Strange how all these pious stories are considered infallible, but the stories that tell a different slant are not worth the words printed since they are "not infallible" as the Benedict Center or Diamond Bros. see it.Considered infallible? That's a strawman.
Strange how all these pious stories are considered infallible, but the stories that tell a different slant are not worth the words printed since they are "not infallible" as the Benedict Center or Diamond Bros. see it.
:facepalm:
Yes, yes, I know ... we all know what you are doing!
Anything that suits your erroneous beliefs you put much weight.
But, continue to ridicule the other side ;)
Anything that suits your erroneous beliefs you put much weight.What is "the other side"?
But, continue to ridicule the other side
So, if you cut the crap, you're calling him a liar, opportunist, and pragmatist.
Yes, yes, I know ... we all know what you are doing!
Anything that suits your erroneous beliefs you put much weight.
But, continue to ridicule the other side ;)
Anything that suits your erroneous beliefs you put much weight.
Your credibility just vanished in a puff of childish. It does save further wasted time, so thanks for that.
To all of you ...
uh huh! :soapbox:
Myrna, under each of your posts is the following quote.Try this one!
Galatians 1; 8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
Can you give me a quote to support your belief?
Your credibility just vanished in a puff of childish. It does save further wasted time, so thanks for that.Had I credibility in your mind? ... I am flattered! :cheers:
Had I credibility in your mind? ... I am flattered! :cheers:Which is a tacit self-admission that you shouldn't be believed. Thanks also for the confirmation. Cheers yourself.
So great a missionary was St. Vincent Ferrer that he can only be compared to the 12 Apostles. His accomplishments were incredible and rare in the whole history of the Church; his life story contains one amazing story after another, many of these are docuмented in the book, St. Vincent Ferrer –The Angel of the Judgment, by Father Andrew Pradel, O.P..
When St. Vincent Ferrer was 46 years old, suffering from a grievous illness, Our Lord appeared to him, accompanied by St. Francis and St. Dominic. Our Lord said to Vincent, among other things, "Arise, then, and go to preach against vice; for this have I specially chosen thee. Exhort sinners to repentance, for My judgment is at hand." Our Lord told St. Vincent that his preaching before the coming of Antichrist would be for mankind a merciful occasion of repentance and conversion. During this vision St. Vincent was immediately cured.
Two years later, in 1398, he was given permission to begin his apostolate of preaching. St. Vincent traveled all over western Europe preaching penance, attracting enormous crowds, and followed by thousands of disciples. He converted St. Bernardine of Siena and Blessed Margaret of Savoy. Vincent had the gift of languages; preaching in his Valencion idiom he was understood wherever he went;1 and in conversation he spoke French, Italian, German or English as fluently as his native tongue.
There was a rich Jєω of Andalusia, named Abraham, who began to leave a church in anger while Vincent was preach-ing. The Jєω did not like what he was hearing. As some people at the door opposed his passing through, St. Vincent cried out: "Let him go! Come away all of you at once, and leave the passage free!" The people did as he ordered, and at the instant the Jєω left, part of the porch structure fell on him and crushed him to death. Then the saint rose from his chair and went to the body. He knelt there in prayer. Abraham came to life, and his first words were: "The religion of the Jєωs is not the true faith. The True Faith is that of the Christians."
The father of a certain child had given Vincent lodging while he was on a missionary journey. His wife, a virtuous woman, suffered from bad attacks of nerves, and at times was close to madness. Upon his return from hearing one of Vincent's sermons, the father came upon a terrible tragedy. His wife had gone mad, cut their small son's throat, then chopped up the boy's body and roasted a portion of it, which she then attempted to serve her husband.
When he realized what had happened, the man fled in horror and disgust to St. Vincent Ferrer. Vincent told him that-as in the case of the crushed Jєω -- the tragedy would be for the glory of God. St. Vincent went with the father back to the home and prayed as he gathered the bloody pieces together.
He said to the father: "If you have faith, God, who created this little soul from nothing, can bring him back to life."
Vincent knelt and prayed. He made the Sign of the Cross over the reassembled body. The pieces became united together, the body came to life again, and Vincent handed over to the father a living child. This event is depicted in a painting by Francesco del Cossa in the New Picture Gallery in the Vatican. Bishop Ranzano claimed this as one of the miracles submitted in the canonization process for St. Vincent Ferrer.
One should note that none of these miracles were performed for mere sensationalism, which the saints despise. They were worked for various good purposes, especially the conversion of sinners and the strengthening of faith. As St. Vincent told the bereaved father, miracles are worked for the glory of God. This was also stated by Christ at the grave of Lazarus, and to His Apostles. The saints' powers are of course limited by God, to whom all power belongs. Otherwise, with unrestricted powers, the saints could be "as gods."
We learn from St. Vincent Ferrer that one must never mock the gifts God has given to His saints. As has happened in similar cases, on one occasion a boy pretended to be dead, while his friends snickered. St. Vincent leaned over and shook him -- a corpse! Vincent said: "He pretended to be dead to amuse you, but evil has come upon him; he is dead!" A cross was erected to commemorate the event.2 Happenings like that can save many souls by instilling in them a healthy fear of the Lord.
Had I credibility in your mind?
On the contrary, I look at the entire body of evidence objectively. I've never condemned anyone for believing in BoD. I've condemned Pelagianism, denial of EENS, modernist ecclesiology, and heretical denial of Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. I've taken note of the fact that many theologians believe in BoD, but it's clear from the evidence that there's no proof for this opinion and that it's just their personal opinion, an opinion with which I disagree. I have no issues with someone believing in BoD provided that they do not simultaneously undermine EENS, promote heretical ecclesiology, advocate Pelagianism, and deny the necessity of the Sacraments (even mockingly deriding them in language identical to that of the Protestants). So far only two BoDers on CI (Arvinger and Nishant) have met these criteria.
.Quote...I have no issues with someone believing in BoD provided that they do not simultaneously undermine EENS, promote heretical ecclesiology, advocate Pelagianism, and deny the necessity of the Sacraments (even mockingly deriding them in language identical to that of the Protestants). So far only two BoDers on CI (Arvinger and Nishant) have met these criteria.
Oh, yes, I forgot Matto. My apologies to him. He also believes in a Catholic version of the BoD hypothesis.
Yeah, I found that statement surprising as well.1. Is she Catholic?
Oh, yes, I forgot Matto. My apologies to him. He also believes in a Catholic version of the BoD hypothesis.Yes, I do believe in BOD and BOB in the way you describe. But I have no animosity towards Father Feeney like many believers in BOD and I consider those who deny BOD and BOB to be Catholics generally. I consider Father Feeney to have been a good priest as far as I know (but I don't know much about him really and have never read much of his writings except for some issues of "The Point" which I liked) and would not be surprised if he was in heaven, even though I believe in BOD and BOB, and I believe many of his enemies were really heretics.
Oh, yes, I forgot Matto. My apologies to him. He also believes in a Catholic version of the BoD hypothesis.1. Sede
It seems rather commonplace for BoB/BoD to go hand in hand with sedevacantism. I don't know any of the latter who are not also adherents of the former. Your post seems to support that too: as far as I could tell, Arvinger, Nishant and Matto are not sedes.
.
1. SedeCorrection: "… rarely DO… "
2. Have asked members here and elsewhere to elaborate on this Catholic(?) BO(?).
1. Response? none.
Frankly, esp. outside the comparatively tiny cat wrangle of CI, I find Sededefectists to hold to BoD, in myriad iterations and mutation.
What they rarely DON'T hold to is either Liguori or Aquinas in the matter, which makes them super-special, esp. when they, with the consistency of a madman, froth at the gob otherwise.
This is often accompanied by calling SV heresy, yet when asked to JUSTify that with specs, the most you ever really get is bits of V1 with the word "primacy" oddly glossed over or, more likely, omitted entirely.
TL;DR/Crayon version
1. There is no pope this side of the dirt.
2. Not SACRAMENTALLY baptised = Hell
3. Not Catholic = Hell
So, another SV who REJECTS BoD/B.
I would ask again for this allegedly non-heretical version, but why bother yet again?
I believe it's when someone believes that it's the Sacrament that saves in voto as Ladislaus puts it. They say that you need the sacrament but you can receive the Sacrament by actually desiring it. It's still BOD though and not taught by the Church.Thanks for trying man. Preesh.
HAHA. It's complicated...unlike Catholic Dogma.I think theres a potentially good argument f/simplicity to be made.
Strange how all these pious stories are considered infallible, but the stories that tell a different slant are not worth the words printed since they are "not infallible" as the Benedict Center or Diamond Bros. see it.Poor Myrna just doesn't get or doesn't want to.
:facepalm:
It is quite obvious that according to the Providence of God these individuals were to be saved, and though a sleep, not judged..
And clear writing on the wall for those who carelessly follow those modernist bishops and priests that claim that spiritual rebirth can occur without the sacrament of Baptism.
.1. Are you equating the case of Lazarus with those as of the final (presuming that there are and/or have been) resurrection?
To say that the souls of those in mortal sin do not descend immediately to Hell when they die is a direct contradiction of Benedictus Deus, the papal definition that settled the controversy over the general judgment (regarding which John XXII is often slandered as a heretic). When you die, you go where you're going to go. That could be purgatory, but that's only a round-about way of going to Heaven. After death we go to Heaven or Hell. There is no third place. Not since the Resurrection
.
So, if:
..
- Justification is radically, absolutely, and ontologically impossible without the sacrament of baptism
- Someone dies without receiving the sacrament of baptism
- They descend immediately to Hell
- And cannot be resurrected to return to Heaven, since the punishments of Hell are eternal.
So, these stories are either false, or they prove BoD. They can prove BoD since a person could be brought back-- at least as a vision-- from Heaven to return to earth. But even this would not amount to a real baptism of water, since the resurrection of the body does not occur until after the general judgment, which does not occur until after the end of the world. Which means that any such persons being "resurrected" wouldn't really be resurrected the same way that (e.g.) Lazarus was resurrected.
Things work differently from the Old Covenant to the New.
.
There is a reason that every instance of "true" resurrection-- i.e., the return of the soul and the body united to earth-- occurs prior to THE Resurrection (Christ's Resurrection, that is). Prior to that time, the gates of Heaven were shut, and there really was a "third place" of sorts that was not purgatory, but the limbo of the fathers, from where people could be truly resurrected.
.
That is what happened with Lazarus.
.
That is also what happens in the Book of Ezechiel, which is highly instructive as a matter of metaphysics to read the account of Ezechiel raising up the army of Israelites from bones. It is a very illuminating and poignant testament to Catholic metaphysics as described by the likes of St. Thomas. Which is neither here nor there in terms of direct applicability to the case at hand, but which serve as a reminder that when we talk about suspensions of the laws of nature for the production of some miracle or another, there is still an order by which these things occur. Read Ezichiel and see how very carefully the scriptures describe the chronology of exactly how the dead are raised, all the while considering what we know about Catholic metaphysics and the relationship between soul and body, and so on.
Every time I forget the folly of discourse with those who don't answer that asked, esp. something as simple as a y/n question with a simple, direct and IMMEDIATE y/n, I inevitably regret it..
Take care,
out.
The hand of the Lord was upon me, and brought me forth in the spirit of the Lord: and set me down in the midst of a plain that was full of bones. [2] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=37&l=2-#x) And he led me about through them on every side: now they were very many upon the face of the plain, and they were exceeding dry. [3] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=37&l=3-#x) And he said to me: Son of man, dost thou think these bones shall live? And I answered: O Lord God, thou knowest. [4] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=37&l=4-#x) And he said to me: Prophesy concerning these bones; and say to them: Ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. [5] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=37&l=5-#x) Thus saith the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will send spirit into you, and you shall live.
.
[6] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=37&l=6-#x) And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to grow over you, and will cover you with skin: and I will give you spirit and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord. [7] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=37&l=7-#x) And I prophesied as he had commanded me: and as I prophesied there was a noise, and behold a commotion: and the bones came together, each one to its joint. [8] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=37&l=8-#x) And I saw, and behold the sinews, and the flesh came up upon them: and the skin was stretched out over them, but there was no spirit in them. [9] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=37&l=9-#x) And he said to me: Prophesy to the spirit, prophesy, O son of man, and say to the spirit: Thus saith the Lord God: Come, spirit, from the four winds, and blow upon these slain, and let them live again. [10] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=37&l=10-#x) And I prophesied as he had commanded me: and the spirit came into them, and they lived: and they stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.
.
[11] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=37&l=11-#x) And he said to me: Son of man: All these bones are the house of Israel: they say: Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost, and we are cut off.
So, where did the soul of those who died go before they were resurrected?Have they ever said? If not, we don't know.
Have they ever said? If not, we don't know..
All we can actually know with certainty, is that once they were baptized and left this life, they went directly to heaven.
.Word to the would be wise, carefully consider this alleged "… grand total…", errors of equivocation, and errors of bifurcation.
We can know, though, through very simple deduction.
.
There are a grand total of two possibilities after death (after Christ's resurrection). Either Heaven (including purgatory, which guarantees eventual Heaven) or Hell.
.
Now, from the anti-BoD perspective, you can't possibly argue that such persons went to Heaven or purgatory. Which only leaves Hell. Which, in this particular narrative, is a place that they're leaving and then afterward going to Heaven. Nice. Definitely incentivizes not getting baptized while you're alive the first time, wouldn't you say? :D
.
.Unless they told us, or unless it was divinely revealed, then no, we cannot know.
We can know, though, through very simple deduction.
.
There are a grand total of two possibilities after death (after Christ's resurrection). Either Heaven (including purgatory, which guarantees eventual Heaven) or Hell.
.
Now, from the anti-BoD perspective, you can't possibly argue that such persons went to Heaven or purgatory. Which only leaves Hell. Which, in this particular narrative, is a place that they're leaving and then afterward going to Heaven. Nice. Definitely incentivizes not getting baptized while you're alive the first time, wouldn't you say? :D
.
Unless they told us, or unless it was divinely revealed, then no, we cannot know..
But if we were to guess (very simple deduction), then we have to say because they died without having ever received the sacrament of baptism, they went to limbo, were raised from the dead, were baptized, then died and went directly to heaven.
The only thing we know for certain of their whereabouts after their first death, is being that they died without baptism, they did not go to heaven until after they were baptized.
.All we know with absolute certainty, is that they did not go to heaven until after they received the sacrament of baptism.
Limbo (of the infants-- if it exists) is part of Hell. There is no third place.
.
This isn't guess work. We have divinely revealed truth and solemn definitions which say that Heaven and Hell are the only eternal resting places, and that when a person dies, they go immediately to Hell if they are reprobate.
.
This is before we even discuss any of the underlying theology, which I'm sure we won't do, because you don't care about it and make it up for your own purposes as you go along. Where's Ladislaus? He's supposed to be the one with the nuanced view who looks at everything objectively and gives each 'side' their due criticism, just ask him, he'll tell you, and I would have expected that at least he would see how completely ludicrous the OP's attempt at proof is.
.
Strange how all these pious stories are considered infallible, but the stories that tell a different slant are not worth the words printed since they are "not infallible" as the Benedict Center or Diamond Bros. see it.You were down thumbed 6 times, a sure sign the feeneyites cannot refute you.
:facepalm:
Quite the contrary, we don't consider any of these "infallible". You, on the other hand, present your stories as dogmatic proof when they're not. These are just illustrations of how God does arrange matters, sometimes even miraculously, to bring the Sacrament to His elect.We present authoritative and infallible TEACHINGS from approved sources united on the issue while you settled for STORIES. You put more weight on stories than teaching if the teaching goes against what your monumental intellectual pride wishes to believe.
What is "the other side"?The Catholic side accepts EENS and BOD. The non-Catholic side rejects one or the other or both.
Our side believes that dogmas are the final word on a subject of prior confusion. We simply quote the clear dogmas as they are written.
The "other side" believes that the theologians and Catholic writers interpret dogma, or at least they use that mix of theologians and other writers to conclude:
that for instance these two dogmas mean that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist....etc can be saved by their belief in a rewarder god:
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 Jєωs 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, 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, …
Of course, to our side that conclusion is insane.
On the contrary, I look at the entire body of evidence objectively. I've never condemned anyone for believing in BoD. I've condemned Pelagianism, denial of EENS, modernist ecclesiology, and heretical denial of Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. I've taken note of the fact that many theologians believe in BoD, but it's clear from the evidence that there's no proof for this opinion and that it's just their personal opinion, an opinion with which I disagree. I have no issues with someone believing in BoD provided that they do not simultaneously undermine EENS, promote heretical ecclesiology, advocate Pelagianism, and deny the necessity of the Sacraments (even mockingly deriding them in language identical to that of the Protestants). So far only two BoDers on CI (Arvinger and Nishant) have met these criteria.You trust yourself more than the theologians which is bad enough. But also more than the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes. Can't you just be satisfied with being a private heretic? Why do you have to blab your nonsense as if you are some sort of authority?
Your credibility just vanished in a puff of childish. It does save further wasted time, so thanks for that.Talk about the kettle calling the snow black.
:barf: What a puke-worthy sentiment. :barf: Talking about subjective riff-raff.
:barf:
It seems rather commonplace for BoB/BoD to go hand in hand with sedevacantism. I
:barf:
I believe it's when someone believes that it's the Sacrament that saves in voto as Ladislaus puts it. They say that you need the sacrament but you can receive the Sacrament by actually desiring it. It's still BOD though and not taught by the Church.Do you really believe we teach converts that it is up to them whether they want to receive the sacrament or just desire it? You are intellectually dishonest at best.
HAHA. It's complicated...unlike Catholic Dogma.The Dogma of the Holy Trinity cannot be fully understood. It is a great mystery not merely something complicated but can be fully understood. Should we doubt this then as well?
It is quite obvious that according to the Providence of God these individuals were to be saved, and though a sleep, not judged.:facepalm: Souls are judged at the moment of death.
And clear writing on the wall for those who carelessly follow those modernist bishops and priests that claim that spiritual rebirth can occur without the sacrament of Baptism.
It's unbelievable. We've got people here who are implying the non-eternity of Hell, the possibility of more than two eternal final places, the possibility of not going immediately to Hell, the possibility of soul and body being reunited before the general judgment, and now to top it off, we have the sacrament of baptism "through an unseen miracle."
.
Kids, this is what confirmation bias does to you. You turn around, look, and all of a sudden you've toppled half a dozen truths on the way to retaining your pet theory.
.
Those of you with children who are first communion age hopefully recall, if you didn't already, that a sacrament is a visible sign. "Invisible baptism" is not baptism at all.
.
Just abandon this ridiculous proof, already. Y'all are going to keep reading Trent without any deference to the catechisms, popes, theologians, saints, or any authoritative teaching mechanism of the Church anyways, that's where your bread and butter is, so stick to that. Those "on the fence" who see you turning the most basic tenets of Catholic theology and doctrine on their head to retain your position aren't going to be won over, that's for sure.
You were down thumbed 6 times, a sure sign the feeneyites cannot refute you.Kinda like a pair of old slippers after a while. Of course if this were so sure, certain other conclusion hoppers would be vindicated as well.
Kinda like a pair of old slippers after a while. Of course if this were so sure, certain other conclusion hoppers would be vindicated as well.
Hey, I MUST be going gangbusters as well. "I'd like to thank the Academy…"
Too bad there aren't any medically verified cases of people coming back from the dead. Then again, that might be taken as "proof" for all sorts of Hasty Puddin'Do you deny that a person is judged at the moment of death?
Do you deny that a person is judged at the moment of death?
Has apparently forgotten our last little "chat", only reinforced by his double-standard of asking much, yet beholden, apparently not even to God almighty, to none to answer. Seems proper company for Myth.If you were given the choice of martyrdom before baptism or denying Christ so you could get baptized which would you chose?
No takers on the following question:
If you were given the choice of martyrdom before baptism or denying Christ so you could get baptized which would you chose?
Both choices reveal your unbelief of divine providence and God's Omniscience and Omnipotence. Your unbelief is the root of your obsession with the subject of salvation ofYour choosing not to answer is even more revealing.
I am not finding ambiguity, only misleading translation, at least try to be accurate. If "mox" means soon, then your interpretation that the soul goes, at the moment of brain death, to it's final place, may be wrong. We do not know how long or what happens between the point where we say "hey...he's dead" and the point of no return. We do KNOW that there is no salvation for those not Sacramentally Baptized. So, if these stories are true there is no conflict between Benedictus Deus and these stories being evidence of the necessity of water Baptism.But to defend your heresy you are going to great lengths depending on extraordinary means as the saving norm. Having one come back to life just so he can get baptized. Not that complicated.
Also, am I to assume that you have given up the salvation of unbaptized "martyrs" since you didn't address it. Also, why are you even reading these Dogmas? You only refer to men for further interpretation.
Your choosing not to answer is even more revealing.No your question is moronic, only a person that does not believe in divine providence would ask such a puerile question.
No your question is moronic, only a person that does not believe in divine providence would ask such a puerile question.My question puts your heresy in the proper light and leaves you crying like a baby. :baby:
Your unbelief is the cause of your illness.
Both choices reveal your unbelief of divine providence and God's Omniscience and Omnipotence. Your unbelief is the root of your obsession with the subject of salvation of
1. Who is ceding that there is such a thing as pre-baptismal martyrdom?The Catholic Church. Bust free from the heresy man and join the Catholic theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes for Heaven's sake.
1. Danger of equivocation re: "martyr", no?
There are "martyrs" for "Manchester United" for cryijng out loud.
Do you understand the definition of the word "necessary". The definition itself means absolute or no other means. The word relative implies something that is general but not always. This would change the meaning of the definition to mean something it does not say. We all know that it is not lawful to change the intended meaning of a Dogma.You obviously don't get it. I'll pray you somehow manage to save your soul and avoid speaking on an issue you know nothing about.
Please tell me you know what necessary means.
The Catholic Church. Bust free from the heresy man and join the Catholic theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes for Heaven's sake.
Bet there's plenty of "rantin' room" on the doors of Wittenburg for all these feces theses…Well stated.
What's not Catholic about a person dying and arriving at the Particular Judgment and the Lord judging that there's need to be raised from the dead to be Baptized. Besides, there is no "time" in eternity, whether it's soon or immediately the idea is the same. Death then Judgment.:facepalm:
Quote from: Ladislaus on August 17, 2017, 04:32:14 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/people-needing-baptism-raised-from-the-dead-etc/msg560625/#msg560625).QuoteQuote.Quote...I have no issues with someone believing in BoD provided that they do not simultaneously undermine EENS, promote heretical ecclesiology, advocate Pelagianism, and deny the necessity of the Sacraments (even mockingly deriding them in language identical to that of the Protestants). So far only two BoDers on CI (Arvinger and Nishant) have met these criteria.[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]Oh, yes, I forgot Matto. My apologies to him. He also believes in a Catholic version of the BoD hypothesis.[/font][/size]
It seems rather commonplace for BoB/BoD to go hand-in-hand with sedevacantism. I don't know any of the latter who are not also adherents of the former. Your post seems to support that too: as far as I could tell, Arvinger, Nishant and Matto are not sedes.
.
I never said that people should not consult other sources besides Magisterial ones. I only say that when the two are in contradiction, the Magisterial decides the matter. It's quite different from subordinating Magisterial statements to the teachings of Theologians under the guise of "a deeper understanding". BTW, I got that word "mox" from the encyclical online as part of it. I know little about Latin. Whether it means immediately or soon in the modern sense does not matter.What's not Catholic about a person dying and arriving at the Particular Judgment and the Lord judging that there's need to be raised from the dead to be Baptized. Besides, there is no "time" in eternity, whether it's soon or immediately the idea is the same. Death then Judgment.Wasn't this whole goat rodeo prompted in response to BoD peeps insisting on using pious stories as "proof", and not asproof contra BoD at all? Distinction fail and punishing the victim/rewaRding the perp?
.I said that there is no reason why they can't be evidence for the necessity of water Baptism. That there is no conflict between Dogma and these stories as you would like to pretend there is. There is, however, conflict between the stories of unbaptized 'martyrs' and Dogma. That's what this all comes down to really. One side uses their stories to show that Baptism is not necessary and the other side uses these stories to show the necessity of Baptism. Unbaptized 'martyrs' is against Dogma as Benedictus Deus shows.
Also, in your mind, are you punishing me by your 'brilliant' replies? All I see is grasping.
It is just as easy to speculate that God provided Baptism to St. Emerantiana through an unseen miracle to supply His requisites for salvation, as it is to use our want of knowledge as proof of its dispensability..
What we do not know is not a proof of anything.
If the Church honors anyone as a saint, according to her own teaching, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized.
St. Aiphonsus de Liquori tells us that there were approximately eleven million martyrs in the first three centuries of the Church's history. Out of these eleven million martyrs, and the thousands of others which have been recorded since by various Church historians, there are about ten cases in which the martyrs are reported to have died without baptism. In not one of these cases can we assert or conclude positively that these persons were not baptized.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]Oh, yes, I forgot Matto. My apologies to him. He also believes in a Catholic version of the BoD hypothesis.[/font][/size]I know I that I responded. As dupes are so ridiculous here, Im not about to dumpster dive to see if it is on this thread, or to repeat myself save with a simple "No, one does not necessitate the other"
.
It seems rather commonplace for BoB/BoD to go hand-in-hand with sedevacantism. I don't know any of the latter who are not also adherents of the former. Your post seems to support that too: as far as I could tell, Arvinger, Nishant and Matto are not sedes.
.
.
It's revealing that no sedes have responded to this.
.
I suppose then it's correct, that BoD (especially) and sedevacantism go hand-in-hand.
.
Correct?
.
The seventeenth in the series of Oecuмenical Councils was that of Florence. It was a gathering called to end some longstanding separations of Oriental dissident groups from the true Church. One of its acts was the famed decree for the Jacobites, included in the dogmatic Bull Cantate Domino, issued by Pope Eugenius IV on February 4, 1442. The following paragraph is found in this decree.(http://file:///C:\Users\gregoryj\AppData\Local\Temp\1\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.jpg)It [the sacrosanct Roman Church, established by the voice of Our Lord and Savior] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that none of those who do not exist within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jєωs, heretics, and schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but that they are going into the everlasting fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they become associated with it (nisi . . . eidem fuerint agregati) before they die. And [it firmly believes, professes, and teaches] that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such value that the Church's sacraments are profitable unto salvation, and that fastings, almsgivings, and the other duties of piety and exercises of the Christian militancy, bring forth eternal rewards only for those who remain within it [the unity of the ecclesiastical body]: and that, however great his almsgiving may be, and even though he might shed his blood for the name of Christ, no one can be saved unless he remains within the embrace and the unity of the Catholic Church. [Denz., 714.]
Actually this declaration of the Cantate Domino simply makes more explicit the lessons brought out in the Fourth Lateran Council and in the Bull Unam Sanctam. First of all, it mentions and classifies those who are outside of the true Church. These include the pagans, who do not accept any part of divine public revelation; the Jєωs, who accept the Old Testament as God's message; the heretics, who accept certain parts of the teaching contained in the New Testament; and finally the schismatics, who have not rejected any portion of the divinely revealed message, but who simply have cut themselves off from communion with the true Church. It insists that none of these people can attain to eternal life unless they enter the true Church before they pass from this world. In issuing this teaching, the Cantate Dominosimply repeated, with a little more explicitness about the individuals who are "outside" the Church, what previous docuмents had already taught about the necessity of the Catholic Church for the attainment of eternal salvation. Fenton
To whatever extent I implied or otherwise contended that it is contrary to doctrine to contend that a person could be resurrected after Christ's Resurrection and before the General Judgment, I retract. This is still a lousy proof against BoD, but I have been considering and studying the matter of resurrection in greater detail since it came up, and I am no longer as convinced as I was that it is radically impossible as such.Thumbs up for rigor, integrity, and honesty, regardless of remaining points of contention.
The world would be a much better place if there were no schismatics, sodomites, feeneyites, pedophiles, heretics or apostates. - Lover of TruthHeretics are worse than perverts. May God forgive you. Besides God allows Feeneyites to exist and good can be brought from this fact. For instance one can actually look at what the Church teaches and gain a better understanding of what the Church teaches and what she does not because of the Feeneyite heresy.
So, really, Lover of Truth, putting "Feeneyites" in with SODOMITES? PEDODPHILES?
You really are a case. May God forgive you.
Heretics are worse than perverts.
That's like a gαy man calling a straight man perverted.Given time, this will be the case. It probably wouldn't take much effort to find examples of this occurring in isolation.
This is plain in both the first and the second parts of the teaching on this subject set forth in the Cantate Domino. The first part asserts that the various classes of individuals "outside" the Catholic Church not only cannot become partakers of eternal life, but also that "they are going into the everlasting fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels" unless they become united to the Church before they pass from this world. In this assertion, which, incidentally, has been designated as "rigorous" by opponents of the Church and by some badly instructed Catholics. Pope Eugenius IV merely took cognizance of the reality of Our Lord's work of redemption. Fenton