issued by the express command of the Ecuмenical Council of Trent, which also
ordered that it be translated into the vernacular of different nations to be used as a standard source for
preaching. Moreover it subsequently received the unqualified approval of many Sovereign Pontiffs. Not to
speak of Pius IV who did so much to bring the work to completion, and of St. Pius V under whom it was
finished, published and repeatedly commended, Gregory XIII, as Possevino testifies, so highly esteemed it that
he desired even books of Canon Law to be written in accordance with its contents.
In his Bull of June 14, 1761,
Clement XIII said that the Catechism contains a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation and
useful for the faithful, that it was composed with great care and industry and has been highly praised by all, that
by it in former times the faith was strengthened, and that no other catechism can be compared with it. He
concluded then, that the Roman Pontiffs offered this work to pastors as a norm of Catholic teaching and
discipline so that there might be uniformity and harmony in the instructions of all.
Nor have the Sovereign
Pontiffs in our own days been less laudatory of the Catechism. Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical Letter of
September 8, 1899, to the Bishops and clergy of France, recommended two books which all seminarians should
possess and constantly read and study, namely, the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas and "that golden book,"
the Catechismus ad Parochos. Regarding the latter work he wrote: "This work is remarkable at once for the
richness and exactness of its doctrine, and for the elegance of its style; it is a precious summary of all theology,
both dogmatic and moral. He who understands it well, will have always at his service those aids by which a
priest is enabled to preach with fruit, to acquit himself worthily of the important ministry of the confessional
and of the direction of souls, and will be in a position to refute the objections of unbelievers."
Likewise
Pius X in his Encyclical Acerbo nimis of April 15, 1905, declared that adults, no less than children,
need religious instruction, especially in these days. And hence he prescribed that pastors and all who have care
of souls should give catechetical instruction to the faithful in simple language, and in a way suited to the
capacity of their hearers, and that for this purpose they should use the Catechism of the Council of Trent
Still
more recently, on February 14, 1921, speaking in the name of Benedict XV, Cardinal Gasparri, Papal Secretary
of State, thus wrote to the Archbishop of New York relative to the latter's Program for A Parochial Course of
Doctrinal Instructions, based on the Catechism: "It is superfluous to add that the value of the work is enhanced
by the fact that it has been planned and executed in perfect harmony with the admirable Catechism of the
Council of Trent."
Besides the Supreme Pontiffs who have extolled and recommended the Catechism, so many Councils have
enjoined its use that it would be impossible here to enumerate them all. Within a few years after its first
appearance great numbers of provincial and diocesan synods had already made its use obligatory. Of these the
Preface to the Paris edition of 1893 mentions eighteen held before the year 1595. In five different Councils
convened at Milan St. Charles Borromeo ordered that the Catechism should be studied in seminaries, discussed
27
in the conferences of the clergy, and explained by pastors to their people on occasion of the administration of
the Sacraments. In short, synods repeatedly prescribed that the clergy should make such frequent use of the
Catechism as not only to be thoroughly familiar with its contents, but almost have it by heart.
In addition to Popes, and Councils, many Cardinals, Bishops and other ecclesiastics, distinguished for their
learning and sanctity, vied with one another in eulogizing the Catechism of Trent. Among other things they
have said that not since the days of the Apostles has there been produced in a single volume so complete and
practical a summary of Christian doctrine as this Catechism, and that, after the Sacred Scriptures, there is no
work that can be read with greater safety and profit.
In particular, Cardinal Valerius, the friend of St. Charles Borromeo, wrote of the Catechism: "This work
contains all that is needful for the instruction of the faithful; and it is written with such order, clearness and
majesty that through it we seem to hear holy Mother the Church herself, taught by the Holy Ghost, speaking to
us.... It was composed by order of the Fathers of Trent under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and was
published by the authority of the Vicar of Christ."Salmanticenses, the great Carmelite commentators on St. Thomas, paid the following high tribute to the
Catechism: "The authority of this Catechism has always been of the greatest in the Church, because it was
composed by the command of the Council of Trent, because its authors were men of highest learning, and
because it was approved only after the severest scrutiny by Popes Pius V and Gregory XIII, and has been
recommended in nearly all the Councils that have been held since the Council of Trent."
Antonio Possevino, an illustrious Jesuit, and the preceptor of St. Francis de Sales, said: "The Catechism of the
Council of Trent was inspired by the Holy Ghost."
In his immortal Apologia Cardinal Newman writes: "The Catechism of the Council of Trent was drawn up for
the express purpose of providing preachers with subjects for their sermons; and, as my whole work has been a
defense of myself, I may here say that I rarely preach a sermon but I go to this beautiful and complete
Catechism to get both my matter and my doctrine."
"Its merits," says Dr. Donovan, "have been recognized by the universal Church. The first rank which has been
awarded the Imitation among spiritual books, has been unanimously given to the Roman Catechism as a
compendium of Catholic theology. It was the result of the aggregate labors of the most distinguished of the
Fathers of Trent, . . . and is therefore stamped with the impress of superior worth."
Doctor John Hogan, the present Rector of the Irish College in Rome, writes thus: "The Roman Catechism is a
work of exceptional authority. At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical, -- it is an
authoritative exposition of Catholic doctrine given forth, and guaranteed to be orthodox by the Catholic Church
and her supreme head on earth. The compilation of it was the work of various individuals; but the result of their
combined labors was accepted by the Church as a precious abridgment of dogmatic and moral theology.
Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to
individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole
body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a
place between approved catechisms and what is de tide."
We are enabled to realize from the foregoing testimonies how invaluable is the treasure we possess in the
Tridentine Catechism. It is a Vade Mecuм for every priest and ecclesiastical student. In it the latter will find a
recapitulation of all the more important and necessary doctrines he has learned throughout his theological
course; while to the priest it is not only a review of his former studies, but an ever-present and reliable guide in
his work as pastor, preacher, counselor, and spiritual director of souls. Moreover, to the educated layman,
whether Catholic or non-Catholic, who desires to study an authoritative statement of Catholic doctrine, no better
book could be recommended than this official manual; for in its pages will be found the whole substance of
Catholic doctrine and practice, arranged in order, expounded with perspicuity, and sustained by argument at
once convincing and persuasive.
28
Finally, it can be said without fear of exaggeration that there is no single-volume work which so combines
solidity of doctrine and practical usefulness with unction of treatment as does this truly marvelous Catechism.
From beginning to end it not only reflects the light of faith, but it also radiates, to an unwonted degree, the
warmth of devotion and piety. In its exposition of the Creed and the Sacraments, while dealing with the
profoundest mysteries, it is full of thoughts and reflections the most fervent and inspiring. The part on the
Decalogue, which might well be called a treatise on ascetical theology, teaches us in words burning with zeal
both what we are to avoid and what we are to do to keep the Commandments of God. In the fourth, and last part
o this beautiful work we have what is doubtless the most sublime and heavenly exposition of the doctrine of
prayer ever written.
The Roman Catechism is, therefore, a handbook of dogmatic and moral theology, a confessor's guide, a book of
exposition for the preacher, and a choice directory of the spiritual life for pastor and flock alike. With a view,
consequently, to make it more readily available for these high purposes among English-speaking peoples this
new translation has been prepared and is herewith respectfully submitted to its readers.
-
DO you think we have to interpret this passage to mean the unbaptized soul is immediate infused with sanctifying grace? Or Rather that God will ensure the means of grace are made available, i.e. Baptism?
This would conform to the Teaching of St. THomas and the Fathers.
Look at what St. Ambrose says! He flat out contradicts the Catechism, if it teaches BOD:
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”[ccxvii]
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.
Evidently, you can be justified without receiving Baptism, but it doesn't mean you'll persevere in the Faith without baptism, nor does it even mean you'll persevere after baptism.
-
RC, with a full and willing heart, I accept the Catechism of the Council of Trent as a Bastion of Orthodoxy.
I also interpret it according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, which is the mind of the church.
Is that problematic?
-
RC, with a full and willing heart, I accept the Catechism of the Council of Trent as a Bastion of Orthodoxy.
I also interpret it according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, which is the mind of the church.
Is that problematic?
You may think you interpret it correctly. And that may be a problem.
-
"...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
It doesn't say how. But because these individuals have left behind their sinfulness and are intent on receiving baptism, we must not suppose that God, in his providence, will keep it from them.
Or do you confess that God does not will to save people in accordance with his commandments?
Please, I am nothing less than Catholic.
Explain something to me Cupertino:
Can you separate The Redeeming Blood of Christ, The Sanctification of the Holy Spirit, and the Water of Baptism from each other?
Specifically, can any one or two of these things operate independent of the other?
-
There is no other interpretation EVER made on that because it simply says what is says. It is not scripture and does not need new interpretation. It says what it says because it was meant to get that meaning across. It is actually dishonest to say you have to re-interpret that again.
Yet you fail to apply this to the infallible conciliar texts themselves, which also are not scripture, do not need new interpretations, and are intended to be the teacher of the Scriptures (such as John 3:5). They say what they say, and it's dishonest for you or anyone else to re-interpret them.
-
Yes, Gregory is a more perfect follower of Fr. Feeney in his heretical profession on this matter.
The Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent) speaks of the danger of delaying baptism of infants because if they die, they have not chance of ever seeing God. That is immediately followed by it saying there is not the same danger of delaying baptism for adults. This is precisely saying that an adult who dies has a chance of seeing God without baptism by water because he has a will capable of obtaining justification. There is no other interpretation EVER made on that because it simply says what is says. It is not scripture and does not need new interpretation. It says what it says because it was meant to get that meaning across. It is actually dishonest to say you have to re-interpret that again. Gregory is like a Protestant with Scripture, and acts as if he is smarter in Latin than the books that have been around for centuries in English as if no Saint, or clergy, or Catholic, or pope noticed it. That is such arrogance. Justification ALWAYS means sanctifying grace...in Catholicism.
1. Where was Fr. Feeney accused of heresy?
2. Can the church contradict itself?
There is no other interpretation EVER made on that because it simply says what is says. It is not scripture and does not need new interpretation. It says what it says because it was meant to get that meaning across. It is actually dishonest to say you have to re-interpret that again.
3. Physician, heal thyself. You don't even THINK this way about the dogmas, or else you wouldn't subscribe to traditions of men that basically re-write and reinterpret them. Do you see the inconsistency in the application of your thought?
-
The Dogma was never attacked significantly and systematically till the Protestant Revolt and even then it was nothing compared to the attacks levelled against the Dogma in the eighteenth century.
-
The Dogma was never attacked significantly and systematically till the Protestant Revolt and even then it was nothing compared to the attacks levelled against the Dogma in the eighteenth century.
Wait until you die, Austin. Then you will realize how much of a fool you have been to been taken in by this Jansenistic twist to God's mercy as believed by the whole Church way before you were born. You are smarter, though, aren't you? Saints and popes, and a generation of clergy were all so dumb compared you!
No, I just know that you're one man with his own story to tell, and you are overstepping your mandate. I think it's called presumption.
Physician, heal thyself.
I'm not the one who thinks the Church has defected, that's you.
-
The Dogma was never attacked significantly and systematically till the Protestant Revolt and even then it was nothing compared to the attacks levelled against the Dogma in the eighteenth century.
Wait until you die, Austin. Then you will realize how much of a fool you have been to been taken in by this Jansenistic twist to God's mercy as believed by the whole Church way before you were born. You are smarter, though, aren't you? Saints and popes, and a generation of clergy were all so dumb compared you!
Jansenistic twist? To approve of Dogma? To Hold to the teaching of the Unanimous consent of the Fathers?
To not be duped by the sophistries of the scholastics?
Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy.
How about using reason and common sense:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic
Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this
Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…
Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature
that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
But guess what? You can't be subject to the Roman Pontiff unless you are BAPTIZED! Therefore, if subjection to the Roman Pontiff is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY for Salvation, then Baptism is. It has to be.
-
The Dogma was never attacked significantly and systematically till the Protestant Revolt and even then it was nothing compared to the attacks levelled against the Dogma in the eighteenth century.
Wait until you die, Austin. Then you will realize how much of a fool you have been to been taken in by this Jansenistic twist to God's mercy as believed by the whole Church way before you were born. You are smarter, though, aren't you? Saints and popes, and a generation of clergy were all so dumb compared you!
No, I just know that you're one man with his own story to tell, and you are overstepping your mandate. I think it's called presumption.
Physician, heal thyself.
I'm not the one who thinks the Church has defected, that's you.
According you, the Church defected, because it taught and approved of plenty of things via Doctors of the Church, and NOBODY notice the slightest problem...until now with your great enlightenment that Holy Mother Church never noticed anything for centuries that something back then called into doubt previously solemnly taught dogma...but now you are protecting the Church with your own realization that popes never noticed the problem!
That is just plain unheard of...and sick.
I strongly suspect that the only thing you really agree with on modern theologians is the Dogma.
The unanimity of modern theologians probably disagree with you personally on just about everything from the meaning of scripture to philosophy, not sure why you suddenly reject that when it comes to the Dogma, but there you have it...
Despite your agreement with modern theologians on the Dogma, you reject the modern Church out of hand because you've decided for YOURSELF that it's defective, now, that's what I call twisted.
-
The Dogma was never attacked significantly and systematically till the Protestant Revolt and even then it was nothing compared to the attacks levelled against the Dogma in the eighteenth century.
Wait until you die, Austin. Then you will realize how much of a fool you have been to been taken in by this Jansenistic twist to God's mercy as believed by the whole Church way before you were born. You are smarter, though, aren't you? Saints and popes, and a generation of clergy were all so dumb compared you!
Jansenistic twist? To approve of Dogma? To Hold to the teaching of the Unanimous consent of the Fathers?
To not be duped by the sophistries of the scholastics?
Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy.
How about using reason and common sense:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic
Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this
Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…
Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature
that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
But guess what? You can't be subject to the Roman Pontiff unless you are BAPTIZED! Therefore, if subjection to the Roman Pontiff is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY for Salvation, then Baptism is. It has to be.
Gregory, you are like a Catholic boy of 6 years old, who, after having been told about the doctrine the Trinity, tries to explain it in detail to Alan Funt on Candid Camera. You just don't have it. You are over-stepping your bounds, and you should consult with a priest about whether you should continue trying to teach something you really are not competent to address at your spiritual age.
And yet you judge the modern Catechism to be defective?
Who are you?
-
Wow, Cupertino, that is not a response. That is an evasion.
Do you confess the Dogmas of the Church are to be understood exactly as they are phrased?
Because that's how you view the Catechism.
You are not competent to ascertain my spiritual age, because you reject the universal and ordinary magisterium as revealed by the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the church.
-
"A fine definition of Unanimous Consent, based on the Church Counccils, is provided in the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, “When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine tradition. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter-testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required” (Wilkes-Barre, Penn.: Dimension Books, 1965), pg. 153.
-
The Dogma was never attacked significantly and systematically till the Protestant Revolt and even then it was nothing compared to the attacks levelled against the Dogma in the eighteenth century.
Wait until you die, Austin. Then you will realize how much of a fool you have been to been taken in by this Jansenistic twist to God's mercy as believed by the whole Church way before you were born. You are smarter, though, aren't you? Saints and popes, and a generation of clergy were all so dumb compared you!
No, I just know that you're one man with his own story to tell, and you are overstepping your mandate. I think it's called presumption.
Physician, heal thyself.
I'm not the one who thinks the Church has defected, that's you.
:rolleyes:
See the low calibre of what you are dealing with Cupertino?
To bring some truth to bear on AugBakers despicable accusation; it is clear to any honest reader of your posts Cupertino, that you are a traditional Catholic and that you do not think the Church has defected.
-
You're all lucky I have to go to work next week! lol. THis is just me in one weekend! imagine if I had a whole week to do nothing but post!
:smoke-pot:
Remember fellow traddies...keep your sense of humor, or you are gonna lose it. Your mind that is.
-
You're all lucky I have to go to work next week! lol. THis is just me in one weekend! imagine if I had a whole week to do nothing but post
Scary thought!
Hey would you please take the rest of F-Troop with you when you go? :laugh1:
Remember fellow traddies...keep your sense of humor, or you are gonna lose it. Your mind that is.
You talk about future possibilities, but The F-Troop is already proffering theological insanity - now. And some of them have no humor either - let alone about themselves. They take themselves oh so seriously.
Honestly some of the F-Troop stuff I have seen here is truly laughable, so, thanks for that. :laugh1:
-
St. Alphonsus Ligouri's Moral Theology Manual, Bk. 6, no. 95., "Concerning Baptism":
"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 presbitero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent"
Can you Gregory, Baker and Augustian recommend this to other Catholics as being safe and in accord with Catholic Dogma? Or do you consider it calling into doubt previously solemnly defined dogma?
I honestly cannot recommend it, because it undermines the dogma of EENS. When that dogma is undermined, that is where we get indifferentism, latitudinarianism, false ecuмenism, religious liberty and liberty of conscience.
Read Pope Gregory XVI Mirari Vos Par. 13 and 14. He says the same thing.
SO, out of a desire to PROTECT the catholic dogma, and UNDO the heresies of the modernists, we HAVE to Seal off the dam:
There is no salvation without water baptism, according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, which is part of the universal and ordinary magisterium. Therefore, any theologian who would contradict that, CANNOT be teaching anything but Opinion at best, heresy at worst.
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,—wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy Mother Church—to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished with the penalties by law established."
Source: Dogmatic Canons and Decrees, copyright 1912 by the Devin-Adair Company, pg. 11 (boldfaced emphasis added).
The Trentine / Tridentine Creed,
or The Creed Of Pius IV, from the Bulls
Injunctum Nobis, November 13, 1564 and In Sacrosancta, December 9, 1564:
... "I also admit the Holy Scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother the Church has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."
[This Profession of Faith must be sworn to by anyone holding an ecclesiastical office in the Roman Catholic Church, and also by all converts from Protestantism.]
Source: Ibid, pg. 176 (boldfaced emphasis added).
The Vatican Council
Session III, April 24, 1870, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith:
... "And as the things which, in order to curb rebellious spirits, the holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture have been wrongly explained by some, We, renewing the said decree, declare this to be its meaning: that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our holy Mother Church hath held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; and, therefore, that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense or likewise contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."
-
And, Baker, Augustinian, Nadie?
I don't have anything to add.
The denial of this dogma and the philosophical desertification of Catholic education is one of the great crimes of the last two hundred years.
Liturgy is just an effect of its desolation.
-
The Dogma was never attacked significantly and systematically till the Protestant Revolt and even then it was nothing compared to the attacks levelled against the Dogma in the eighteenth century.
Wait until you die, Austin. Then you will realize how much of a fool you have been to been taken in by this Jansenistic twist to God's mercy as believed by the whole Church way before you were born. You are smarter, though, aren't you? Saints and popes, and a generation of clergy were all so dumb compared you!
We don't have to die to realize what a fool you are, we just read your postings like this one. This is why I don't bother answering you.
After much tooth pulling by me, you finally admitted that you believe that Protestants, Jews, Mohamedans, and anyone in any other religion can be saved. So, you are just a hypocrite in quoting the catechism of Trent and St. Alphonsus Ligouri. Both of which are opposed to your beliefs.
-
And, Baker, Augustinian, Nadie?
I don't have anything to add.
The denial of this dogma and the philosophical desertification of Catholic education is one of the great crimes of the last two hundred years.
Liturgy is just an effect of its desolation.
No comment, Augstine? It's not multiple choice. Either you can feel safe giving that quote to other Catholics to read and believe, or you feel the quote calls into doubt some previously defined dogma. Which is it?
Cupertino, I feel that quote calls into question the unanimous teaching of the early church and the unanimous consent of the fathers, which is a part of the ordinary magisterium.
Speculative questions like this only seek for reasons not to adhere to the truth of the gospel. OR they are given by people without faith. People with faith do not doubt that God can furnish water for those who believe it.
If later theologians contradict the unanimous teaching of the fathers, then that teaching is NOT part of the ordinary magisterium. And the history of this particular teaching bears this out, because you can SEE the theologians giving reasons for interpreting the Fathers in certain ways that are erroneous.
For example, you can't quote Augustine in FAVOR of BOD in 391 when he DENIED it in 417! That's dishonest, and it just shows how people only believe what they want.
Plus, this is really the doctrine that brought in the tidal waves. There were liberals in 1950's. The tidal wave was looming. Vatican II was the crash. THIS doctrine was the core impetus.
-
And, Baker, Augustinian, Nadie?
I don't have anything to add.
The denial of this dogma and the philosophical desertification of Catholic education is one of the great crimes of the last two hundred years.
Liturgy is just an effect of its desolation.
No comment, Augstine? It's not multiple choice. Either you can feel safe giving that quote to other Catholics to read and believe, or you feel the quote calls into doubt some previously defined dogma. Which is it?
Cupertino, I feel that quote calls into question the unanimous teaching of the early church and the unanimous consent of the fathers, which is a part of the ordinary magisterium.
Speculative questions like this only seek for reasons not to adhere to the truth of the gospel. OR they are given by people without faith. People with faith do not doubt that God can furnish water for those who believe it.
If later theologians contradict the unanimous teaching of the fathers, then that teaching is NOT part of the ordinary magisterium. And the history of this particular teaching bears this out, because you can SEE the theologians giving reasons for interpreting the Fathers in certain ways that are erroneous.
For example, you can't quote Augustine in FAVOR of BOD in 391 when he DENIED it in 417! That's dishonest, and it just shows how people only believe what they want.
Plus, this is really the doctrine that brought in the tidal waves. There were liberals in 1950's. The tidal wave was looming. Vatican II was the crash. THIS doctrine was the core impetus.
That's why I find priests like Father Ronald Knox and Cardinal Newman really difficult to take seriously.
-
I am waiting for the others here to profess their belief - either what St. Alphonsus published was in accord with previously define dogma, or it was not.
Obviously it was not.
Do you agree with the treatise of St. Fulgence which says that it is de fide that infants must suffer physical hellfire?
-
I am waiting for the others here to profess their belief - either what St. Alphonsus published was in accord with previously define dogma, or it was not.
Obviously it was not.
Do you agree with the treatise of St. Fulgence which says that it is de fide that infants must suffer physical hellfire?
Thanks for answering. Let's see if your friends, Baker and Nadie, will answer now.
While we wait, would you mind answering my question?
-
Cupertino, what is St. Alphonsus quoting, Canon Apostolicam, "de presbitero non baptizato"
The Apostolic Canons?
I cannot find the canon he is referring to anywhere in the Apostolic Canons.
-
I just read all of the apostolic constitutions and the apostolic canons, and there is nothing there about Baptism of Desire at all.
-
St. Alphonsus Ligouri's Moral Theology Manual, Bk. 6, no. 95., "Concerning Baptism":
"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 presbitero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent"
Can you Gregory, Baker and Augustian recommend this to other Catholics as being safe and in accord with Catholic Dogma? Or do you consider it calling into doubt previously solemnly defined dogma?
Four Errors of St. Alphonsus:
First off, he is stating an error, for everyone acknowledges that even baptism of desire of the catechumen is not defide. So this entire quote is wrong. The fact that defenders of BOD keep bringing it up, highlights the reality of what little evidense they have. They are highlighting an error by St. A.L.
Secondly, they always cutout the most importantpart that says (Sess.
14, Chap. 4), from the entire quote, here is the complete version:
St. Alphonsus: “Baptism by fire, however, is the perfect conversion to God
through contrition, or the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or
implicit desire, for the true river of baptism. As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment. It is called fire because it is made under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is given this name… T us it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of fire, according to Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato”. and the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
2nd Error
The passage Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent which St. Alphonsus thought taught baptism of desire is from the session on Justification. It makes no mention whatsoever of what happens to a man who dies in that state of justification, therefore, it does not teach baptism of desire, and moreover, affirms: as it is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
3rd Error
To substantiate his position on baptism of desire, St. Alphonsus first makes reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent. He says:
“As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter
with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor
take away all the debt of punishment.”
This is completely wrong. Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent does not say that baptism of desire “takes the place of the latter (i.e., baptism) with regard to the remission of the guilt,” as St. Alphonsus claims. Let’s look at the passage:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on the Sacrament of Penance:
“The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this
contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this
sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the
contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”
The Council here defines that perfect contrition with the desire for the Sacrament of Penance can restore a man to the grace of God before the sacrament is received. It says nothing of Baptism! St. Alphonsus’s very premise – that baptism of desire is taught in Sess. 14, Chap. 4 – is erroneous. Trent says nothing of the sort. If the very premises upon which he argued baptism of desire were flawed and erroneous, how can one be
bound to the conclusions that flow from such false premises?
In fact, the SSPX's Fr. Francois Laisney, does not include St. Alphonsus’s erroneous reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of Trent when Laisney quotes in his book, the passage from St. Alphonsus on baptism of desire! This is incredibly dishonest, of course, but Fr. Laisney of the SSPX omits it because he knows
that St. Alphonsus was wrong in referencing Trent in that way; and, therefore, he knows that it pokes a big hole in his argument in favor of baptism of desire based on the obviously fallible St. Alphonsus.
4th Error
Incredible enough, the other source which St. Alphonsus quotes to substantiate his position that baptism of desire is de fide, is a forged letter! He says:
“Thus it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of fire, according to Canon Apostolicam, "de presbitero non baptizato" … where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
This “Canon Apostolicam, "de presbitero non baptizato is another common source repeatedly referenced by BODers, despite the fact that it has been shown over and over and over again, that it is a docuмent of suspect authenticity.
BODer OBJECTION: Pope Innocent II in Canon Apostolicam, "de presbitero non baptizato" ( the unbaptized priest) taught that a priest could be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism by his desire for it and his confession of the true faith (Denzinger 388):
“To your inquiry we respond thus: 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 joy 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 ministered invisibly to one whom
not contempt of religion but death excludes.’ Read again in the book 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
(Apostolicam Sedem).”
ANSWER: First of all, there is no such thing as a priest who has not been baptized. The Church teaches that one who has not been baptized cannot receive the priesthood validly. This problem alone demonstrates that the above statement is ludicrous. Secondly, the date of this docuмent is unknown, the author is unknown – it is by no means clear that it was Innocent II – and the person to whom it is addressed is unknown! Could such a docuмent ever prove anything? No. It remains a mystery why a docuмent of such doubtful authenticity found its way into Denzinger, a handbook of dogmatic statements. This is probably because Denzinger was edited by Karl Rahner, a notorious heretic, whose heretical bias caused him to present this clearly
non‐magisterial statement as Magisterial, for he is a believer in baptism of desire.
To illustrate the lack of magisterial authority of the previous letter allegedly from Pope Innocent II, I will quote from Thomas Hutchinson’s book, Desire and Deception (pp. 31‐ 32):
“We speak of the letter Apostolicam Sedem, written at the behest of Pope
Innocent II (1130‐1143), at an unknown date to an unnamed bishop of
Cremona. The latter had written an inquiry to the Pope regarding the case of a
priest who apparently had died without being baptized. Of course, it has been
defined that, in such a case, he was no priest, since the sacrament of orders may
only be conferred validly upon the baptized.
‐‐‐‐ Text of letter omitted because it has been listed already ‐‐‐‐
“Now, there are more than a few problems connected with this letter. Firstly,
it depends entirely on the witness of Saints Ambrose and Augustine for its
conclusion. Its premises are false, as the Fathers in question did not actually hold
the opinions herein imputed to them. (author: as noted a mere sentimental
speculative utterance does not prove they hold to this as official teaching)…
“Lastly, there is even a question of who wrote this letter. Many authorities
ascribe it to Innocent III (1198‐1216). This question is mentioned in Denzinger.
The letter is certainly not in keeping with the totality of his declarations either.
In any case, a gap of 55 years separated the two pontificates. So a private letter
of uncertain date, authorship, and destination, based upon false premises and
contradicting innumerable indisputably valid and solemn docuмents, is
pretended to carry the weight of the Magisterium on its shoulders. Were any
other doctrine concerned, this missive (letter) would not even be given any
consideration. “
-
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
St. Alphonsus has no argument because his foundation is, unfortunately, erroneous, I think even RC could see that.
-
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.
-
A clanging symbol, really.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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:
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.
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
By what authority do you consider the isolated teachings of saints, which are actually factual ERRORS, the teaching of the church?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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,
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:
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.
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.
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]
-
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"?
-
[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?
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Any takers?
-
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
-
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.