Author Topic: ON THE FEENEYITE HERESY (Read 67120 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #945 on:** October 08, 2014, 11:23:22 AM »

Quote from: Don Paolo

Ladislaus says I am a Pelagian for assenting to papal teaching; but he is too slippery, guileful, and cowardly to declare Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X, and Ven. Pius XII heretics for teaching this "Pelagianism", as he calls it.

No, you are a pelagian for assigning Novus Ordo meaning to magisterial teachings. You read with the mind of the prots, the mind of NOers - not the mind of a Roman Catholic priest and certainly not with the mind of the Church.

Cantarella · « **Reply #946 on:** October 08, 2014, 12:51:29 PM »

What Fr. Kramer, as well as the other BODer modern pelagians, falsely believe is that BOD can ever apply to a person that "has a desire for baptism" while being totally ignorant of the Catholic Faith and ignorant of the baptism. However, the Church infallibly and timeless teaching on EENS is clear. It is absolutely impossible to attain salvation outside the Catholic Church and this is what the Church has always meant by that:

-No soul, that we know of, can ever be saved if he does not, (whether through ignorance or obstinacy), explicitly confess the Catholic Faith.
-No soul, that we know of, can ever be saved who dies ignorant of the Catholic Church, or who, having known the Church, refuses to become one of her members.
-No soul, that we know of, can ever be saved who dies ignorant of baptism or who, having heard of it, refuses to receive it.
-No soul, that we know of, can ever be saved who is baptized into a heretical or schismatical church, unless before he dies he joins the Catholic Church;
-No soul, that we know of, can ever be saved if he does not explicitly confess the Catholic Faith, or if he denies one truth of the Faith, or if he does not submit fully to the authority of the Pope.
-No child soul, that we know of, who dies unbaptized can ever be saved.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #947 on:** October 08, 2014, 12:59:22 PM »

"God's existence as a rewarder can be known through natural reason." And? Ladislaus states only one premise. What does that prove? NOTHING.
THER IS NO MINOR PREMISE.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #948 on:** October 08, 2014, 01:11:59 PM »

Quote from: Don Paolo

"God's existence as a rewarder can be known through natural reason." And? Ladislaus states only one premise. What does that prove? NOTHING.
THER IS NO MINOR PREMISE.

Oh, come on now, do I have to spell everything out for the great theologian?

MAJOR: Vatican I teaches that supernatural faith requires an object that is incapable of being known by natural reason.

MINOR: God's existence as Rewarder is capable of being known by natural reason.

CONCLUSION: God's existence as Rewarder does not suffice for supernatural faith.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #949 on:** October 09, 2014, 04:01:38 AM »

FALSEPROPOSITION : "God's existence as Rewarder is capable of being known by natural reason."

God can be known by the light of natural reason, as Dei Filius affirms. God as a rewarder can only be believed by faith; since the reward is strictly a manner of grace given freely by God, and it is supernatural; and hence it is impossible for mere natural human reason unaided by grace to reach that conclusion which pertains to the supernatural economy of salvation.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #950 on:** October 09, 2014, 04:23:43 AM »

It is also a crude fallacy to state that since the existence of God can be known by human reason, it cannot be professed as the object of faith. God has revealed His existence as the first article of faith: Credo in unum Deum. Belief in the infallibly revealed truth far surpasses the certitude of human reason. I know God through human reason. I do not lie when I profess my belief in the first article of faith, "I believe in one God"; because it is on the infallible authority of the revealing God that I profess Him to be, which far exceeds the certitude of my fallible human reason by which I know God exists.
Furthermore, not all men have the clarity of philosophical understanding to attain to the certain knowledge of God by reason alone; and therefore there are some who can only attain to knowledge of God through revelation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #951 on:** October 09, 2014, 05:29:45 AM »

Quote from: Don Paolo

FALSEPROPOSITION : "God's existence as Rewarder is capable of being known by natural reason."

God can be known by the light of natural reason, as Dei Filius affirms. God as a rewarder can only be believed by faith;

Wrong again. From which Cracker Jack box did you extract your "theology" degree again?

When I have time later today, I'll re-locate the the article from Catholic Encyclopedia which discusses the natural attributes of God that can be known through reason. Justice being a natural perfection can be known by reason as an attribute of God.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #952 on:** October 09, 2014, 05:31:04 AM »

Quote from: Don Paolo

It is also a crude fallacy to state that since the existence of God can be known by human reason, it cannot be professed as the object of faith.

So now you call the teaching of Vatican I "crude fallacy"?

Get thee behind me, Satan. I don't know how much more of you I can take.

You are a constant occasion of sin and scandal to all the faithful.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #953 on:** October 09, 2014, 07:03:38 AM »

You spew non sequiturs in profusion, Ladislaus: We know from reason that God is just; but it is only by supernatural faith that we believe in a reward that strictly pertains to the order of grace. God does not owe us a heavenly reward in the afterlife. Reason cannot arrive at knowledge of things that pertain to the order of grace -- "But as it is written, That which eye has not seen nor ear heard neither has entered into the heart of man is that which God has prepared for those that love him. But as it is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him." - 1 Cor. 2:9
The Pharisee is Jew who believes all that God had revealed through the prophets. His religious beliefs are not based on reason. He believes that God rewards and punishes because it is revealed in the Torah. Those who have a philosophical knowledge of God and his justice understand that God providently orders the world according to wisdom and justice. That does not require faith. It is by supernatural faith, i.e., reason aided by grace that one whose point of departure is natural knowledge of God, arrives not at the logical conclusion but at the belief that God has a reward for those who love Him.

"So now you call the teaching of Vatican I "crude fallacy"? " Stupid ASS -- it is not the teaching of Vatican I that is a crude fallacy; but rather it is your moronic proposition that is a crude fallacy. What an IDIOT! Only an idiot could say that the Pontificia Studiorum Universitas a S. Thoma Aq. in Urbe is a "Cracker Jack box". I already knew you wwre stupid, but I did not fathom that you are THAT stupid.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #954 on:** October 09, 2014, 07:24:22 AM »

Quote from: Don Paolo

You spew non sequiturs in profusion, Ladislaus: We know from reason that God is just; but it is only by supernatural faith that we believe in a reward that strictly pertains to the order of grace.

Yeah, I'm sure that "mutato" believes in God as a Rewarder in the "order of grace".

Just admit it; you hate the dogma EENS.

Cantarella · « **Reply #955 on:** October 09, 2014, 11:12:38 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Don Paolo
You spew non sequiturs in profusion, Ladislaus: We know from reason that God is just; but it is only by supernatural faith that we believe in a reward that strictly pertains to the order of grace.

Yeah, I'm sure that "mutato" believes in God as a Rewarder in the "order of grace".

Just admit it; you hate the dogma EENS.

As sadly is the case of any poster who feels like "defending" or "promoting" BOD... Except perhaps Nishant.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #956 on:** October 09, 2014, 02:08:46 PM »

Yes, Nishant is a clear exception.

At least Father Cekada ADMITTED that he couldn't stand the thought of EENS, which is why he wanted to believe in BoD (his Pelagian version of it, that is).

See, most BoDers think that BoD allows them to circuмvent EENS, and that's WHY they believe in it. That's why they're so dogmatic about it. If it was some rare exception that happened every once in a while, it wouldn't be worth all the time and energy they put into promoting it. It's because it allows them to ignore EENS that they are so hell-bent on pushing it. Otherwise, THE CATHOLIC EMPHASIS MUST ALWAYS BE THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM FOR SALVATION, with BoD perhaps being relegated to an obscure footnote in some dusty old Latin theology manual.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #957 on:** October 09, 2014, 07:18:05 PM »

So, the inescapable conclusion, according to Ladislaus and Cantarella's errant reasoning is that Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X and Ven. Pius XII and all who adhere to their doctrine on the point of invincible ignorance are all Pelagian heretics; and only the rigorist adherents to their sect are Catholics.
GJC just reposts the same objection made earlier by Ladislaus. He ought read my already posted reply on that point, rather than repeat an already answered question.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #958 on:** October 09, 2014, 08:30:43 PM »

Quote from: Don Paolo

So, the inescapable conclusion, according to Ladislaus and Cantarella's errant reasoning is that Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X and Ven. Pius XII and all who adhere to their doctrine on the point of invincible ignorance are all Pelagian heretics; and only the rigorist adherents to their sect are Catholics.
GJC just reposts the same objection made earlier by Ladislaus. He ought read my already posted reply on that point, rather than repeat an already answered question.

No, the inescapable conclusion is that you misinterpret Pius IX, that Pius XII had nothing to do with Suprema Haec, and St. Pius X didn't adhere to your Pelagian beliefs in any way. You are a pertinacious heretic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #959 on:** October 09, 2014, 08:40:47 PM »

Explain the "doctrine of invincible ignorance". Invincible ignorance cannot be salvific, but merely exculpatory ... unless you're a completely full-blown Pelagian.