Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: CM on August 13, 2009, 04:04:07 AM
-
-
I've finally figured it out. You're nothing but a low-down, rotten Jehovah's Witness.
-
I've finally figured it out. You're nothing but a low-down, rotten Jehovah's Witness.
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
Then explain this (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-most-holy-trinity-based-in-scripture.html).
-
It is a common belief that Catholics who suffer martyrdom are granted full forgiveness for temporal punishment due to sins committed since baptism. There is nothing heretical about this belief at all.
Citation?
And I have heard the accusation that Augustine changed his position before. Could you point me to an accurate article showing such?
-
No. I'm done debating you.
-
I've finally figured it out. You're nothing but a low-down, rotten Jehovah's Witness.
I think you are correct to take your ad-hominem debate skills to MHFM. CM uses charity in all of his replies. Stick to the topic and not name calling.
And, again for one who follows Benedict as pope, you think to not reply to you means that you have one the debate. I will longer reply to you Caminus as anyone who follows Benedict 16 is not Catholic. I know, I know, my soul is black, heard it before from you. I do not deny any dogma of the Faith, nor am I in a state of Mortal Sin. Becareful whom you condemn.
For that matter, no one is condemed according to NewChurch. No one that is except someone who holds the True Faith.
-
What is wrong with this thread's layout/format?
-
We need a new page...
-
I sense a new page just around the corner...
-
For that matter, no one is condemned according to NewChurch...
Historically, such an extreme position always draws an equally extreme reaction from one quarter or another. The heretical and imbalanced emphasis placed upon one of two complimentary truths leads to an equally heretical over-emphasis of the other of the two truths. This is a fact of history, even if one leaves the disagreements surrounding EENS out of account for the present.
-
Historically, such an extreme position always draws an equally extreme reaction from one quarter or another.
Mind you, those responding to the initial heresy always fancy that they are somehow "saving the day", all the while oblivious to their own precarious position.
-
Turn the page
-
Turn it!
-
GO!
-
YES!
Okay, where were we?
Historically, such an extreme position always draws an equally extreme reaction from one quarter or another...
Mind you, those responding to the initial heresy always fancy that they are somehow "saving the day", all the while oblivious to their own precarious position.
Strict adherence to the infallible dogmatic declarations is extreme? It's a rather more precarious position to think we can deny them, Gladius. That is the position you hold.
-
GO!
Ah, the glories of teamwork! :alcohol: Thank you!
-
Strict adherence to the infallible dogmatic declarations is extreme?
If the "strictness" is opposed to what the Church herself teaches, yes.
Out of curiosity, what exactly do you think the heresies of Calvin, for example, were all about?
He placed undue emphasis upon one of two complimentary truths, eventually denying one of them altogether. That is how it works.
It's a rather more precarious position to think we can deny them, Gladius. That is the position you hold.
It is kind of obvious that my response to such is: "No, I do not."
-
I don't know how you can reconcile the decree from Vienne, for example, without denying it outright.
One sentence it says that all are faithfully to prrofess ONE baptism that regenerates all who are baptized in Christ, and the next sentence describes that very baptism.
It is a closed case. There is no baptism other than that, which regenerates those baptized in Christ. And all the other decrees, though worded in different ways, all support the very same understanding.
-
GO!
Ah, the glories of teamwork! :alcohol: Thank you!
My pleasure. It was driving me nuts.
-
One sentence it says that all are faithfully to profess ONE baptism that regenerates all who are baptized in Christ, and the next sentence describes that very baptism.
Yes, it does, and this is what I believe. Let us get ONE thing straight:
Those who believe there are such things as BoD and BoB do NOT believe in THREE Baptisms, but in THREE WAYS to receive the GRACE of the ONE Baptism (just as there are TWO WAYS to receive the GRACE of Penance or Holy Communion, although in each case there is only ONE sacrament). Even if you disagree with me on this point, at least try to understand said point accurately, not in a distorted manner.
-
Those who believe there are such things as BoD and BoB do NOT believe in THREE Baptisms...
...in the sense of THREE Sacraments.
-
"All are faithfully to profess that there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith'. We believe that when baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit, it is a perfect means of salvation for both adults and children."
BoD and BoB are NOT administered in water.
-
Really? Thanks for clarifying that for me, CM.
How is a spiritual communion 'administered'? Any Sacred Host involved? Is the grace of the sacrament still imparted? Yes.
-
Show me the quote that Spiritual communion denies.
-
Show me the quote that Spiritual communion denies.
"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."
Or words to that effect.
-
Really? Thanks for clarifying that for me, CM.
How is a spiritual communion 'administered'? Any Sacred Host involved? Is the grace of the sacrament still imparted? Yes.
Then there's perfect acts of contrition. Or is it acts of perfect contrition?
-
He was speaking to the Apostles, who had the means to partake in his Body and Blood. He said "YOU".
Now compare this with St. John 3:5 "Unless a man," he was referring to mankind in general.
The Church has used this verse from Scripture in an infallible decree, at the Council of Florence, using words that, when taken literally (and why should we not? the words are infallible), insist on the absolute necessity that each person who will be saved is baptized in water:
"Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven."
Furthermore, the Holy Catholic Church has never used the verse you quote in any way to describe the absolute necessity that every person receive the Eucharist for salvation.
The only time that this quote has been used in an infallible Council was at the Council of Ephesus, defending the natures of Christ:
"For being life by nature as God, when he became one with his own flesh, he made it also to be life-giving, as also he said to us: "Amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood" . For we must not think that it is the flesh of a man like us (for how can the flesh of man be life-giving by its own nature?), but as being made the true flesh [vere proprium eius factam] of the one who for our sake became the son of man and was called so.
"For we do not divide up the words of our Saviour in the gospels among two hypostases or persons. For the one and only Christ is not dual..."
The Eucharist is held as a necessity of precept (the omission of which is a sin when it is able to be lawfully had at the hands of a Catholic clergymen, according to the precept of the Church), whereas the Sacrament of Baptism is held as a necessity of means (the omission of which renders the effects impossible to attain, whether such omission is culpable or inculpable).
-
The Act of Contrition is a prayer.
And act of perfect contrition is the sorrow a person feels for having displeased the divine Majesty, and it is motivated entirely by charity and not by the fear of punishment (which is attrition) and the Council of Trent explicitly teaches:
"The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein."
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. Again, they ignore the objective sense of the decrees, and they assert that one decree can contradict another (though they can't bring themselves to admit it).
-
He was speaking to the Apostles, who had the means to partake in his Body and Blood. He said "YOU"...
Save the sophistry, CM. He was speaking to a CROWD of people:
"...51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day..."
It is plain "them" in this case is "the Jews" who were striving amongst themselves.
Did you just cut and paste your response from the Dimonds or some such source?
-
No. But if the Dimonds make the same argument, then they got something right.
-
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.?
-
And fine He was speaking to the Jews, 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.
-
Well done where completely avoiding your mistake about the citation is concerned.
-
I beg your pardon?
-
Ah, the limitations of men, as I could not know you were posting a response. I withdraw my comment.
-
And fine He was speaking to the Jews, 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?
-
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.
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?
-
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?
-
-
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.
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?
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/07/refuting-dimonds-refutation-against.html).
Furthermore, the '1917 Code of Canon Law' is not binding on Catholics, since it was promulgated by an antipope, Benedict XV (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/05/benedict-xv-was-antipope.html), 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.
-
Furthermore, the '1917 Code of Canon Law' is not binding on Catholics, since it was promulgated by an antipope, Benedict XV (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/05/benedict-xv-was-antipope.html), 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.
-
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.
-
And I have a question for you: Do you acknowledge that I am correct about Basel and Ad Evitanda Scandala? Why or why not?
-
Have you not, in effect, clearly retreated from that statement? If so, why? If so, why not speak plainly about the fact that you did so?
Your turn. Basel.
-
Mr. Shea, your argumentation always boils down to the same thing: "Who else believes like you?"
Considering you claim to be the only around here (and just about anywhere) that holds the Faith inviolate, it is not exactly a bad question, CM. I want to know if anyone EVER believed like you? If you cannot offer any evidence that SOMEONE believed like you from 1914 on, au revoir to the indefectibility, universality, plain old usefulness, etc., of the Church.
Asking you "Where did the Church go/Who constituted the Church from 1914 until now?" is hardly emotional or irrelevant. You claim that the Church lost her head almost 100 years ago. Did anyone else think so at the time or during the next 50 years? If not, you have a problem to address.
If you wish to have Basel addressed, please provide the text in question. Thank you. Btw, I did not get the quote from 'Ad Evitanda' from MHFH.
-
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Sess. 20, Jan. 22, 1435, ex cathedra: "... nobody shall be obliged to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration and reception of sacraments or in any other sacred or profane matters, ... unless ... it is clear that someone has incurred a sentence of excommunication with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law."
-
Herein lies the dispute, I believe:
"...unless ... it is clear that someone has incurred a sentence of excommunication with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law."
In an era so mixed up, devastating, and confusing, are we to think that ALL should clearly know better, despite the lack of any legal declaration about the present state of things? Such a position would be completely lacking in charity (and common sense). In fact, it is the absence of any legal declaration that is the problem. If we had one, I firmly believe the vast majority of people would gladly and easily "fall into line", if you will. I have no reason to presume otherwise.
-
And I have a question for you: Do you acknowledge that I am correct about Basel and Ad Evitanda Scandala? Why or why not?
What exactly are you saying about the two? That they do not gel?
If so, I think you are incorrect. If you do think they gel, I would argue it is due to the fact that you take the second part of the quote I provided in (sound of beating drum) too strict a manner.
To say that NO ONE, in these insane days, can be "in any way excused in law" is absurd. It is precisely because the order of law has yet to reflect the order of fact that we have such a mess.
-
If you do think they gel...
Sorry...if you do think that they do NOT gel...
-
...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.
Would you have the nerve to say such an absurd thing to St Alphonsus, for example, if he were standing before you?
-
I thought Basel rang a bell...
from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02334b.htm
...Whether Basle is to be regarded as a general council, and if so, in what sense, has been often warmly discussed. The extreme Gallicans (e.g. Edmund Richer, Hist. Concil. Gen., III, vii) contend that it should be reckoned as cuŠ¼enical from its beginning (1431) till its end in Lausanne (1449); while the moderate writers of the Gallican school (e.g. Nat. Alexander, IX, pp. 433-599) admit that after the appearance of the Bull of Eugene IV (18 September, 1437) transferring the council to Ferrara, the proceedings at Basle can be regarded only as the work of a schismatical conventicle. On the other hand, writers like Bellarmine (De Concil., I, vii), Roncaglia, and Holstein absolutely refuse to number Basle among the general councils of the Church on account of the small number of bishops in attendance at the beginning, and the subsequent rebellious attitude in face of the papal decrees of dissolution. The true opinion seems to be that put forward by Hefele (Conciliengesch., 2d ed., I, 63-99) that the assembly at Basle may be regarded as ecuŠ¼enical from the beginning until the Bull "Doctoris Gentium" (18 September, 1437) transferred its sessions to Ferrera, and that the decrees passed during that period regarding the extirpation of heresy, the establishment of peace among Christian nations, and the reform of the Church, if they are not prejudicial to the Apostolic See, may be considered as the decrees of a general council...
-
The fact that there was no uproar from any Catholics at the time of Benedict XV or Pius XI, etc proves their legitimacy theologically.
Theological Note: Theologically certain.
Equivalent term: Dogmatic fact; theological conclusion.
Explanation: A truth logically following from one proposition which is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain.
Example: Legitimacy of Pope Pius XI.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in theology).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin against faith.
On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. 1951
-
My response is simple.
Pope Eugene IV approved the decree. Pope Pius IX (9) stated that only INVINCIBLE ignorance excuses one from the guilt of labouring in ignorance of the true religion (such as being in subjection to a heretical antipope). And the Church has always required abjuration of heresy or schism from converts to the Faith, when they were either publicly heretical or publicly schismatic.
In light of all these things:
Pius XI (11) was subject publicly to Benedict XV, who was a public heretic. He never abjured. He was publicly schismatic.
The fact that there was no uproar recorded proves nothing, other than that you haven't found evidence of it yet.
Interestingly enough, it seems that one Léon Bloy at one point denounced Benedict XV.
-
Would you have the nerve to say such an absurd thing to St Alphonsus, for example, if he were standing before you?
I believe I would have to, especially if here were my priest.
-
Pius XI (11) was subject publicly to Benedict XV, who was a public heretic. He never abjured. He was publicly schismatic.
Proof? ......none, hence calumny
-
Interestingly enough, it seems that one Léon Bloy at one point denounced Benedict XV.
Who is Bloy?
what authority does he have?
and...so.....one person doeth not a case make
-
Would you have the nerve to say such an absurd thing to St Alphonsus, for example, if he were standing before you?
I believe I would have to, especially if here were my priest.
Who is your priest, by the way? Bishop?
-
Interestingly enough, it seems that one Léon Bloy at one point denounced Benedict XV.
Who is Bloy?
what authority does he have?
and...so.....one person doeth not a case make
I was about to ask that..
-
Interestingly enough, it seems that one Léon Bloy at one point denounced Benedict XV.
Who is Bloy?
what authority does he have?
and...so.....one person doeth not a case make
I was about to ask that..
Great minds... :scratchchin:
-
I do not subject myself to heretics, and I have never found a priest who is not a heretic.
Let me ask you something - do you believe that I should be less 'picky' about my clergy?
Do you think I have the right to question clergy on their beliefs, or that I do not have the right?
A simple yes or no will suffice, followed by an explanation of why or why not.
Pius XI (11) was subject publicly to Benedict XV, who was a public heretic. He never abjured. He was publicly schismatic.
Proof? ......none, hence calumny
That's really funny, I don't seem to recall having enough time to provide any proof during the period between your question and when you concluded that I had no proof. I know, I know you gave me a whole six keyboard strokes (seven if you count the space bar), but I am just not that quick.
What proof do you want? That Benedict XV was publicly heretical? That Pius XI recognized him as a valid Catholic pope? Both can be pretty easily shown.
-
Benedict XV was heretical in his words (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/05/benedict-xv-was-antipope.html)
And helped heresy to propagate, while helping to suppress the cause orthodoxy (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/08/legacy-of-antipope-benedict-xv.html)
Pius XI recognized him as a pope.
As they were recommended very specially to the bishops by Our Predecessor of happy memory, Benedict XV, in the apostolic letter referred to above...
And he never once stated publicly that he had been a heretic.
Finally, Bloy was a Catholic and writer in France around the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century.