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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69

Author Topic: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy  (Read 32209 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #330 on: February 18, 2021, 02:55:45 PM »
Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 18, 2021, 01:09:23 PM
re: Cornelius - He was baptised.  Why is the Sacrament of Baptism necessary for those who have supposedly had their sins remitted?  Because BOD by definition does not remit temporal punishment, does not confer the sacramental character, does not incorporate one into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church.  But we know also from the teaching of the popes that justification, since the promulgation of the Gospel (the founding of the Church) cannot be had without the Sacrament of Baptism.

Yes, on this points the Dimonds made a spectacular argument by way of syllogism from Church teaching.  Initial justification is defined as a rebirth, and that rebirth is defined as remitting ALL stain of sin including temporal punishment.  So an initial justification without the remission of all temporal punishment, i.e. St. Alphonsus' theory, is condemned from Church teaching.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #331 on: February 18, 2021, 02:58:35 PM »
Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 18, 2021, 01:09:23 PM
re: St Mary Magdalene, the Good Thief, the Holy Innocents - all prior to the promulgation of the Gospel.  Not relevant. 

You can enlighten them all you want about this point, but they simply ignore it and keep respamming these same irrelevant examples over and over again.  It's because they're not honest.  They've made up their minds what they want to believe and apply their filters of confirmation bias to the evidence.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #332 on: February 18, 2021, 04:48:44 PM »
Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 18, 2021, 10:49:20 AM
To summarize, impius is defined as "denotes an impious or wicked person, someone guilty of actual sin, a person above the age of reason".  Impious can not be used in regard to infants who lack the use of reason.  St Robert Bellarmine made this distinction as well.  He refers to the infants as "puerorum" and to adults as "impiorum".  The use of the word impious cannot include those who lack the use of reason by definition.

Clemens Maria,

Thank you for the specific reference to the video, which I had only watched some of, and agree that it is a well done.

But as to the argument about the "impious," I find the Dimond argument unconvincing. Session VI, Chapter 4 follows the description in Chapter 3 of men being "born unrighteous" and needing rebirth in Christ for justification, and that this rebirth involves a "translation" from the spiritual darkness incurred from Adam into the Kingdom of Light won by Christ.

Then Chapter 4 says that this "translation" cannot be accomplished without baptism "or the desire thereof." I see the context as manifestly including all men, since the injustice of all men by mere propagation after Adam's sin is the context. Of course, Session V on original sin spent some time talking about infants and their need of cleansing and expiation through remission of sin in Christ by virtue, again, of their merely being born as children of Adam. I think the context clearly includes children as the "impious" of Session VI, Chapter 4.

In Chapter 5, a distinction is introduced "for adults" or "in adults." They are of course a subset of the "impious" that require personal faith and preparation, etc.

If in fact children are "unrighteous" and have contracted "injustice as their own" (Session VI, Chapter III) through Adam it is not a stretch to call them "impious," especially in context.

The reference to Bellarmine is clever but strained and far from convincing (for me). If in fact "impious" cannot be used of "unrighteous" (etc.) children then I would think one could easily find a theological dictionary, commentary on Trent, or some other authority that indicates that - without having to resort to this reaching into a Bellarmine quote that does not prove the case.

By way of example, if I were to say, "the men were killed, but the children were sold into slavery" I am indeed distinguishing between the men and the children by using the word "men" to describe adult males but I am not saying thereby that children are not "men" in another sense (and of the class "men"): children are a distinct subset of men, and adults and children are distinguished subsets of men which, as Session VI goes on to indicate, requires different preparation and action for regeneration in adults (e.g. preparation and faith etc.), but both adults and children are "men" who are born unrighteous and in need of regeneration and translation into the kingdom of God in Christ, i.e. all likewise "impious" in the context of Trent.
Logged

Offline Incredulous

Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #333 on: February 18, 2021, 05:15:02 PM »
Quote from: XavierSem on February 18, 2021, 12:36:10 PM
Let me just quickly reply to this part for now. I will get back to the rest later. No Scriptural basis for BOD? Both Dr. Ott and the CE mentioned it. I mentioned it myself from Fr. Haydock's commentary saying Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before Baptism, Acts 10:47, St. Mary Magdalene was justified and had her sin forgiven while weeping at the Feet of Christ, Luk 7:47 Our Lord's Word on those who love Him, how He and His Father will come and dwell in them, Jn 14:21, Our Lord's Word to the Good Thief, Luk 23:43 etc.

Dr. Ott: "According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much." John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43 • " This, day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."

CE: "He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins." From: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

But Mary Magdalene was Baptized  :confused:
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy
« Reply #334 on: February 18, 2021, 07:04:18 PM »

Quote
But as to the argument about the "impious," I find the Dimond argument unconvincing. Session VI, Chapter 4 follows the description in Chapter 3 of men being "born unrighteous" and needing rebirth in Christ for justification, and that this rebirth involves a "translation" from the spiritual darkness incurred from Adam into the Kingdom of Light won by Christ.

Then Chapter 4 says that this "translation" cannot be accomplished without baptism "or the desire thereof." I see the context as manifestly including all men, since the injustice of all men by mere propagation after Adam's sin is the context. Of course, Session V on original sin spent some time talking about infants and their need of cleansing and expiation through remission of sin in Christ by virtue, again, of their merely being born as children of Adam. I think the context clearly includes children as the "impious" of Session VI, Chapter 4.

You didn't provide a summary question, so I am left to suppose...
.
But a few distinctions...infants cannot desire baptism while adults of the age-of-reason can, so this would be the distinction that +Bellarmine sights.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69
« previous next »