Author Topic: Definition of Faith for the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Read 2522 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #15 on:** May 07, 2016, 09:02:33 AM »

I believe in EENS as taught by the Church INCLUDING THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM.

I do believe with all my heart that where those that deny BOB/BOD go wrong, and it is a serious wrong in my thinking is they insist on putting their judgement equal to God's judgement.

Why not accept the teachings of EENS and leave the judging to God about who is in Sanctifying grace and who is not in His favour. It is really quite simple.

If I am wrong with this way of thought I prefer to err on the side of letting God do the judging instead of insisting that ...
I, I, I, know without a doubt the MIND OF GOD. Because Fr. Feeney said so, a priest that repented of his errors on his death bed.

When I stand before God, and He asks me why I did not believe the way those who deny His mercy, I will just say to Him. Lord, I, your unworthy servant; you expect me to know your mind of judgement, please have mercy on me, and judge me according to how I judged others, speaking of their soul and not their actions how I perceived them to be.

THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, But who are you to say who is in the Church, especially TODAY, when most people do not have a clue where the Church is. Including those posting here.

Do Not accuse another of denying EENS when they tell you they do not deny this dogma, you will be held guilty in the eyes of God for calumny.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #16 on:** May 07, 2016, 09:16:35 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Some have argued that she was baptized - but such is absurd as she is both called a catechumen, and the Church states in her liturgy that she was "baptized in her own blood."

There's no proof that she wasn't baptized. In times of persecution, catechumens are commonly baptized due to danger of death while continuing on in their instruction as catechumens. Baptism in Blood is simply a metaphor for martyrdom ... there are examples of baptized Christians who were martyred and then said to have been baptized in their blood.

Why do you Ladislaus think if okay to put your spin on words, but accuse others when they try to explain their way of thinking.

Thank God every day that YOU are properly Baptised, at least pray you weren't Baptised by one of those evil infiltrators who never had the intention of doing what the Church intended especially when you deny BOD.

I think many of these misconceptions, even Fr. Feeney, come about because the priest or whoever was trying to make a point, when speaking to his audience, therefore the emphasise or highlighting of a particular part of a doctrine was used, and the listener took that and thought it the norm.

Cantarella · « **Reply #17 on:** May 07, 2016, 11:40:02 AM »

Quote from: Myrna

THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, But who are you to say who is in the Church

Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Hear the words of your "last true Pope" Myrna.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #18 on:** May 07, 2016, 02:43:44 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Myrna
THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, But who are you to say who is in the Church

Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Hear the words of your "last true Pope" Myrna.

As I said, God will decide who is in the State of Grace, certainly not you or me.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #19 on:** May 08, 2016, 08:47:09 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Some have argued that she was baptized - but such is absurd as she is both called a catechumen, and the Church states in her liturgy that she was "baptized in her own blood."

There's no proof that she wasn't baptized. In times of persecution, catechumens are commonly baptized due to danger of death while continuing on in their instruction as catechumens. Baptism in Blood is simply a metaphor for martyrdom ... there are examples of baptized Christians who were martyred and then said to have been baptized in their blood.

Why do you Ladislaus think if okay to put your spin on words,

What "spin" are you talking about, Myrna? I'm simply stating that just because the term "catechumen" is used, that doesn't mean a person couldn't have been baptized. It was common practice to baptize catechumens during times of persecution, but then they continued on as catechumens (being instructed before receiving Holy Communion and attending the Mass of the Faithful).

MyrnaM · « **Reply #20 on:** May 08, 2016, 11:04:06 PM »

You may be right of course, however, in the mind of the Church, she wasn't Baptised.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #21 on:** May 09, 2016, 08:03:29 AM »

Yet another example, enshrined in the Breviary in the office of Nov. 10, is that of -

ST. RESPICIUS: "During the reign of the emperor Decius, as Tryphon was preaching the faith of Jesus Christ and striving to persuade all men to worship the Lord, he was arrested by the henchmen of Decius. First, he was tortured on the rack, his flesh torn with iron hooks, then hung head downward, his feet pierced with red hot nails. He was beaten by clubs, scorched by burning torches held against his body. As a result of seeing him endure all these tortures so courageously, the tribune Respicius was converted to the faith of Christ the Lord. Upon the spot he publicly declared himself to be a Christian. Respicius was then tortured in various ways, and together with Tryphon, dragged to a statue of Jupiter. As Tryphon prayed, the statue fell down. After this occurred both were mercilessly beaten with leaden tipped whips and thus attained to glorious martyrdom." [Note from Feeneyites: Tough luck, dude, if you weren't baptized with water]

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** May 09, 2016, 08:10:49 AM »

Lover of Error, the heretical spam-meister, at it again. All this guy can do is to copy-paste spam on CI anymore. I could just as easily spam things right back at you. Why don't you actually make an argument in your own words?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #23 on:** May 09, 2016, 08:11:01 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Ladislaus

9) deny Trent's dogma that Baptism is necessary for salvation. I have repeatedly told them how they could formulate a position on BoD that would not undermine this dogma, but they refuse to adopt that language

In my experience they do not just deny this. They simply change the meaning of the word necessary to allow exceptions and then say they believe in it. This issue is one I am interested in. It is one of the things about the faith I do not understand because of the different beliefs and explanations from all sides by members of the Church.

Trent teaches BOD. This is why the great Doctor of the Church, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, classifies this infallible doctrine as being "de fide".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #24 on:** May 09, 2016, 08:18:02 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Ladislaus

9) deny Trent's dogma that Baptism is necessary for salvation. I have repeatedly told them how they could formulate a position on BoD that would not undermine this dogma, but they refuse to adopt that language

In my experience they do not just deny this. They simply change the meaning of the word necessary to allow exceptions and then say they believe in it. This issue is one I am interested in. It is one of the things about the faith I do not understand because of the different beliefs and explanations from all sides by members of the Church.

Despite the various senses of "necessity", ALL theologians hold that Baptism is absolutely necessary by a necessity of means. People like LoT play with the term "necessary" all the time, but every single time they end up reducing Baptism to a necessity of precept. Based on Trent's dogmatic teaching, the ONLY way to salvage BoD in a non-heretical manner is to state that such people receive Baptism in voto and not that they are saved without the Sacrament in some extraordinary manner, as an exception. If there are exceptions, then Baptism isn't necessary as a necessity of means anymore. You'll notice that after Trent the language of BoD changes; St. Robert Bellarmine and others start saying that such people receive Baptism in voto because they know that any thing else would entail a heretical denial of Trent. People like LoT don't really care about Trent but explain everything away until it suits their fancies. Which is a DENIAL OF EENS. Don't let them fool you. They're not the least bit interested in the rare case of a catechumen or other such person with explicit Catholic faith being saved by BoD. They're trying to use BoD as a wedge by which they can insert all manner of non-Catholic, infidels even, into the Church. They simply hide behind BoD in order to undermine EENS. You'll notice that every single one of LoT's "examples" involves a CATECHUMEN, someone with explicit Catholic faith and an explicit intention to join the Church. EVERY SINGLE quotation from a Church Father, a Doctor of the Church, and the 1917 Code of Canon Law ALL REFER TO THE CASE OF CATECHUMENS.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #25 on:** May 09, 2016, 08:19:07 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Trent teaches BOD.

1) it does nothing of the sort

2) stop hiding behind BoD in order to undermine EENS. No Church teaching ever supported your heretically-depraved notion that those who did not have explicit Catholic faith could be saved

Ladislaus · « **Reply #26 on:** May 09, 2016, 08:23:16 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Ladislaus

9) deny Trent's dogma that Baptism is necessary for salvation. I have repeatedly told them how they could formulate a position on BoD that would not undermine this dogma, but they refuse to adopt that language

In my experience they do not just deny this. They simply change the meaning of the word necessary to allow exceptions and then say they believe in it. This issue is one I am interested in. It is one of the things about the faith I do not understand because of the different beliefs and explanations from all sides by members of the Church.

Trent teaches BOD. This is why the great Doctor of the Church, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, classifies this infallible doctrine as being "de fide".

Be silent, heretic. You refuse to state that people saved by BoD receive the Sacrament in voto but continue to blaspheme against the Sacrament and the dogma of Trent every single chance you get. So until you stop heretically rejecting Trent, stop citing Trent in support of your heresies. And until you start accepting St. Thomas' teaching that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for supernatural faith and therefore salvation, stop citing St. Thomas in support of your heretical depravity.

And shut up about BoD already. You know that you're hiding behind it in order to get all manner of heretic and infidel into the Church and not just the catechumens you keep mentioning.

If you held a position similar to that of Nishant, then I wouldn't even waste my time arguing with you. But you promote Pelagianism and a heretical denial of Trent and a rejection of EENS and a contempt for Baptism every single chance you get.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #27 on:** May 09, 2016, 08:54:46 AM »

ST AMBROSE: Here is another doctor of the Church, who provides us with the fourth example. He has the following to say with regard to the death of Valentinian II, who was murdered at Vienne in the year 371. Valentinian II was the son of the Emperor Valintinian I, Emperor of the West, and his second wife Justina. Valintinian I and Justina had been displaced by Mangus Maximus, and had sought support from the Arian Theodosius, who was Emperor of the East. As a result Valentinian II for many years he sat on the fence and tried to bring about a compromise in the arguments between the Arians and the Orthodox. In this he was opposed by St. Ambrose. When his mother died, Valentinian II abandoned Arianism, became a catechumen, and invited St. Ambrose to come to Gaul and administer baptism to him. He was however αssαssιnαtҽd before this could happen [Note from Feeneyites: Tough luck, dude, if you weren't baptized with water] and his body was brought to Milan where the saint delivered his funeral oration "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio" which dwelt on the efficacy of baptism of desire. The following is extracted from this oration:

"But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it. Whence it is written, 'The just man, by whatsoever death he shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest'(Wisdom, 4:7)."

http://www.the-pope.com/bapodesr.html

Here is another great Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church who just is not quite up to speed according to Ladislaus the Great.