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

Author Topic: The Baltimore Catechism Heresy  (Read 15433 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2726
  • Reputation: +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2009, 08:17:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    CM, please, as a favor, can we leave BoD for the other thread that now has thirteen or so pages?


    You are so willing to debate such things as NFP and sedevacantism, certainly you have the truth in those matters, and you never "back down from a fight" when those topics are brought up - because you know that whatever objection you run across is surmountable without having to resort any "fudging of the numbers" so to speak.

    But when it comes to baptism of desire, or more specifically, the definition of infallibility from the 1870 Council of the Vatican, your sword of truth is dull.

    You avoid important points continuously, and getting answers to questions from you is like pulling teeth.

    Your conduct regarding baptism of desire and infallibility, specifically in your "debates" with me on these subjects, is throwing up red flags all over the place.

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
    « Reply #16 on: December 28, 2009, 08:27:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: CM
    Quote from: SJB
    Recant what? What you think is heretical that nobody noticed at the time? An abjuration is required when one is involved with a false religion, a condemned sect. Condemned by the Church.


    Correct.  And it is required in other types of situations as well, such as when a person publicly professes a heretical opinion.

    Galileo's opinion was held by many to be heretical, and he was ORDERED to abjure, just for one quick example.


    Ordered to abjure by who?
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
    « Reply #17 on: December 28, 2009, 08:30:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: CM
    Quote from: Raoul76
    CM, please, as a favor, can we leave BoD for the other thread that now has thirteen or so pages?


    You are so willing to debate such things as NFP and sedevacantism, certainly you have the truth in those matters, and you never "back down from a fight" when those topics are brought up - because you know that whatever objection you run across is surmountable without having to resort any "fudging of the numbers" so to speak.

    But when it comes to baptism of desire, or more specifically, the definition of infallibility from the 1870 Council of the Vatican, your sword of truth is dull.

    You avoid important points continuously, and getting answers to questions from you is like pulling teeth.

    Your conduct regarding baptism of desire and infallibility, specifically in your "debates" with me on these subjects, is throwing up red flags all over the place.


    Does one who accepts the definition of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I need to abjure?
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
    « Reply #18 on: December 28, 2009, 08:38:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ordered by who?  Good question.  I don't know off hand, and neither does it seem relevant.  Galileo took an abjuration.

    As for your second question, what on earth are you talking about?

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-12
    • Gender: Male
    The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
    « Reply #19 on: December 28, 2009, 08:42:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • CM said:
    Quote
    But when it comes to baptism of desire, or more specifically, the definition of infallibility from the 1870 Council of the Vatican, your sword of truth is dull.


    I believe that papal decrees are infallible.  I also disagree with you about what those papal decrees mean sometimes.  We have been over this many times.  
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
    « Reply #20 on: December 28, 2009, 08:49:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: CM
    Ordered by who?  Good question.  I don't know off hand, and neither does it seem relevant.  Galileo took an abjuration.

    As for your second question, what on earth are you talking about?


    Are you being evasive here? The question was a simple one.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
    « Reply #21 on: December 28, 2009, 08:58:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Does one who accepts the definition of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I need to abjure?


    This "simple question" is pretty bizarre SJB.  Why would you imply that someone needs to abjure for believing in a dogma?  You only need to abjure heresy.

    So like I said: What on earth are you talking about?

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
    « Reply #22 on: December 28, 2009, 08:59:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    CM said:
    Quote
    But when it comes to baptism of desire, or more specifically, the definition of infallibility from the 1870 Council of the Vatican, your sword of truth is dull.


    I believe that papal decrees are infallible.  I also disagree with you about what those papal decrees mean sometimes.  We have been over this many times.  


    Yes, you have said as much as this many times, but I'm desirous of engagement on the specific points I post in the other thread.


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
    « Reply #23 on: December 28, 2009, 09:06:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: CM
    Quote from: SJB
    Does one who accepts the definition of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I need to abjure?


    This "simple question" is pretty bizarre SJB.  Why would you imply that someone needs to abjure for believing in a dogma?  You only need to abjure heresy.

    So like I said: What on earth are you talking about?


    The first question is just a simple question. Who can demand an abjuration of error?

    The second question refers to the fact that you seem to question papal infallibility. Here:

    Quote
    But when it comes to baptism of desire, or more specifically, the definition of infallibility from the 1870 Council of the Vatican, your sword of truth is dull.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-12
    • Gender: Male
    The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
    « Reply #24 on: December 28, 2009, 09:17:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • SJB said:
    Quote
    "Here we are. I've never heard of someone having to recant part of a catechism they did not write."


    No, neither are they obligated to teach it if it teaches heresy.  And if they are smart enough to figure out that Vatican II is heretical, how can they not see another variant of the same heresy in this catechism they all teach?  

    Straight down the line, they act as if our problems began in 1958, wearing these rose-colored glasses, painting this picture of never-never land:  "Lines for confession around the block!  Everyone had lollipops!  Birds sang Gregorian chant!"  

    It's not very convincing, and neither is the blind patriotism of CMRI, which shows that they are not coming from a place of truth.  Although it's not heresy to be patriotic, it is odd considering the result of the separation of Church and state should be evident to all by now, as should the fact that we are run by communists, including many Jews, who control all major political parties.  This should be shouted from the rooftops -- CMRI buries it.  That is what first put me on their scent.

    As for the Church in the 40's and 50's, it was far from being ideal.  It was plagued with a communist mentality, and with liberal ideas about salvation outside its gates.  In this country, we have had the special "privilege" to have been taught a heretical definition of EENS before anyone else in the catechism of Cardinal Gibbons, since the 1880's.  
     
    I know it has taken root because an 80-year old man I was friendly with told me on the phone that he believed a Protestant can be saved if his parents are constantly influencing him against the Catholic Church.  That's like saying that someone can be saved if he watches a lot of TV, because hey, it's not his fault the Jews are warping his brain!  Luckily, if this friend of mine is dead -- he has stopped calling me after what I took to be his anger over my denial of Fatima -- I was at least able to correct him on this.

    I believe that the reason God has allowed America to be punished in this way is because we have blinded ourselves as to our betrayal of Christ and the Church, that instead of mourning our exile in this ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Babylon, we celebrate it and demand the rest of the world follow our lead in following revolutionary, Masonic principles.  That is what Cardinal Gibbons did, and his mentality infected many, many American Catholics, probably the vast majority of them.  It infects the American sedes today.  CMRI has a whole CD devoted to patriotic hymns, sung by the Singing Nuns:



    I'll bet you God HATES the hypocrisy of many American Catholics.  But that's for another thread.  I get very excited when bashing Mystery Babylon.  When I look at that flag, it's like a bull seeing red.  It just sends out waves of ominousness.

    As for how the liberal sedevacantists are teaching this EENS heresy specifically, see the other 15-page thread about salvation outside the Church.
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.

    Offline pax

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 408
    • Reputation: +42/-0
    • Gender: Male
    The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
    « Reply #25 on: January 02, 2010, 01:12:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.

    I have no idea what #2 was necessary in the Baltimore Catechism's answer, unless it was a poor way of saying that a baptized person (fully initiated into the Roman Catholic Church by virtue of their Baptism), who then knowingly and willfully separated themselves from the Faithful, could not be saved, as such an action would indeed comprise a mortal sin.

    That all who die validly baptized and free from mortal sin will take their place among the Blessed is as certain a fact as anyone can ever possess.
    Multiculturalism exchanges honest ignorance for the illusion of truth.


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12713
    • Reputation: +28/-13
    • Gender: Male
    The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
    « Reply #26 on: January 02, 2010, 02:57:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: pax
    Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.

     
    A Protestant, on being baptized, does not become a member of the Catholic Church.  

    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +459/-12
    • Gender: Male
    The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
    « Reply #27 on: January 02, 2010, 03:19:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    Quote from: pax
    Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.

     
    A Protestant, on being baptized, does not become a member of the Catholic Church.  


    If they are an infant, then they are fully Catholic.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12713
    • Reputation: +28/-13
    • Gender: Male
    The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
    « Reply #28 on: January 02, 2010, 03:22:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Jehanne
    Quote from: Telesphorus
    Quote from: pax
    Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.

     
    A Protestant, on being baptized, does not become a member of the Catholic Church.  


    If they are an infant, then they are fully Catholic.


    According to whom?

    If that's the case it would seem Catholic states would be justified in taking the baptized children of Protestants away from their parents.


    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +459/-12
    • Gender: Male
    The Baltimore Catechism Heresy
    « Reply #29 on: January 02, 2010, 04:17:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    Quote from: Jehanne
    Quote from: Telesphorus
    Quote from: pax
    Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.

     
    A Protestant, on being baptized, does not become a member of the Catholic Church.  


    If they are an infant, then they are fully Catholic.


    According to whom?

    If that's the case it would seem Catholic states would be justified in taking the baptized children of Protestants away from their parents.



    That happened, with a Jєωιѕн couple under Pius IX.