Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on September 16, 2009, 12:36:01 PM
-
So where did denials of BOB and BOD get their start? In the opening couple centuries of the Church this question seems to have never come up. And in the next several centuries several ancient Church Fathers mentioned both BOB and BOD, though there were some few who listed only the martyrs (BOB) as being any exception to the requirement to be baptized in water. And yet, through selective quotation many of them are made to seem as if they entertained a variety of different opinions about BOB and BOD among themselves. However, no useful quotes have been found (even out of context) to suggest that any of the most ancient Fathers were in any way aware of any such difference of opinion among themselves
One salient point that necessarily has to emerge from these facts is that there is little evidence that many of the ancients ever gave these questions much thought. By the time of Saint Augustine however, there had already been established a clear moral unanimity regarding the BOB, which was clearly in favor. Of the very most ancients, even what few could be quoted (or even misquoted) as being against either one of BOB or BOD never once invoked any of the official pronouncements (of the sort listed in my previous installment, or what equivalents to them must have existed in their own day) in defense of any such opinion, assuming any ever entertained such an opinion at all.
If such official teachings as those cited in the previous installment were meant to be applicable to these particular cases, this kind of discussion would not have been permissible. One finds no further discussions on the question of BOB or BOD until the late 1120's when Peter Abélard, who had just recently put forth (but then had already withdrawn) some rather irregular ideas regarding the Holy Trinity, first began to deny that those ancient Church Fathers and Doctors, such as Augustine and Ambrose, could have been right about allowing for BOD.
There is much about the whole situation regarding St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter Abélard which the Treatise quite dishonestly passes over in silence. The Catholic Encyclopedia brings out a number of salient historical points about these two men and how they related to each other with regards to the doctrinal differences between the two men, including the discussion about BOD. It states (as extracted from its articles about St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter Abélard):
Abélard's treatise on the Trinity had been condemned in 1121, and he himself had thrown his book into the fire. But in 1139 he advocated new errors. Bernard, informed of this by William of St. Thierry, wrote to Abélard who answered in an insulting manner. Bernard then denounced him to the pope who caused a general council to be held at Sens. Abélard asked for a public discussion with Bernard; the latter showed his opponent's errors with such clearness and force of logic that he was unable to make any reply, and was obliged, after being condemned, to retire. The pope confirmed the judgment of the council, Abélard submitted without resistance, and retired to Cluny to live under Peter the Venerable, where he died two years later.
There were admonitions on the one side and defiances on the other; St. Bernard, having first warned Abélard in private, proceeded to denounce him to the bishops of France; Abélard, underestimating the ability and influence of his adversary, requested a meeting, or council, of bishops, before whom Bernard and he should discuss the points in dispute.
Accordingly, a council was held at Sens (the metropolitan see to which Paris was then suffragan) in 1141. On the eve of the council a meeting of bishops was held, at which Bernard was present, but not Abélard, and in that meeting a number of propositions were selected from Abélard's writings, and condemned. When, on the following morning, these propositions were read in solemn council, Abélard, informed, so it seems, of the proceedings of the evening before, refused to defend himself, declaring that he appealed to Rome. Accordingly, the propositions were condemned, but Abélard was allowed his freedom. St. Bernard now wrote to the members of the Roman Curia, with the result that Abélard had proceeded only as far as Cluny on his way to Rome when the decree of Innocent II confirming the sentence of the Council of Sens reached him.
The Council of Sens condemned some 19 errors of Peter Abélard (Denzinger 368-387), of which the condemned proposition number 15 reads "That even chaste fear is excluded from future life." (Denzinger 382) This peculiar phrasing would be taken from Peter Abélard's own writings in which he had argued to the effect that even someone who dies with a chaste and holy fear of God, (but without being baptized in water) would still be excluded from Heaven. So, in review, Peter Abélard's unusual teachings, including his denial of BOD, were condemned in council (Sens) and then also by the Pope (Innocent II). Even Peter Abélard himself appears to have subsequently withdrawn his propositions.
The denial of BOD would never arise again for just over 800 years, when Fr. Leonard Feeney,S.J. would begin championing Peter Abélard's unique opinion. But why is all of this history omitted? Pope Innocent II does get mentioned (page 144 of the Treatise), but only with regard to a rather strange docuмent pertaining to the situation of an unbaptized priest. Why is the council of Sens not mentioned? Even more germane to the question, why is Pope Innocent II's endorsement of the decision of the Council of Sens not mentioned? From the way this whole episode is written up in the Treatise, one gets the picture that it all went much like controversies go in the Church today (in view of the lack of anyone of sufficient authority willing to arbitrate between differing doctrinal opinions) - someone writes up some claim, another writes against the claim, each side gets its followers, no authority steps in to resolve the question so people just continue lining up with whatever side they individually choose to agree with. Occasionally one side or the other may convert some adherants to their side through some particularly brilliant preaching, but no permanent gains are made and no resolutions emerge, and thus it remains indefinitely. Ignoring the council of Sens and the Pope's endorsement of said council, one gets the idea that Peter Abélard just writes up one claim, Bernard of Clairvaux writes against that claim, and then it's up to you, the reader, to decide which side you agree with.
At least, Saint Bernard IS mentioned, and even with regard to this episode (page 82), but only in that he had written a treatise (Tractatus de Baptismo) in which he affirmed his stand with Saints (and Doctors) Ambrose and Augustine, as two pillars, in BOD. St. Bernard's own treatise had been written in response to a number of comments of Peter Abélard's and was written in direct response to a letter from Hugh of Saint Victor who desired to prepare a response to Abélard (or any of his disciples) who had spread pernicious ideas including the notion that the law of baptism became law the moment Jesus spoke of it secretly to Nicodemus, and that the ancient Fathers had known as fully as could be known today the full details of God's plan of redemption including the Virgin Birth and Jesus' death on the Cross. And important also to note is that Peter Abélard was only critical of BOD. He plainly did not reject the all-too widely held belief in BOB.
It is instructive to take a good look at how St. Bernard responded to these errors, for he did far more than merely state that he disagreed with them. He reasoned from Scripture and the Fathers and the love of God in a manner exactly consistent with how all the ancient Fathers defended the doctrines. The full text of his response is available in the book Bernard of Clairvaux: "On Baptism and the Office of Bishops" Translated by Pauline Matarasso, available as Cistercian Fathers Series #67 from Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN, web address litpress.org, and also available from Cistercian Publications. The relevant portion reads thus (from pages 157-162):
Once the remedy of baptism was common knowledge, any adult still refusing to be baptized added to the general and original stain - and this time on his own account - the crime of pride, carrying with him a double cause of just damnation should he happen to leave the body in that state. If, however, he should have second thoughts before the end, and want and ask to be baptized, but, forestalled by death, fail in the obtaining, so long as true faith, devout hope, and unfeigned love are present and only water is lacking - may God forgive me - I am quite unable to despair of this man's salvation, nor will I believe his faith empty, crush his hope or prune away his charity: this on condition that he does not spurn the water, but is prevented by the impossibility I have just mentioned. If anyone takes a different view, I suggest he look at the grounds on which he bases what he advances, for I confess that I would grudge my assent unless a more powerful argument swayed my reason or a greater authority compelled my belief.
But my amazement would pass all bounds if this new inventor of novel assertions and assertor of new inventions was able to find a supportive argument which escaped the notice of the holy Fathers Ambrose and Augustine, or indeed an authority weightier than theirs. For, in the case he does not know, each held exactly the same opinion - the very one I admit to sharing. He should make a point of reading - if he has not already done so - Ambrose's book On the Death of Valentinian. If he has read it, he should recall it to mind and, recalling it, not fail to register but positively note, that the saint confidently assumes the salvation of one who met death unbaptized, and has no hesitation in allowing good will to substitute for capacity. He should also read Augustine's On the One Baptism, Book IV, and either admit that he has let himself be led astray or prove himself brazenly stubborn. 'Blessed Cyprian', says Augustine, 'to show that suffering can sometimes stand in for baptism, adduces the weighty example of that unbaptized thief to whom Christ said: Today you shall be with me in paradise.' Augustine goes on: 'I found, on turning this over and over in my mind, that it is not only suffering for the name of Christ, but also faith and conversion of heart which can make good the loss borne by those who want of time robs of the benefits of the baptismal mystery'. 'That thief', he continues, 'exemplifies the Apostle's words on the value of the inner disposition in the absence of the visible sacrament, It is by believing with the heart that we are justified, by confessing with the lips that we are saved. But', adds Augustine, 'it is only when baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion but by outward constraints, that the mystery is invisibly implemented.' And I am not unaware that [that Father] himself withdrew the example of the thief, which he had put forward, and acknowledged its inadmissibility as proof of his opinion, in that it cannot be known for certain whether or not the thief had been baptized. That does not stop him from pressing his view strongly and confirming it in various ways; nor, unless I am mistaken, will you find any instance of his having retracted it. Elsewhere Augustine, after bringing forward other figures whom Scripture records as having been invisibly rather than visibly sanctified, writes in conclusion: 'We may gather from these examples that some have experienced and profited from an invisible sanctification unaccompanied by visible sacraments, which latter have changed with changing times and differed then from now.' A little further on we read: 'Not, however, that the visible sacrament is to be contemned, for it is not possible for anyone acting thus to be invisibly sanctified.' In these passages he demonstrates clearly that the faithful person who turns to God in his heart is deprived of the fruit of baptism not by failing to be baptized, but by holding baptism in contempt.
It would be hard, believe me, to tear me away from these two pillars - I mean Augustine and Ambrose. I own to going along with them in wisdom or in error, for I too believe that a person can be saved by faith alone, through the desire to receive the sacrament, but only if such a one is forestalled by death or prevented by some other insuperable force from implementing this devout desire. Perhaps this was why the Savior, when he said: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, took care not to repeat 'whoever is not baptized', but only, whoever does not believe will be condemned, intimating strongly that faith is sometimes sufficient for salvation and that without it nothing suffices. And while it is conceded that martyrdom can stand in for baptism, it is clearly not the torment but the faith which is operative. For without faith what is martyrdom but torment? If faith, then, which gives to martyrdom an eminence that sets it on par with baptism, is so impotent and feeble of itself, how can it confer on something else what it is not potent enough to win on its own? To shed one's blood for Christ is without doubt a proof of great faith, but one given not to God, but to human beings. Supposing God, who has no need of tangible proofs, sees in the heart of someone dying in peace an equally great faith, a faith not put to the test of martyrdom but nonetheless meet for it; if that person, recalling that he has not yet received the mystery of salvation, longs for it with the fullness of a disconsolate and contrite heart, and if sudden death prevents him attaining it, will God condemn his faithful servant? Will he condemn, I ask you, someone who is ready to die for him? Paul says: No one is able to say 'Lord Jesus' save in the Holy Spirit. So what then of the person who at the hour of death not only invokes the Lord Jesus, but also longs for his sacrament with all the fullness of his heart, shall we say that he does not speak in the Holy Spirit, thus making a liar of the Apostle, or, alternatively, that even with the Spirit he will be condemned? He has the Savior dwelling in his heart through faith and in his mouth through avowal; with his Savior present will he be condemned? Since martyrdom earns from faith alone the exceptional privilege of being received in all security in place of baptism, I do not see why faith should not have the same sway with God, who does not need the proof of martyrdom to recognize it. I should certainly say that it is as efficacious for salvation, though not for the amassing of merit, where martyrdom undoubtedly takes precedence. We read that Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and again that If a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. What is plainer than that the will is taken for the deed, when force of circuмstance prevents the doing? Unless perhaps it is thought that ill will carries a greater weight than good with the God who is love, and that the merciful and magnanimous Lord is quicker to avenge himself than to reward. Just as someone who calls to mind - it may be at the point of death - that he is pledged to a creditor and lacks the wherewithal to discharge his debt, is believed nonetheless to win remission and be let off any judgment by simple dint of repentance and genuine sorrow, even so will faith alone and the conversion of the mind to God, without the shedding of blood and pouring of water, assuredly win salvation for whomsoever wishes to be baptized but, waylaid by death, is unable to put that wish into effect. And just as no repentance can remit the sin of the debtor who, when he can, does not restore what he has taken, even so no faith will avail the other who fails to receive the sacrament when he is able. Indeed, neglecting to do so proves that his faith is not perfect. A true and full faith embraces all commands; and this is the very chief of commands. Anyone therefore who refuses to obey it will rightly be deemed, not faithful, but frankly rebellious and contemptuous. For how can one be faithful and hold God's sacrament in contempt?
-
No Church authority( Holy Office, Index, Pope etc) ever accused Fr Feeney of heresy. That is good enough for me.
The piece of paper( which most assuredly a fraud) calling Fr Feeney to Rome contains no specific accusation of any kind.
Here we go with another stealth attack on the Church by LoT. IE-- same same attempting to get us to accept everyday immorality as part of a Popes character.
-
-
THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!
Baptism of desire is a HERESY and is contrary to the decrees above! Nobody can be saved without being baptized in water in the form of the Church! It has been defined infallibly, and yet Griff Ruby and all his contradictory malarkey about saints and doctors will lead many astray, because they will take the opinions of men who are not guaranteed to be free from error over the VOICE OF GOD ALMIGHTY!!!
-
Or that voice in CM's head.
-
I have yet to see anyone dissect these infallible statements and show how baptism of desire does not contradict them.
-
I have yet to see anyone dissect these infallible statements and show how baptism of desire does not contradict them.
Yet another lie.
-
Oh you may think you have done so.
Do it with Florence. Go ahead I will pay very close attention to what you have to say:
-
The first one that Prophecy Film quoted.
-
Oh you may think you have done so.
Do it with Florence. Go ahead I will pay very close attention to what you have to say:
Sorry to say, but no you won't. I know this from experience. You are far too obstinate.
-
You just can't do it. The words are obvious and plain as day. NOBODY can do it, otherwise I would believe in baptism of desire.
But it is A DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF DOGMATIC DECREES.
Caminus, do you forget that I am not the only one on this board? I have answered your mixed up 'theology', not for your benefit, because you are BLIND but for that of others who may actually have some good will.
-
Thanks, I'll be "blind" with all of the saints, fathers, doctors and popes. The new Illuminati always despise the doctrinal traditions of the Church. You must be the embodiment of the New Pentecost. You are the Enlightened One sent by God to correct the entire Catholic Church that has existed for 2,000. Hey, I know a good Mormon church that would love to hear from you.
-
You overstate your case. Show me one pope who taught baptism of desire in his formal capacity, the only person you can propose is Pius XII, but this is a fallacy, since he was heretical on this point AND OTHERS.
-
Therefore not a Catholic, or a pope.
-
Pius XII was a legitimate pope. Popes can err in fallible speeches and docuмents. No legitimate pope can err in dogmatic statements and docuмents addressed to the whole church, this is why we can trust in the church teachings definitely. Pope Pius XII never taught any heresy dogmatically, he did however, teach heresies in fallible speeches, such as nfp (natural family planning), and, as you said, if he did talk about baptism of desire, which of course, is another heresy.
It's a fact that no Pope in the history of the Catholic Church has taught dogmatically that one can be saved with baptism of blood or with baptism of desire. There are, however, numerous dogmatic definitions clarifying the fact that one is in need of the actual element of water for salvation, without exception.
Saints and Doctors of the Church can be wrong and have been wrong in much, teaching baptism of blood and baptism of desire. Saint Thomas Aquinas believed and wrote down that the blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in sin, (which was before the dogma of the immaculate conception was defined), further proving the fallibility of Saints and Doctors of the Church, yet again affirming the validity and infallibility of dogmatic definitions of popes.
-
You overstate your case. Show me one pope who taught baptism of desire in his formal capacity, the only person you can propose is Pius XII, but this is a fallacy, since he was heretical on this point AND OTHERS.
Show me one Pope that declared the doctrine to be erroneous, let alone "heretical." Why would a Pope need to teach the doctrine in his "formal capacity" whatever that means? Are we to assume that short of defining doctrines, no Popes believed anything? Are we to assume that all Popes have been utterly negligent in allowing this doctrine to be infused into every possible organ of tradition? That Pope Pius X's very own catechism, which was drawn from his catachetical lectures as a bishop, taught flagrant heresy? A heresy so obvious that every dogmatic theology missed it? Are you implying that the Church had abandoned the true Gospel for centuries, by obscuring the pure truth of God's word? See where this is going? You've adopted the stance of the early protestant rebels. You've adopted numerous implicit positions which no catholic can hold and call himself a catholic. Just be honest with yourself and everyone else: YOU REJECT THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM.
-
BTW, you've already conceded the entire argument for the doctrine by admitting that God can and does work outside of the Sacraments of the living and the dead, under certain circuмstances.
-
-
No, Sweden, a pope cannot teach heresy in his fallible docuмents? Why would you believe that unless you follwo the Dimonds? So according to your position, as long as the pope does not intend to bind the faithful to his teachings, he can be a heretic!
Why was John XXIII an antipope then? Answer me that one right now.
-
-
except=expect
-
1) Ratzinger is not to be trusted, and neither is anyone who professes to be Catholic, while asserting that the Primacy of St. Peter is not binding on the Orthodox, but is only a "Primacy of honour", and then proceeds to pray with them (oh yeah and Jews and Muslims).
2) Ratzinger did not even say that the Catechism was written by Pius X, but that it stemmed from a text written by him. Two different things.
3) The Catechism of Pius X was neither intended to be binding on all the faithful, nor was it approved in forma specifica by the pope.
4) The Congregation of the Index would be at fault for the catechism's heresy, not the pope, since he delegated the proscription of heretical literature to them.
More on the Pius X Catechism (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/06/pope-pius-x-catechism.html).
-
I have another question for you Sweden, in addition to the John XXIII question.
If a pope does not lose office for teaching heresy in his fallible capacity, then do you not give lip service only to the dogma that heretics are outside the Church? Or do you assert that a heretic who is outside the Church can still be pope, so long as he doesn't try to bind all the faithful and invoke infallibility for his heresy?
Finally, if what you say is true, then how many heresies can a pope teach in his fallible capacity? Can he teach one and still be pope? Seven? Seventy times seven?
-
-
-
Why was John XXIII an antipope then? Answer me that one right now.
Says you........proof other than your own judgment.try that answer right now......
-
Or that voice in CM's head.
He is God's voice, a modern Moses in the desert..uh, and everyone is a heretic per him....
-
Pius XII was a legitimate pope.
You might want to read CM's ideas on that point before "teaming up" with him. Btw, I am actually rather fond of him. It is my hope, as he knows, that we can one day (perhaps after this incredible, cleansing shakedown is over) meet and share an ale. :cheers:
-
What I have learned from studying (mostly mhfm's site) is...
So, your magister is a group of kleptomaniac non-monks? Wise choice.
-
What I have learned from studying (mostly mhfm's site) is...
So, your magister is a group of kleptomaniac non-monks? Wise choice.
At least they adhere to Church magesteriums teaching and dogmatic definitions. Many of traditional catholics either completely deny the dogmatic definitions or give them other meanings besides from what they actually say. Baptism of blood and baptism of desire are completely false and rejected with the dogmatic definitions on baptism, yet how many false Catholics disregard this, rejects dogmas, and follow their own faith and mind?
Yet I have failed to see them teach anything wrong or against the real Catholic Faith. Not that I know much of the Catholic Faith. But to know that accepting the Church dogmas, is to accept the Faith, is enough for me to know. Therefore, anyone teaching contrary to dogma, is wrong, such as bod & bob activists, since dogmas refutes their position, yet they obstinately hold on to their false believes, embracing all kinds of heresies, as salvation outside the Church, for people rejecting Christ, etc...
Whats your opinion on this? Should we not adhere to Church dogmatic definitions? If so, why then not learn from most holy family, when they teach according to the Church teachings?
-
So, your magister is a group of kleptomaniac non-monks? Wise choice.
At least they adhere to Church magesteriums teaching and dogmatic definitions...[/quote]
Maybe they do, and maybe they do not. The question is, "Do they believe them as the Church teaches them, or according to their own 'lights'?"
...Whats your opinion on this? Should we not adhere to Church dogmatic definitions? If so, why then not learn from most holy family, when they teach according to the Church teachings?
OF COURSE we should adhere to the dogmatic definitions - and to ALL Church teaching according to the sense in which she teaches it, NOT our own.
MHFM has ZERO business teaching anyone about anything. They are frauds in every sense of the term.
Learning about what the Church actually teaches through frauds like the Dimonds is like looking at a picture through a lens that distorts everything - not wise if we want to see clearly. Godspeed.
-
Sorry I screwed up the formatting before...
So, your magister is a group of kleptomaniac non-monks? Wise choice.
At least they adhere to Church magisterium's teaching and dogmatic definitions...
Maybe they do, and maybe they do not. The question is, "Do they believe them as the Church teaches them, or according to their own 'lights'?" The proof of the pudding is in the tasting.
...Whats your opinion on this? Should we not adhere to Church dogmatic definitions? If so, why then not learn from most holy family, when they teach according to the Church teachings?
OF COURSE we should adhere to the dogmatic definitions - and to ALL Church teaching according to the sense in which she teaches it, NOT our own.
MHFM has ZERO business teaching anyone about anything. They are frauds in every sense of the term.
Learning about what the Church actually teaches through frauds like the Dimonds is like looking at a picture through a lens that distorts everything - not wise if we want to see clearly. Godspeed.
-
What I have learned from studying (mostly mhfm's site) is...
So, your magister is a group of kleptomaniac non-monks? Wise choice.
At least they adhere to Church magesteriums teaching and dogmatic definitions. Many of traditional catholics either completely deny the dogmatic definitions or give them other meanings besides from what they actually say.
So do you! So do the Dimonds!
You and they both deny the Vatican Council (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/07/refuting-dimonds-assertion-that.html) and Florence (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/07/limbo-of-infants-is-heretical.html).
You and they both believe that a pope can teach heresy in his fallible capacity, essentially equating the dogma of infallibility with protecting a pope from uttering heresy while binding the whole Church. It is so much more than that. It means that whatever they utter ex cathedra is completely true, yet you and the Dimonds only give lip service to this reality, as most people do. And as a result of this you believe that a pope can utter heresy in his fallible capacity, and that he would still be pope.
Above, you just said he could not.
I oftentimes express my self poorly. Of course a pope must be without heresy. I did not fully understand what I wrote to you before, and for that I beg pardon. What I have learned from studying (mostly mhfm's site) is that popes can err and do wrong fallibly (which is proved throughout Church history), and when they do not bind their wrongful opinion for the whole Church. Regarding your second question, my opinion is that all "popes" after Pius XII to be heretics.
This is true but if what they say is heresy (as oppoesed to merely errors, such as John XXII) they lose office. Pius XII has taught ALL KINDS of errors and yes even some heresies.
You already know that he taught baptism of desire. Natural Family Planning.
I have hardly gotten through a portion of his writings, and have already found more than that:
On moral relativism
The social Body of Jesus Christ in which each individual member retains his own personal freedom, responsibility, and principles of conduct.
One is not free to retain their own personal principles of conduct. The only principles of conduct a person may retain are those of the Holy Catholic Faith, as revealed through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The above statement is heresy in direct opposition to the following dogmatic decrees:
: "If any one saith, that the baptized are, by baptism itself, made debtors but to faith alone, and not to the observance of the whole law of Christ; let him be anathema.
If anyone says that those baptized are free from all the precepts of holy Church, whether written or unwritten, so that they are not bound to observe them unless they should wish to submit to them of their own accord, let him be anathema.
-
The Dimond Brothers are going to be so sorry for what they are doing to gullible people.
Prophecy, if they were legitimate, their writing would never be 99% condemnation of every Catholic on earth. They invented their cult, they have no accounability to any superior!!
They are exactly like Protestants, making it up as they go along. Ask yourself, exactly HOW did they become like the last Catholics left on Earth? Is it their humility and charity? Their obdience and loving kindnes?
Or is it the constant rage and contempt which is so seductive?
-
Unfortunately, the Dimonds have a large following.
-
Catholic Martyr
I am not obstinate and want to understand. Its very possible that Pius XII was a heretic, since he did hold heretical opinions. I do not understand these things clearly, and you have made me unsure what to think about Pius XII. From my understanding, and what I have read, Pius XII was a legitimate Pope. I have forwarded your questions to mhfm since I my self do not understand this. I hope they will answer, they do not always answer back.
Elizabeth
I'm curious why you say such things. What really, in your opinion, do they hold wrong positions on?
-
The Dimonds' Soul Damning Errors (heresies and schisms) (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/07/dimonds-soul-damning-errors.html)
-
They have attempted to refute SOME of these assertions, but I have listened to their refutations, and they are wrong, and have since updated my arguments to overcome their objections.
-
-
-
As its most visible exponents, and self-appointed ringleaders, the Dimonds are probably ultimately going to bear the responsibility for this Feeneyite outbreak of yellow fever that has divided the sedevacantist movement even further.
Is there a Feen-flu vaccine? Will the Feds please get busy inoculating us with that?
-
-
-
And how can we judge him without knowing the full story or what was happening behind the scenes?
According to his acts in the external forum. And according to the dogmas that Sweden just posted, which you have to DENY in order to believe that God might occasionally do something that HE SAID HE WILL NOT DO.
Sweden, even the so-called '1917 Code of Canon Law' promulgated by your 'pope' Benedict XV teaches that a person is to be judged by their acts in the external forum and guilt is to be presumed until innocence is proven.
Positing an external violation of the law, dolus [evil will] in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proven.
The Dimonds are utterly inconsistent. According to 'Canon Law' it is illicit to presume innocence when the law is violated, and at least you realize that publicly teaching baptism of desire IS such a violation, and HE NEVER RETRACTED to prove his innocence.
Yes the Dimonds claim to have refuted me, but I told you I updated all my articles after listening to their 'refutation'.
-
Sweden, even the so-called '1917 Code of Canon Law' promulgated by your 'pope' Benedict XV teaches that a person is to be judged by their acts in the external forum and guilt is to be presumed until innocence is proven.
Guilt is presumed in the EXTERNAL forum. What is with you people who want to talk about high things without knowing what the hell you're talking about? Here's a novel idea, why don't you go and study under someone who is trained in the traditional theology and philosophy of the Church for a few decades and then come back and tell us what you think.
-
This is the way even civil courts work. There must be an external presumption of guilt in the external forum for trial to proceed. This is called a 'legal presumption' of guilt which explains why the State can haul you in on charges. The question of 'factual guilt' is something entirely different. The burden of proof rests upon the one making the accusation. The evidence produced is supposed to prove or demonstrate all that is required to manifest someone's factual guilt.
-
Caminus, just because you or some Modernist clergy member does not recognize that a violation of the law may have taken place, does not remove the objective guilt, whether or not such guilt exists subjectively.
-
-
It appears as though you are about as bright as Bob Dimond.
-
Bob 'Peter' Dimond is quite intelligent. But he is evil. Bad combination.
-
Bob 'Peter' Dimond is quite intelligent. But he is evil. Bad combination.
I assure you he is not intelligent. He's merely a shallow copycat who doesn't understand the words that come out of his mouth. It's much like a child who imitates the big words his father uses without comprehending their meaning.
Every now and then I'll turn on one of their audios and see how long it takes me to turn it off when I hear some kind of error or mischaracterization of something. I've never gotten past 5 minutes.
-
CM, don't prove yourself a dyed-in-the-wool Feeneyite by taking writings out of context. You literally carved the man's sentence in half. At least quote the full sentence!
You quoted Pius XII:
The social Body of Jesus Christ in which each individual member retains his own personal freedom, responsibility, and principles of conduct.
Here is the context. From Mystici Corporis:
"But that men should persevere constantly in their good works, that they should advance eagerly in grace and virtue, that they should strive earnestly to reach the heights of Christian perfection and at the same time to the best of their power should stimulate others to attain the same goal, -- all this the heavenly Spirit does not will to effect unless they contribute their daily share of zealous activity. "For divine favors are conferred not on those who sleep, but on those who watch" as St. Ambrose says. [168] For if in our mortal body the members are strengthened and grow through continued exercise, much more truly can this be said of the social Body of Jesus Christ in which each individual member retains his own personal freedom, responsibility, and principles of conduct. For that reason he who said: "I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me" [169] did not at the same time hesitate to assert: "His (God's) grace in men has not been void, but I have labored more abundantly than all they: yet not 1, but the grace of God with me." [170] It is perfectly clear, therefore, that in these false doctrines the mystery which we are considering is not directed to the spiritual advancement of the faithful but is turned to their deplorable ruin.
That is not even remotely heretical. "The personal freedom" he's talking about is not a freedom to go against Catholic dogmas. The whole section is about social responsibilities, and as far as those go, we have a certain freedom -- can choose to be firefighters or pizza deliverymen, etc. That is why he's talking about the "social body" of Christ in this passage as opposed to the "mystical body."
The sense of the passage is that we each have the freedom to choose what we want to do in our lives, and that having chosen, we have to observe God's laws and do His will. Obviously a monk, a lawyer, a schoolkid and a Pope each have different responsibilities and principles of conduct.
Catholic Martyr
It seems you made a mistake. Do you acknowledge that you might be getting over your head from time to time? The problem with always thinking one is right, is that in the end, one will see fault where there is no faults. The devil have cast many down to Hell through pride. This you will learn from reading the life of the holy fathers.
Most saints where unlearned in these kind of theology, but very wise in the theology on Christ crucified. This is the kind of knowledge with humility, which leads to Heaven. To delve in complicated matters as Church doctrine and whom was heretic and whom was not, etc, what is heretical and what is not, is serious danger for ones soul, and especially so when is not so obvious.
No one can be condemned for thinking he is wrong (which is a sign of humility) and by thinking low things of one self. Many there are, however, that are in Hell for thinking high things of themselves and by thinking that they knew better then others, for this, without a doubt, leads to pride. Unless you are chosen by God to delve into these and similar things, you are in danger of loosing your soul.
You can be uncertain and not know many things on Church doctrine and still be Saved. The only thing one really need to know for absolute salvation is the trinity, incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection and the assumption of Christ (if I am not mistaking) and being baptized.
You can be uncertain in many things if you are not obstinate in your own opinions. Some things are clear, like the dogmatic definitions on baptism, other thins are not as clear. Since baptism are clear, word for word, and one still denies the absolute necessity of water baptism even when presented with the clear proof - (if you haven't seen the dogmatic definitions, then you are unknowing), - then that person is obstinate and condemning himself. If he sees the proof and says his uncertain, he neither rejects it nor approves it, out of simplicity and uncertainty, and if he is not obstinate, then my own opinion is that he may still be saved (don't know if the church have a dogma in this saying otherwise, then of course, I will submit the the Church). Of course, I might be completely wrong on everything I've just written, so deal with me lightly.
Peace.
-
CM, don't prove yourself a dyed-in-the-wool Feeneyite by taking writings out of context. You literally carved the man's sentence in half. At least quote the full sentence!
You quoted Pius XII:
The social Body of Jesus Christ in which each individual member retains his own personal freedom, responsibility, and principles of conduct.
Here is the context. From Mystici Corporis:
"But that men should persevere constantly in their good works, that they should advance eagerly in grace and virtue, that they should strive earnestly to reach the heights of Christian perfection and at the same time to the best of their power should stimulate others to attain the same goal, -- all this the heavenly Spirit does not will to effect unless they contribute their daily share of zealous activity. "For divine favors are conferred not on those who sleep, but on those who watch" as St. Ambrose says. [168] For if in our mortal body the members are strengthened and grow through continued exercise, much more truly can this be said of the social Body of Jesus Christ in which each individual member retains his own personal freedom, responsibility, and principles of conduct. For that reason he who said: "I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me" [169] did not at the same time hesitate to assert: "His (God's) grace in men has not been void, but I have labored more abundantly than all they: yet not 1, but the grace of God with me." [170] It is perfectly clear, therefore, that in these false doctrines the mystery which we are considering is not directed to the spiritual advancement of the faithful but is turned to their deplorable ruin.
That is not even remotely heretical. "The personal freedom" he's talking about is not a freedom to go against Catholic dogmas. The whole section is about social responsibilities, and as far as those go, we have a certain freedom -- can choose to be firefighters or pizza deliverymen, etc. That is why he's talking about the "social body" of Christ in this passage as opposed to the "mystical body."
The sense of the passage is that we each have the freedom to choose what we want to do in our lives, and that having chosen, we have to observe God's laws and do His will. Obviously a monk, a lawyer, a schoolkid and a Pope each have different responsibilities and principles of conduct.
Catholic Martyr
It seems you made a mistake. Do you acknowledge that you might be getting over your head from time to time? The problem with always thinking one is right, is that in the end, one will see fault where there is no faults. The devil have cast many down to Hell through pride. This you will learn from reading the life of the holy fathers.
Most saints where unlearned in these kind of theology, but very wise in the theology on Christ crucified. This is the kind of knowledge with humility, which leads to Heaven. To delve in complicated matters as Church doctrine and whom was heretic and whom was not, etc, what is heretical and what is not, is serious danger for ones soul, and especially so when is not so obvious.
No one can be condemned for thinking he is wrong (which is a sign of humility) and by thinking low things of one self. Many there are, however, that are in Hell for thinking high things of themselves and by thinking that they knew better then others, for this, without a doubt, leads to pride. Unless you are chosen by God to delve into these and similar things, you are in danger of loosing your soul.
You can be uncertain and not know many things on Church doctrine and still be Saved. The only thing one really need to know for absolute salvation is the trinity, incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection and the assumption of Christ (if I am not mistaking) and being baptized.
You can be uncertain in many things if you are not obstinate in your own opinions. Some things are clear, like the dogmatic definitions on baptism, other thins are not as clear. Since baptism are clear, word for word, and one still denies the absolute necessity of water baptism even when presented with the clear proof - (if you haven't seen the dogmatic definitions, then you are unknowing), - then that person is obstinate and condemning himself. If he sees the proof and says his uncertain, he neither rejects it nor approves it, out of simplicity and uncertainty, and if he is not obstinate, then my own opinion is that he may still be saved (don't know if the church have a dogma in this saying otherwise, then of course, I will submit the the Church). Of course, I might be completely wrong on everything I've just written, so deal with me lightly.
Peace.
he never admits he was wrong, nor he is fallible.........he will not read the Fathers/saints as he is working on finding heresy in them as well....
-
Yes, indeed, humilty. The kind of humility that accepts with docility the doctrine of the Fathers; a doctrine found in every catechism; a doctrine taught by the Popes; a doctrine expounded upon by the Angelic doctor and every single catholic theologian. Yes, humility to peacefully accept the catholic system is a wonderful thing indeed.
-
Raoul asserts that Pius XII was not objectively heretical in his sentence. I assert that he was. The context of the writing doesn't give me any reason to doubt it, and I don't understand why Raoul76 interprets it the way he does. He adds to and clarifies what he believes Pius XII meant by "principles of conduct".
Raoul76 has interpreted the words of Pius XII favourably, whereas I see a denial of dogma in the objective sense of the words.
Pius XII also taught baptism of desire and natural family planning and recognized Benedict XV as a Catholic pope, all things that are objectively contrary to the Faith, and since we can only judge based on the external forum, and not subjective guilt, intentions or dispositions, I am quite justified for holding that he was a heretical antipope.
Belloc, I'm puzzled to see you beating up on your straw man. I never said I was infallible. I know I'm not. That's why when I am shown to be wrong I change my position. But just because you or someone else thinks you have made a valid argument doesn't make it so.
I used to change my position every couple weeks (When I was learning the Faith), and I'm sure a bunch of you are going to try to use that against me. Go ahead, but the point is that humility and an open mind are only useful for one purpose - to take a hold of and never let go of the truth. I haven't had to do change any positions in a while, though, since I have not been presented with any compelling Catholic arguments to do so.
That being said, Caminus' post about "Heresy in History" prompted much consideration on my part, but ultimately I could see where Daly was drawing conclusions that he had no business making. For one small example, he claimed that St. Hypathius never withdrew from communion with his ordinary, who reejected Nestorius' heresy, but still considered him a bishop, but he was simply presenting as fact an opinion, for which he had no basis. In fact, St. Hypathius words strongly indicate that he did withdraw from both obedience and communion with him. Same with St. Cyprian and Pope St. Stephen. The validity of the baptism of heretics was not yet at that time proposed as revealed, yet Daly holds this doctrine out as a demonstration of why we cannot admonish and judge heretics. Flawed argumentation.
But I certainly did consider the proposition that Caminus was making about "dogmatic sedevacantism" and judging heretics, and whether or not the position I hold is valid.
Yes, Sweden, you're right about some of what you say, but you said nobody is condemned for thinking they are wrong.
If you or anybody thinks they are wrong about something, they better be putting great effort into getting it right! If a person believes himself to be wrong on a given point, and relaxes into complacency and resignation, without striving to hold the correct position, then he is justly condemned on that alone.
-
The unanimous doctrine of the Fathers compels assent. The fact that several Popes have taught the doctrine also normally would compel assent. The fact that every theologian has taught it should reinforce the doctrine as well as St. Thomas. But nooooooo you reject the catholic system because the stench of pride fills your nostrils.
-
No compelling 'catholic' argument...give me a break.
-
Unanimous my eye (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/08/saints-and-church-fathers-on-absolute.html).