Author Topic: Saints and Church Fathers on baptism of desire (Read 6578 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #30 on:** August 17, 2009, 06:28:39 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

The error of so many baptism of desire heretics, is that they think all sacraments work the same way, despite that they are described very differently.

Considering you just discovered how justification worked within the OT system, I am not too worried that you mistakenly think you know so much about that which it prefigured.

Have you ever taken a formal course devoted entirely to the Sacraments? What HAVE you studied, where, and with whom? FWIW, hours spent visiting the MHFM site is NOT sufficient.

As an aside, but not an unimportant one, how long have you been interested in these matters, taking your faith more seriously, etc.?

CM · « **Reply #31 on:** August 17, 2009, 06:30:51 AM »

And fine He was speaking to the Jєωs, but the point is that He was not making a universal statement concerning all men, but a specific one to those who He was addressing.

I'm glad you realize this.

And your accusation of sophistry is unfounded and unjust. My responses are true.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #32 on:** August 17, 2009, 06:31:04 AM »

Well done where completely avoiding your mistake about the citation is concerned.

CM · « **Reply #33 on:** August 17, 2009, 06:31:59 AM »

I beg your pardon?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #34 on:** August 17, 2009, 06:32:06 AM »

Ah, the limitations of men, as I could not know you were posting a response. I withdraw my comment.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #35 on:** August 17, 2009, 06:33:41 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

And fine He was speaking to the Jєωs, but the point is that He was not making a universal statement concerning all men, but a specific one to those who He was addressing.

So, it was only meant for those men who actually heard him that very day?

CM · « **Reply #36 on:** August 17, 2009, 06:40:39 AM »

Limitations of the internet, more like.

I'll tell you the same thing I told Caminus:

I have no training at all. I have simply chosen to believe everything God says, and to understand it not according to what men say, but according to the very Words of God as defined by the Church.

Like I said, sophistry is an unjust charge, my answers about perfect contrition and the Eucharist are true. Don't forget who the final interpreter of Sacred Scripture is; it is the Holy Catholic Church, in Her Solemn Magisterium.

Quote from: gladius veritatis

So, it was only meant for those men who actually heard him that very day?

Certainly not. Hence the discipline of the Church, which ordains that the Eucharist be received by the Faithful at least once a year at Easter, as far as I am aware.

However, what do you think a person should do when the only priests around that can consecrate the Host are heretics? Are you going to use this verse to justify going to heretics or schismatics for Communion?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #37 on:** August 18, 2009, 02:20:45 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

However, what do you think a person should do when the only priests around that can consecrate the Host are heretics? Are you going to use this verse to justify going to heretics or schismatics for Communion?

Are they formal heretics? Have they been declared as such? In danger of death, one may certainly approach them for the sacraments.

Ad Evitanda Scandala
Pope Martin V, 1418.

"To avoid scandals and many dangers and relieve timorous consciences by the tenor of these presents we mercifully grant to all Christ's faithful that henceforth no one henceforth shall be bound to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration or reception of the sacraments or in any other religious or non-religious acts whatsoever, nor to avoid anyone nor to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, on pretext of any ecclesiastical sentence or censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual; unless the sentence or censure in question has been specifically and expressly published or denounced by the judge on or against a definite person, college, university, church, community or place. Notwithstanding any apostolic or other constitutions to the contrary, save the case of someone of whom it shall be known so notoriously that he has incurred the sentence passed by the canon for laying sacrilegious hands upon a cleric that the fact cannot be concealed by any tergiversation nor excused by any legal defence. For we will abstinence from communion with such a one, in accordance with the canonical sanctions, even though he be not denounced." (Fontes I, 45.)

Since you hold practically the entire world as heretics, and seem to think such may never be approached, to whom can you go for the sacraments?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #38 on:** August 18, 2009, 02:28:36 AM »

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #39 on:** August 18, 2009, 06:21:13 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

I have no training at all.

I thought not. It shows, although I have seen far worse. Do not get me wrong; training/formal schooling is NOT everything.

Quote

I have simply chosen to believe everything God says, and to understand it not according to what men say, but according to the very Words of God as defined by the Church.

Nothing wrong with that, except you seem to think your understanding of what the Church actually teaches is superior to luminaries like St Alphonsus. Do you grasp the enormous error involved in such an attitude? Would you imply that St Alphonsus "chose to believe men instead of God", rather than suppose you are the one who does not quite grasp these matters as well as he?

Quote

Like I said, sophistry is an unjust charge, my answers about perfect contrition and the Eucharist are true.

You butchered the story, unwittingly or not, to suit your own needs. Yes, you admitted it when you were exposed, but can you see why I called you on it the way I did? You are enthusiastic. Concedo. However, your have developed a habit, somewhere along the line, of speaking about matters that you do not quite grasp (something I imagine most of us do from time to time in this vale of tears). I, and others, have noticed, called you on it, and you have, at times, shown a good disposition toward the correction. Why not suppose you are also incorrect in hurling anathemas, canning truly holy geniuses like St Thomas, St Alphonsus, et alii, etc?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #40 on:** August 18, 2009, 06:30:05 AM »

There are a mere 17 Doctors of Holy Church. They have been raised to that status, by Holy Church, the Immaculate Spouse of the Holy Ghost, for a reason. They knew whereof they spoke/wrote.

As we tend to fall into errors of excess or defect in all kinds of matters, it IS possible to have too much appreciation for them, but it is also possible to have too little appreciation for them.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #41 on:** August 18, 2009, 07:31:31 AM »

Note: While I imagine it is technically possible to esteem the Doctors too highly, I have never heard of anyone actually doing so. The same cannot be said for having a defective appreciation. Such does, in fact, occur.

CM · « **Reply #42 on:** August 18, 2009, 12:34:36 PM »

Gladius, it is incredibly ironic that you would use Ad Evitanda Scandala to 'prove your point'. Did you get that from the Dimond brothers?

You are making a big mistake. One that is very obvious and very easily refuted. The short and easy answer is this: Ad Evitanda Scandala is only a disciplinary teaching, and it speaks only of people who are formally excommunicated as you know.

But the Council of Basel made a decree less than 20 years later, which was approved by Pope Eugene IV, declaring dogmatically that we are to avoid ALL communion with those who have INCURRED excommunication BY THE LAW (ipso facto).

The details of the refutation are contained in this article.

Furthermore, the '1917 Code of Canon Law' is not binding on Catholics, since it was promulgated by an antipope, Benedict XV, who had no authority in the Holy Catholic Church.

Think about your position: You are saying, based on a flawed understanding of Church discipline, that a person may go to an 'Eastern Orthodox' priest in danger of death, that a person may go to the ENEMIES of God to receive sacraments. This is untenable in the face of the dogmatic decree from Basel, and from the Scriptures themselves.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #43 on:** August 19, 2009, 01:17:55 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Furthermore, the '1917 Code of Canon Law' is not binding on Catholics, since it was promulgated by an antipope, Benedict XV, who had no authority in the Holy Catholic Church.

As if I did not know this load of bull was going to be served up again?

Where has the Church been since 1914 until now/you? Can you point to ANYONE who held the Catholic Faith, "inviolate", during the time of BXV and after (until 'heroes' like yourself, of course)? No, you cannot - not according to your own twisted, dark understanding of things. You are in a straight-jacket of an argument, and you refuse to be free. Good luck with that one.

CM · « **Reply #44 on:** August 19, 2009, 02:24:13 AM »

There's no such thing as luck. :wink:

Mr. Shea, your argumentation always boils down to the same thing: "Who else believes like you?"

That is always the question I seem to be getting from you once I have presented my case, thoroughly backed up with authoritative Catholic teachings. Sorry but it's that's an insufficient plea. An argument from emotion is not the way to resolve a doctrinal dispute. If it were to turn out that I am wrong, some sound theology would quickly prove it. Bring it please, if you can.

Don't let me go to hell.

That being said, I don't think you agree with sound theology, since you allow the world to tell you how to interpret a dogmatic statement, rather than simply believing and obeying the words of God as would a child.