Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: St John Evangelist on May 13, 2016, 05:42:57 AM
-
It seems to me what Feeneyites are really fighting is Pelagianism.
I think this BoD debate is kind of a distraction. It's a highly technical theological debate that misses the point. The point is that modern men think that heaven is a retirement that everyone is entitled to by nature, and that you can only lose this retirement by being an egregiously evil person.
In order to combat this Pelagianism, we don't need to go down the route of stressing the need of membership in the Church for salvation (EENS), and even going so far as to deny that one must be a full and visible member, which propels you into a debate involving statements from centuries of theologians and magisterial docuмents. I think every time you try to fight this Pelagianism by going down the EENS route, the modernists smile because they have centuries of texts that create enough ambiguity for them to create the impression that everyone in the world is in the Church by implicit desire, by being "a good person" (and 99% of people are good people) you become a Catholic in the state of grace.
Avoid this.
Instead of contradicting all those doctors and saints and theologians that mention BoD, use the very SAME doctors who talk about the fewness of the saved. This is the doctrine you should look to, not EENS. Look at St. Thomas for example, who asserts BoD, but who also says that the number of the saved is few. Most of the great theologians of the Church have asserted that the number of the saved is few, even those that promote BoD.
All you need to do is point out that the doctors of the Church say that few Catholics are saved, and then say, "and if few Catholics are saved, who have all the grace of the sacraments and the 'fullness of the truth', then what are the chances that non-Catholics, who do not have the truth or the sacraments, will be saved? As St. Peter says, "And if the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" (1 Peter 4:18)"
You don't need to point out to Protestants that it is necessary for salvation to belong to the Church, because they can dig up all those texts, and can point to the ecuмenism of the popes, to contradict you. All you need to do is quote Catholic sources on the efficacy of the sacraments (particularly Penance and the Eucharist), and say, "how do you expect to live with you do not have the body and blood of Christ, which Christ himself says, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you", and how can you be sure of salvation when you have sins on your souls and no means to confess them with any surety of absolution?"
I tell you, the modern Pelagians smile at the EENS/BoD debate because they can point to the Feeney scarecrow, "Feeney was condemned", "you are a heretic". That the number of the saved is very few, a doctrine taught by so many of the great theologians from the earliest times, supported by Christ saying that few find eternal life, is not something that they can smile at. At once you have pointed out that few achieve eternal life, then one becomes more interested in the reality of the Church, who has the true doctrine and sacraments.
You know that BoD is their preferred mechanism for justifying their Pelagian attitude that the majority of mankind is saved by being nice and polite, even though the doctors of the Church never used BoD in this way. You know that this mechanism began with the Jesuits a few centuries ago, with the finding of the Americas and the Pelagian need to somehow make these pagans Catholics by desire, "because how can so many be damned? Is it there fault they haven't heard the gospel?" Ignore BoD, ignore EENS, focus on the Ark of Noah / Church parallel that so many doctors pointed to, showing the fewness of the saved.
The problem is that Pelagians imagine that men are naturally good and deserve to go to heaven. They have no sense that man is corrupt, falls very far short of the purpose he was created for, and that even the perfect man has no natural right to heaven, because to be supernaturally joined to God is absolutely above man's nature and can only be a gratuitous gift given by God. They do not understand the difference between good and evil. They want to make heaven appear less wonderful and less gratuitously bestowed upon us than it is, and they want hell to appear less terrifying and less justly given to us.
You don't need to stress EENS to get them to wake up concerning salvation. The fewness of the saved is a more efficacious doctrine to that end (see: St. Leonard of Port Maurice's sermon).
-
I think that Fr. Feeney and Archbishop Lefebvre are strikingly similar figures.
They are both traditional figures reacting against modernist abominations (Feeney in theology, Lefebvre in liturgy),
who may have gone out of bounds (Feeney condemning BoD, Lefebvre consecrating four bishops),
and were excommunicated,
while modernists were allowed to run rampart and constantly go way out of bounds.
-
It seems to me what Feeneyites are really fighting is Pelagianism.
I think this BoD debate is kind of a distraction. It's a highly technical theological debate that misses the point. The point is that modern men think that heaven is a retirement that everyone is entitled to by nature, and that you can only lose this retirement by being an egregiously evil person.
Bingo. It's usually the BoDers, though, who exploit BoD to promote a brand of Pelagianism. I've said this a hundred times before. I don't really care about BoD per se. But the BoDers usually hide behind classical BoD and use it as a cover for 1) Pelagianism and 2) denying Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. Nishant here on CI is one of the only BoDers who does NOT promote Pelagianism, so I rarely argue with him about BoD.
-
The Fewness of the Saved - The Majority of Mankind are Damned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMUPBFeI5Hc
-
Those are good points. The Baptism of Desire had never even been relevant or an issue with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This is, until the Americanists made it one at the final part of the XIX century. The end results are Pelagianiusm, Indifferentism, and Universal Salvation. The arch heresies of our day. The Vatican II entire ecclesiology does not really differ from that of the typical BOD "trad" promoter.
In his article Reply to a Liberal, published in the spring of 1949 in Saint Benedict Center's From the Housetops, Mr. Raymon Karam explains under what conditions, we could speak of ahypothetical salvific 'Baptism of Desire", without entering the realms of Pelagianism. Believed so, we do not regard the Baptism of Desire as a heresy (nor Catholics who want to adhere to it, as heretics).
According to the majority of the Fathers and Doctors, baptism of the Holy Spirit, without the actual reception of Baptism of water, can be sufficient for salvation if the following five conditions are fulfilled:
First, that person must have the Catholic Faith. (We have already proved that no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, and that not even the Sacrament of Baptism can be profitable for salvation if the subject who receives it does not confess the Catholic Faith.)
Second, he must have an explicit will or desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. For example, St. Bernard says that he must have an “entire yearning for the sacrament of Jesus.” 86
Third, he must have perfect charity. For St. Robert Bellarmine says that only “perfect conversion can be called baptism of the Spirit, and this includes true contrition and charity. ” 87 St. Augustine says that he must have “faith and conversion of the heart. ” 88 St. Thomas says that, as in the case of the Sacrament of Penance, so also in the Sacrament of Baptism, if sanctifying grace is to be received previous to the Sacrament, a perfect act of charity is necessary, for “if an adult is not perfectly disposed before baptism to obtain remission of his sins, he obtains this remission by the power of baptism, in the very act of being baptized. ” 89 St. Bernard says that “right faith, God-fearing hope, and sincere charity” must be present. 90
Fourth, he must have an explicit will to join the Catholic Church , — for, as we have shown, not even actual Baptism is profitable for salvation if it is received outside the Catholic Church (except for babies) and without an explicit will to join the Church. Much less, therefore, does baptism in voto profit for salvation if it does not include an explicit will to join the Catholic Church.
Fifth, he must be dying and, although yearning for the Baptism of Water, is unable to receive it because of an absolute impossibility, not because of a contempt for it. Thus, St. Augustine says that baptism of the Spirit, or perfect conversion to God, “may indeed be found when Baptism has not yet been received, but never when it has been despised. For it should never in any way be called a conversion of the heart to God when the sacrament of God has been despised. ” 91 In the same way St. Bernard says that, since the time of the promulgation of the Gospel, “whoever refuses now to be baptized, after the remedy of baptism has been made accessible to all everywhere, adds of his own accord a sin of pride to the general original stain, carrying within himself a double cause of the most just damnation, if he happens to leave the body in the same state.” 92 Also, St. Thomas says, “It is necessary, in order that a man might enter into the kingdom of God, that he approach the baptism of water actually (in re), as it is in all those who are baptized; or in voto, as it is in the martyrs and the catechumens who were hindered by death before they could fulfill their intent (votum); or in figure, as in the ancient Fathers,” — that is, in those before Christ. 93
-
... At first sight and first sound, Scripture seems to speak of the fewness of the elect and of the difficulty of salvation, and what we actually observe among men bears this out. How few promise well for Heaven! The freedom of our own will only adds nervousness to the question. God being the Father He is, there would be more security for us in His absolute sovereignty. But He knows best. He has put our souls into our hands, but He has still mercifully kept them in His own. Free will without grace would be demoniacal despair.
Now, not in answer to, but in palliation of, all this, I shall make two observations. The first is this. If we can know nothing about the future, we can at least know a great deal about the present. In spiritual matters God is pleased to instruct His Church by His saints, and the Church before canonizing them, sets her seal upon their writings. Now the saints mention seven things, which they call the signs of predestination. This means something more than that they are symptoms of our being at present in a state of grace and the way of holiness. It means that they are to a certain extent prophecies of the future, not infallibly true but supernaturally hopeful. It means that they are the sort of things to be expected in the elect, and not to be expected in others; things essential to the elect, and which through all the centuries of the Church have distinguished the elect. Hence if we find all, many, or a few of them in ourselves, we are legitimately entitled to proportionate consolation. They are, the imitation of Christ, devotion to our Blessed Lady, works of mercy, love of prayer, self-distrust, the gift of faith, and past mercies from God. We must also bear in mind of all these things, that it is not the plenary possession of them which counts with God, and so is a sign of predestination, but the earnest desire of them and the sincere endeavor after them. What wonder the theologian Viva should make the number of the saved so large, and the saint of Geneva almost doubt if any Catholics were lost?
My second observation is this. We are discussing a temptation of the Catholic spiritual life; and we may keep to what is strictly practical. Consequently we are dispensed from touching on the question of the fewness of the elect out of the whole number of mankind. We have nothing to do with curiosity about the future destinies of heathen and of heretics. I do not want to lose my soul by losing my temper with God because He has not told me how He is going to manage His own creation. Their chances will obviously be regulated by the greatness of the boon which the gift of faith is to the soul. To us there can be no trouble in this. The grave opinions of theologians will teach us all we need either know or to surmise, which is very little. Our business is with the doubt whether few Catholics will be saved and how far we may reverently take comfort from the indications of God's will in His Holy Word, and in the reasons of theology.
First of all we have St. John's Vidi turbam magnam, which sounds in our ears at Sext through the octave of All Saints. "I saw a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and tribes, and people, and tongues, standing before the throne, and in sight of the Lamb, clothed with white robes and palms in their hands." Secondly, a Spanish theologian says, we may surely with great reverence suppose, that it befits the goodness of God that the number of the elect should equal, or surpass, that of the lost. This would carry the benignant interpretation far beyond what the interests of catholics only would require; and it certainly seems to involve in obscurity certain words of our Lord's which seem very plain. However it is something to know what so holy and enlightened a man as Da Ponte thought. He must have taken into account the multitude of baptized infants. Thirdly, there may be an analogy between the angels and ourselves; and only a third of them fell, as the Apocalypse tells us. Neither is it true that the places in heaven are only the vacancies left by the angels. There is a huge multitude beside. This nearly all theologians teach; and some have said that as many men will be saved as angels, if not more. Of course these are only opinions. But then our temptation is only an opinion also. It is ours against theirs, and ours only so long as it torments us, for we should be glad to get rid of it, if we could. Fourthly, the glory of our Lord seems to require that the fruit of His Passion should be very multitudinous. The Holy Innocents are a sample of this. Isaias says of His Passion,"If He shall lay down His life for sin, He shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in His hand Because His soul hath labored, He shall see and be filled." Fifthly, the glory and joy of the Blessed themselves seem to require multitude, especially too as they are arranged in different orders and degrees; and multitude is also suitable to the magnificence of place, as Baruch says "O Israel, how great is the house of God, and how vast is the place of His possession. It is great and hath no end; it is high and immense." Sixthly, of the two thieves one was saved, and of the twelve apostles only one fell. These are all bad arguments, taken simply, but collectively they establish lawful benignant supposition. Seventhly, our Lord Himself says, "In my Father's house are many mansions", and then as if He foresaw all our trouble, He adds with deep and sweet significancy, "If it were not so, I would have told you." It was these considerations which led St. Francis of Sales and Viva to the belief that by far the greater number of catholics would be saved.
...
Fr Faber, Growth in Holiness
-
The Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes have taught Baptism of Desire clearly. They did not teach Universal Salvationism or false ecuмenism. They did not teach salvation for the bad willed or indifferent. They did not teach salvation for those outside the Church or without a supernatural Faith or perfect charity.
They taught that non-members [else no need for BOD right] can be saved within the Church. Yes or no? Who dares to disagree with what they all taught? Who here claims they taught any different? Not me.
Jesus Christ redeemed all. All can be saved. No one is damned to the pains of Hell through no fault of their own.
It is sanctifying grace that saves and cleanses the soul from Original sin, water is an instrument through which sanctifying grace is obtained. But God does not ask the impossible. We should all agree but we won't.
It is quite daring to reject the UOM, an authoritative letter, the Council of Trent on what is arguable "de fide". Who dares to do so and call themselves Catholic?
-
The Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes have taught Baptism of Desire clearly. They did not teach Universal Salvationism or false ecuмenism. They did not teach salvation for the bad willed or indifferent. They did not teach salvation for those outside the Church or without a supernatural Faith or perfect charity.
They taught that non-members [else no need for BOD right] can be saved within the Church. Yes or no? Who dares to disagree with what they all taught? Who here claims they taught any different? Not me.
Jesus Christ redeemed all. All can be saved. No one is damned to the pains of Hell through no fault of their own.
It is sanctifying grace that saves and cleanses the soul from Original sin, water is an instrument through which sanctifying grace is obtained. But God does not ask the impossible. We should all agree but we won't.
It is quite daring to reject the UOM, an authoritative letter, the Council of Trent on what is arguable "de fide". Who dares to do so and call themselves Catholic?
What does the solemn teaching: "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous.......let him be anathema." mean to you?
Does it mean that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessarily necessary unto salvation?
-
I'm glad to see at least that some are coming around even if it is with the dragging of their feet and some extra shots taken at those who have helped them see the truth.
Hopefully no one says a catechumen will go to Hell if he is martyred anymore.
Better to deny Christ to avoid martyrdom so as to have a chance to be Baptized. I knew Feeneyites who really believed that. Incredible, the lengths they go to in order to hold fast to their novelty.
-
Do baptized people who die in a state of sanctifying grace without having received the Eucharist go to Hell? If not are you saying the Sacraments are not necessary?
-
It seems to me what Feeneyites are really fighting is Pelagianism.
I think this BoD debate is kind of a distraction. It's a highly technical theological debate that misses the point. The point is that modern men think that heaven is a retirement that everyone is entitled to by nature, and that you can only lose this retirement by being an egregiously evil person.
In order to combat this Pelagianism, we don't need to go down the route of stressing the need of membership in the Church for salvation (EENS), and even going so far as to deny that one must be a full and visible member, which propels you into a debate involving statements from centuries of theologians and magisterial docuмents. I think every time you try to fight this Pelagianism by going down the EENS route, the modernists smile because they have centuries of texts that create enough ambiguity for them to create the impression that everyone in the world is in the Church by implicit desire, by being "a good person" (and 99% of people are good people) you become a Catholic in the state of grace.
Avoid this.
Instead of contradicting all those doctors and saints and theologians that mention BoD, use the very SAME doctors who talk about the fewness of the saved. This is the doctrine you should look to, not EENS. Look at St. Thomas for example, who asserts BoD, but who also says that the number of the saved is few. Most of the great theologians of the Church have asserted that the number of the saved is few, even those that promote BoD.
All you need to do is point out that the doctors of the Church say that few Catholics are saved, and then say, "and if few Catholics are saved, who have all the grace of the sacraments and the 'fullness of the truth', then what are the chances that non-Catholics, who do not have the truth or the sacraments, will be saved? As St. Peter says, "And if the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" (1 Peter 4:18)"
You don't need to point out to Protestants that it is necessary for salvation to belong to the Church, because they can dig up all those texts, and can point to the ecuмenism of the popes, to contradict you. All you need to do is quote Catholic sources on the efficacy of the sacraments (particularly Penance and the Eucharist), and say, "how do you expect to live with you do not have the body and blood of Christ, which Christ himself says, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you", and how can you be sure of salvation when you have sins on your souls and no means to confess them with any surety of absolution?"
I tell you, the modern Pelagians smile at the EENS/BoD debate because they can point to the Feeney scarecrow, "Feeney was condemned", "you are a heretic". That the number of the saved is very few, a doctrine taught by so many of the great theologians from the earliest times, supported by Christ saying that few find eternal life, is not something that they can smile at. At once you have pointed out that few achieve eternal life, then one becomes more interested in the reality of the Church, who has the true doctrine and sacraments.
You know that BoD is their preferred mechanism for justifying their Pelagian attitude that the majority of mankind is saved by being nice and polite, even though the doctors of the Church never used BoD in this way. You know that this mechanism began with the Jesuits a few centuries ago, with the finding of the Americas and the Pelagian need to somehow make these pagans Catholics by desire, "because how can so many be damned? Is it there fault they haven't heard the gospel?" Ignore BoD, ignore EENS, focus on the Ark of Noah / Church parallel that so many doctors pointed to, showing the fewness of the saved.
The problem is that Pelagians imagine that men are naturally good and deserve to go to heaven. They have no sense that man is corrupt, falls very far short of the purpose he was created for, and that even the perfect man has no natural right to heaven, because to be supernaturally joined to God is absolutely above man's nature and can only be a gratuitous gift given by God. They do not understand the difference between good and evil. They want to make heaven appear less wonderful and less gratuitously bestowed upon us than it is, and they want hell to appear less terrifying and less justly given to us.
You don't need to stress EENS to get them to wake up concerning salvation. The fewness of the saved is a more efficacious doctrine to that end (see: St. Leonard of Port Maurice's sermon).
That's right. Salvation is certainly not a right. People who disagree with Catholic teaching on BOB/D but cannot refute it will accuse others of believing this though. Babies who go to Limbo are proof that Salvation is not a right.
-
Do baptized people who die in a state of sanctifying grace without having received the Eucharist go to Hell? If not are you saying the Sacraments are not necessary?
I asked you a clear question, but as per usual, you are afraid to answer for fear of being wrong. Stupid pride.
-
Consistent "logic" does not matter to those who believe what they want to believe rather than the Church.
You insist that the Sacraments are necessary with an intrinsic necessity (in all circuмstances no matter what). The word is plural. What are the at least two sacraments that are absolutely necessary? Baptism and what? The Eucharist, Penance? Perhaps the two Sacraments necessary are Marriage and Ordination.
Please source a legitimate authority to support the claim that at least two sacraments are intrinsically necessary and name those sacraments.
-
You insist that the Sacraments are necessary with an intrinsic necessity (in all circuмstances no matter what).
Completely false and dishonest. No one believes that the Sacraments are necessary by intrinsic necessity. Your problem is that you redefine intrinsic necessity to make the Sacrament necessary by precept. By divine institution (extrinsic necessity), the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation. Holy Communion has been dealt with already a number of times.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm
The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin. Moreover, there is according to theologians a Divine precept by which all are bound to receive communion at least some times during life.
Theologians all agree that Baptism is necessary by necessity of means, whereas Holy Communion is necessary by a moral necessity and necessity of precept. Trent itself does not distinguish "necessary"; subsequent theologians did with regard to the various Sacraments.
Sacrament of Holy Orders is also not necessary by intrinsic necessity, but no one can receive Holy Orders without the Sacrament. Same things holds of Confirmation and Baptism as well, those Sacraments for which the character is an essential part of the grace conferred.
-
That's right. Salvation is certainly not a right. People who disagree with Catholic teaching on BOB/D but cannot refute it will accuse others of believing this though. Babies who go to Limbo are proof that Salvation is not a right.
This is not a question of "right". It's a question of whether salvation can be merited or earned by having the proper dispositions or whether it's a free gift of God, a grace. This notion that no one can be lost unless they've committed a deliberate mortal sin is simply Pelagianism ... it clearly renders the default state of man as salvation, which can then be lost by sin. Basically, the notion that a natural yearning or a desire automatically leads to the grace of justification and salvation is pure unadulterated Pelagianism.
-
And the heretical premise behind all of BoD is the notion that God can be impeded by "impossibility" from bringing the Sacrament of Baptism to His elect.
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. Now these are your words: “We say that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ.” Is it then really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing admonition.
Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator.
-
St. Augustine is the only Father who is clearly on record as floating the notion of BoD. St. Ambrose's statement was more ambiguous, and could easily be taken as a reference to BoB. Several Fathers rejected BoD out of hand.
But even St. Augustine, in his later anti-Pelagian days, eventually rejected BoD as leading inexorably to Pelagianism. He's on record with some of the strongest anti-BoD statements on record.
http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
-
The Church does not simply teach one can only be lost through mortal sin. One must be culpable of mortal sin to suffer the pains of Hell. One cannot obtain the Beatific Vision unless cleansed of Original Sin which is done through sacramental Baptism or when this is impossible (through inculpable ignorance, death etc.) through baptism of desire or blood and these can only be obtained by non-members who have a supernatural Faith and perfect charity.
Do you deny that a person with supernatural Faith and perfect charity is in a state of sanctifying grace?
Do you believe it possible for a person who dies in the state of sanctifying grace to be deprived of the Beatific Vision?
-
One must be culpable of mortal sin to suffer the pains of Hell.
Indeed, that is exactly what Pius IX taught. But then you twist Pius IX into Pelagianism by pretending this passage means that no one who isn't culpable of mortal sin is not saved.
Do you deny that a person with supernatural Faith and perfect charity is in a state of sanctifying grace?
What are you talking about? That's a tautology. By definition having supernatural faith and perfect charity is being in a state of sanctifying grace. Your issue is with the next point.
Do you believe it possible for a person who dies in the state of sanctifying grace to be deprived of the Beatific Vision?
Yes, I do believe it possible. In fact, we know that it happened to St. Joseph. What Father Feeney states is that God will not allow such a one, someone who perseveres in that state of grace until death to actually die without the Sacrament of Baptism. I hold a differing view, that in the new dispensation no one can enter the state of sanctifying grace (justification) without the Sacrament of Baptism.
-
Saint Joseph is deprived of the Beatific Vision?
I'm supposing Jesus baptized him in Limbo?
-
Saint Joseph is deprived of the Beatific Vision?
He WAS. There's something else necessary to receive the Beatific Vision besides being in a state of justification, that which was supplied by Our Lord's Passion, and that which is missing to all those who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism. Your allegation was that dying in a state of sanctifying grace = access to the Beatific Vision. St. Joseph proves your assertion to be false.
I'm supposing Jesus baptized him in Limbo?
Actually, several Church Fathers posited that God raised the OT just back to life in order to baptize them. But, then again, these Fathers actually believed that Baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
:facepalm:
Show me. From the one who says Doctors, Saints, Father and Popes can't be trusted when they disagree with you on the issue.
-
:facepalm:
Show me. From the one who says Doctors, Saints, Father and Popes can't be trusted when they disagree with you on the issue.
And yet the Church Fathers who disagree with you, and rejected BoD, cannot be trusted? You demand that we "trust" only those authorities who agree with you. I "trust" the later anti-Pelagian Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory nαzιanzen, St. Fulgentius, etc. when it comes to BoD.
NO AUTHORITY (whether Magisterial or a Doctor) has EVER taught that those without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation can be saved. Not until the spurious Suprema Haec. You demand that we "trust" the "authority" of St. Thomas on BoD but then refuse to "trust" the same when he taught explicit faith. You, sir, are a complete hypocrite.
-
Show me where Jesus spent His 40 hours in Limbo baptizing all the good souls that ever existed with water.
-
Show me where Jesus spent His 40 hours in Limbo baptizing all the good souls that ever existed with water.
This was a speculative theory held by a few Church Fathers. It cannot be "shown". In fact, more Church Fathers believed this than who believed in BoD. So that must make it dogma.
Point is that the Church Fathers SO deeply believed that Baptism was necessary for salvation that they speculated along these lines. You on the other hand consider Baptism to be unnecessary.
-
I'm waiting for you to show it.
-
I misread your comment thing you said it can be shown. You "refute" Church teaching with ipse dixits. Meanwhile the Church canonized unbatpized Saints.
It is amazing. It can't be shown that Jesus Baptized the world in Limbo but you claim it. But it can be shown the Church Fathers DID believe in BOD yet you disagree. I wish you could see your position and "rationale" from an objective perspective. Why are you so desperate to hold fast to novelty?
Isn't tiring to have to refute all hundreds of Church authorities who have disagreed with your preference throughout the ages? Perhaps one day you will have the grace and common sense to realize that they are right and you are wrong. Just maybe.
-
It can't be shown that Jesus Baptized the world in Limbo but you claim it.
You're retarded. You can't even comprehend basic English, and yet you claim to pontificate authoritatively on theological matters. I "claimed" no such thing. What part of SOME Church Fathers SPECULATED about this doesn't make sense to you? I brought this up to illustrate how much did they believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
But it can be shown the Church Fathers DID believe in BOD yet you disagree.
You're diabolically insane. I have REPEATEDLY shown that the only Church Father who unambiguously (yet temporarily) believed in BoD was St. Augustine. About a half dozen Church Fathers explicitly REJECT the notion of BoD. Your insanity causes you to accept into your little pea brain only that information which happens to back your own heretical notions ... a cognitive dissonance caused by bad will. Run along now. You're in way over your head.
-
I'm waiting for you to show it.
I'm waiting for you to actually accept the dogma EENS and the dogma that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.
-
I fully accept EENS. There is not exception to it. And I accept that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation, as Aquinas, Liguori, Pius XII et al. accept it, not as you "accept" it.