Author Topic: Questions for Raoul76 (Read 6134 times)

curiouscatholic23 · « **on:** December 16, 2011, 01:44:04 AM »

Raoul, I have tried to ask you this privately via message but you never responded so I want to ask you here.

On your cathinfo icon logo you have it posted

"Please ignore my old posts against NFP and implicit faith. Both are true teachings of the Church!"

What infalliable teachings made you decide that NFP and "implicit faith" were true teachings of the Church?

Why did you change your position on these two issues?

I'm asking you this because I think you are one of the most intelligent posters on here and I have a lot of respect for you, but I also believe in water baptism and I also think Pius XII address to midwives was erroneous because it contradicted casti connubi, however it was not heretical because it was a speech addressed to a private audience.

I'm curious as to WHY you believe in BOD (I'm assuming BOD/implicit faith are the same thing) and NFP.

Thank you.

pax · « **Reply #1 on:** December 16, 2011, 10:27:55 AM »

Whether NFP is good or evil hinges upon the intent of those using it. I personally think it is a very very dangerous path to walk down, one which can easily lead to embracing a contraceptive mentality.

s2srea · « **Reply #2 on:** December 16, 2011, 01:06:02 PM »

Quote from: curiouscatholic23

Raoul, I have tried to ask you this privately via message but you never responded so I want to ask you here.

On your cathinfo icon logo you have it posted

"Please ignore my old posts against NFP and implicit faith. Both are true teachings of the Church!"

What infalliable teachings made you decide that NFP and "implicit faith" were true teachings of the Church?

Why did you change your position on these two issues?

I'm asking you this because I think you are one of the most intelligent posters on here and I have a lot of respect for you, but I also believe in water baptism and I also think Pius XII address to midwives was erroneous because it contradicted casti connubi, however it was not heretical because it was a speech addressed to a private audience.

I'm curious as to WHY you believe in BOD (I'm assuming BOD/implicit faith are the same thing) and NFP.

Thank you.

Instead of asking a good poster, which Raoul definately is, about such important questions, why don't you ASK A PRIEST?

Only a fool would ask a layman over a priest such an important question... Please, for the sake of your soul, stop trying to get your religion from the internet.

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 16, 2011, 11:14:49 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: curiouscatholic23
Raoul, I have tried to ask you this privately via message but you never responded so I want to ask you here.

On your cathinfo icon logo you have it posted

"Please ignore my old posts against NFP and implicit faith. Both are true teachings of the Church!"

What infalliable teachings made you decide that NFP and "implicit faith" were true teachings of the Church?

Why did you change your position on these two issues?

I'm asking you this because I think you are one of the most intelligent posters on here and I have a lot of respect for you, but I also believe in water baptism and I also think Pius XII address to midwives was erroneous because it contradicted casti connubi, however it was not heretical because it was a speech addressed to a private audience.

I'm curious as to WHY you believe in BOD (I'm assuming BOD/implicit faith are the same thing) and NFP.

Thank you.

Instead of asking a good poster, which Raoul definately is, about such important questions, why don't you ASK A PRIEST?

Only a fool would ask a layman over a priest such an important question... Please, for the sake of your soul, stop trying to get your religion from the internet.

:rolleyes:

Raoul76 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 16, 2011, 11:26:19 PM »

I think he's asking me why I changed my mind. He already knows what a priest will say, but he's struggling with scruples.

Well, I'd say one of the things that made me change my mind on NFP, was that someone I respect, a priest in France, saw no problems with it, nor did any of the French clergy. It became increasingly hard to believe that ALL the clergy would be wrong. One day the fog just lifted and I realized it was a true teaching.

I was never a Feeneyite. I had some problems with the invincible ignorance concept for a while.

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 16, 2011, 11:33:07 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

I was never a Feeneyite. I had some problems with the invincible ignorance concept for a while.

What did you read/hear that made you overcome thse problems?
How can you reconcile invincible ignorance with Bull Cantante Domino stating explicitly "All pagans, jews, hertics, and schismatics will go to the everlasting fires unless they convert before death?"

Raoul76 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 16, 2011, 11:36:46 PM »

I think that has been amply covered, cc23. Someone who dies as a catechumen or in invincible ignorance is a member of the Church by desire, thus he does not die outside the Church.

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 16, 2011, 11:42:08 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

I think that has been amply covered, cc23. Someone who dies as a catechumen or in invincible ignorance is a member of the Church by desire, thus he does not die outside the Church.

What pope/council declared this?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 16, 2011, 11:45:28 PM »

Trent for the Council, Pius IX for the Pope, but you have to put them together.

It is better to ask, what Pope or Council ever declared AGAINST the numerous theologians, by far the majority in the 19th century, who taught what I just said. Unless you think that Popes have been asleep on the watch for hundreds of years and couldn't catch this heresy, while you and the Feeneyites can?

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 16, 2011, 11:51:11 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Trent for the Council, Pius IX for the Pope, but you have to put them together.

It is better to ask, what Pope or Council ever declared AGAINST the numerous theologians, by far the majority in the 19th century, who taught what I just said. Unless you think that Popes have been asleep on the watch for hundreds of years and couldn't catch this heresy, while you and the Feeneyites can?

I would highly recommend reading MHFM book "Outside The Church There is Absolutely No Salvation." It addresses all the points you brought up.

1.) That same Council of Trent also says John 3:5 must be interpreted AS IT IS WRITTEN. Could it be that "desire" mentioned in Trent refers to penance?

2.) Pius IX docuмent was falliable.

One final question for you.

Do you think an unbaptized satanist could ever be "invincibly ignorant" under extraordinary circuмstances? Why or why not?

Thanks Raoul, I just wanted to see what was in your head.

TraceG · « **Reply #10 on:** December 17, 2011, 12:34:19 AM »

Why are you calling out a person in public? I'm a we bit crazy about that

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 17, 2011, 12:48:39 AM »

Quote from: TraceG

Why are you calling out a person in public? I'm a we bit crazy about that

He brought onto himself by saying that NFP and implicit faith were true teachings on the church. I am trying to figure out his perspective.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** December 17, 2011, 01:28:03 AM »

Quote

Well, I'd say one of the things that made me change my mind on NFP, was that someone I respect, a priest in France, saw no problems with it, nor did any of the French clergy.

That's a very weak reason. Lots of people support lots of priests, and priests often of approve of things they shouldn't.

As for the fact that French priests you know of approve of it - that's another very weak reason, given the national character of France.

I'm not going to say that periodic abstention is wrong or immoral, but it certainly can be done for immoral reasons. For that reason it seems to me to be a gray area of morality. The people who condemn it all outright do not have justification for their position, because you cannot prove that paying the marriage debt is wrong, or that there are not grave reasons for mutual abstention. The very terminology "NFP" is very troubling, as is the idea that young couples who seek to be married should be trained in such "techniques". (I'm not sure trads do that however)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** December 17, 2011, 01:35:39 AM »

replace "not" with "never"

s2srea · « **Reply #14 on:** December 17, 2011, 09:32:56 AM »

Quote from: curiouscatholic23

I would highly recommend reading MHFM book "Outside The Church There is Absolutely No Salvation." It addresses all the points you brought up.

I would highly reccommend you burn that book.

And why did they need to change "Outside the Church There is No Salvation" to "Outside The Church There is Absolutely No Salvation"?