Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Possible strict-EENS chapel  (Read 238797 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel
« Reply #380 on: February 02, 2026, 05:05:21 AM »
From The Catholic Encyclopedia

Substitutes for the sacrament
Eph. 4:5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism. Clearly St. Paul preaches of no substitute.

Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel
« Reply #381 on: February 02, 2026, 06:01:46 AM »
St Alphonsus is perfectly in line with Trent. BoD is not a sacrament but just analogically so as it lacks matter and form. If St Alphonsus was in error in his teaching on BoD, he would have been condemned but instead was canonised by Gregory XVI and later proclaimed doctor of the Church by Pius IX.
So when you are presented with St. Alphonsus seemingly being in error regarding the effects of BOD while attempting to define it (one of the same BOD definitions BODers use to support their arguments)...all you have to say is.."St. Alphonsus was correct. If he was incorrect, he would have been condemned".

Was St. Alphonsus infallible? Was every single thing he ever wrote canonized with him? Do you believe there is any chance at all that there can be an error in a Church Fathers or Doctors writings?
Are you really so obstinate that you cannot even acknowledge the apparent contradiction as it's staring you in the face?

St. Alphonsus:

Quote
Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment.


TRENT:

Quote
For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven

Quote
But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, so unless they were born again in Christ they would never be justified, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”


If there is no contradiction here, explain it.

Explain how "debt of punishment''" remaining conforms with "absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven"

Explain how "debt of punishment"="absolutely nothing"


Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel
« Reply #382 on: February 02, 2026, 08:46:48 AM »

It is true that catechisms are not infallible.  It is also true that catechisms approved by the Church contain the Imprimatur and Nihil obstat, the latter meaning that the Church declares the work to be free of doctrinal and moral error. 

ALL of these approved catechisms teach BOD / BOB.
1) These terms mean they are free of MAJOR error (i.e. heresy).
2) BOD (as explained by St Thomas/St Bellarmine) is not major heresy.
3) MODERN BOD (1900s onward) has gone off the rails into major heresy.
4) Catechisms don't explain the difference.
5) Catechisms aren't meant to be infallible but just a summary of the Faith, at a 4th grade level.
6) Catechisms don't fully explain many other topics.
7) Catechisms DON'T TEACH BOD...they merely reference it.  Nowhere are the mechanics of BOD explained in detail (because no one, not even St Thomas/St Bellarmine agree).

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel
« Reply #383 on: February 02, 2026, 08:59:37 AM »
Now ... a strictly limited BoD such as what St. Robert held, would not create fatal damage to Catholic ecclesiology, where it's only possible for Catechumens and those who are practically such, with explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, and intending to become Catholic (even if their status had not been formalized).
Correct.  The BOD of St Thomas/St Robert, for CATECHUMENS, is not heresy.

Quote
But the SECOND you extend BoD to anyone else, to infidels, for instance, or to heretics (and it's laughable, and exposes their motivation when some apply BoD to even baptized Protestants), but once you extend the possibility of salvation to non-Catholics ... YOU HAVEN'T GOT A LEG TO STAND ON IN OPPOSING VATICAN II.
BOD for non-catechumens (i.e. those who are still in, accepting, practicing non-catholic religions) is heresy.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel
« Reply #384 on: February 02, 2026, 09:03:11 AM »
If St Alphonsus was in error in his teaching on BoD, he would have been condemned but instead was canonised by Gregory XVI
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:  This is just HORRIBLE logic and a lack of understanding of how the Church works.  St Thomas' Summa has multiple errors in it; was he condemned?  No, because what he wrote wasn't heresy, but only a theological error.  Same with St Alphonsus.

If the Church had the manpower to review, in detail, every book/writing of the saints (which they don't).  And if they found an error, then to not publish said book, then we'd have almost ZERO books from saints.  Because they ALL had minor errors.  BECAUSE NO SAINT IS INFALLIBLE.