Author Topic: Is Belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity Necessary (Read 1240 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #15 on:** July 15, 2016, 11:50:35 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

So let me repeat the question:

Quote from: Ladislaus
You have declared us to be impious for disagreeing with St. Thomas on BoD.

Yet these Jesuits disagreed with St. Thomas that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.

Were they impious for doing so?

You are not a theologian. That is why it is impious. And more so to teach contrary to what the Church taught infallibly and authoritatively under Pius XII.

Where is the quote from the Jesuits dealing with the doctrine of BOD? Or is the the discipline stuff you showed me earlier?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** July 15, 2016, 12:10:48 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

You are not a theologian. That is why it is impious. And more so to teach contrary to what the Church taught infallibly and authoritatively under Pius XII.

No, it's impious when it goes against an opinion of yours and perfectly fine when it lines up with your position. MOST theologians believe that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation ... including all the Church Fathers and Doctors. I did not make this position up or pull it out of my posterior. So the authority is on my side, and you're the one siding with and defending novelty. You are not a theologian either, so I denounce you as impious for rejecting St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine, all the Church Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, the Holy Office, etc.

I am unaware of anything taught infallibly by Pius XII except the dogma of the Assumption. Fenton states that Suprema Haec does not intend to teach Rewarder God theory ... despite the fact that you have cited it many times now in support of Rewarder God theory. Most of the radical SVs have gone off the deep end in considering anything in the authoritative Magisterium to be infallible. You make a mockery of infallibility. You don't even follow Fenton's more balanced (and correct) view on this subject.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Where is the quote from the Jesuits dealing with the doctrine of BOD? Or is the the discipline stuff you showed me earlier?

Again, we are not talking about BoD. One of your fellow Cushingite cohorts actually pulled up the quotes from the late 16th century Jesuits who first invented Rewarder God theory.

Invariably, as many of us have pointed out, you keep hiding behind BoD to support your heresies. When we tell you that we don't care about BoD, you keep shuffling back to BoD ... because you have nothing else that you can pretend backs your heresies.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** July 15, 2016, 12:12:55 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

My point is he makes no mention of explicit belief in the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation when speaking directly on BOD.

That's utterly ridiculous. He says it ELSEWHERE. And BoD has as a prerequisite supernatural faith, which St. Thomas states cannot happen without said explicit belief. So one cannot have supernatural faith without explicit belief and yet BoD can happen without it? BoD can happen without supernatural faith? Epic fail once again when it comes to basic logic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** July 15, 2016, 12:16:40 PM »

Another epic fail is your constant false reliance upon the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic necessity, something that's entirely irrelevant to whether Baptism (or explicit belief) is necessary by necessity of means. You basically say that because Baptism is only extrinsically necessary, that it's no longer necessary by necessity of means but rather by precept; those are two separate distinctions that have no bearing upon one another. But then, if you had ever had any training in basic logic, you would know this. Once again, epic fail.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #19 on:** July 15, 2016, 12:35:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
You are not a theologian. That is why it is impious. And more so to teach contrary to what the Church taught infallibly and authoritatively under Pius XII.

No, it's impious when it goes against an opinion of yours and perfectly fine when it lines up with your position. MOST theologians believe that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation ... including all the Church Fathers and Doctors. I did not make this position up or pull it out of my posterior. So the authority is on my side, and you're the one siding with and defending novelty. You are not a theologian either, so I denounce you as impious for rejecting St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine, all the Church Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, the Holy Office, etc.

I am unaware of anything taught infallibly by Pius XII except the dogma of the Assumption. Fenton states that Suprema Haec does not intend to teach Rewarder God theory ... despite the fact that you have cited it many times now in support of Rewarder God theory. Most of the radical SVs have gone off the deep end in considering anything in the authoritative Magisterium to be infallible. You make a mockery of infallibility. You don't even follow Fenton's more balanced (and correct) view on this subject.

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Where is the quote from the Jesuits dealing with the doctrine of BOD? Or is the the discipline stuff you showed me earlier?

Again, we are not talking about BoD. One of your fellow Cushingite cohorts actually pulled up the quotes from the late 16th century Jesuits who first invented Rewarder God theory.

Invariably, as many of us have pointed out, you keep hiding behind BoD to support your heresies. When we tell you that we don't care about BoD, you keep shuffling back to BoD ... because you have nothing else that you can pretend backs your heresies.

You have no idea what you are talking about. That is about a charitable as I can put it.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #20 on:** July 15, 2016, 12:40:21 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Another epic fail is your constant false reliance upon the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic necessity, something that's entirely irrelevant to whether Baptism (or explicit belief) is necessary by necessity of means. You basically say that because Baptism is only extrinsically necessary, that it's no longer necessary by necessity of means but rather by precept; those are two separate distinctions that have no bearing upon one another. But then, if you had ever had any training in basic logic, you would know this. Once again, epic fail.

Again you do not know what you are talking about. There are two types of "necessity of means".

1. Relative (either it or its replacements are absolutely necessary - Baptism)

2. Absolute or Intrinsic (It is absolutely necessary - Supernatural Faith)

I have made these distinctions repeatedly. And what constitutes supernatural Faith is quite related to BOD as BOD is not possible apart from it.

Shouldn't all that be obvious? But you are more about undermining credibility (of catechisms, theologians, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Popes) and making false accusations than you are in granting valid points when they prove your intellect (which you trust above all things) to be quite fallible and at a rather alarming rate.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** July 15, 2016, 12:58:26 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ladislaus
Another epic fail is your constant false reliance upon the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic necessity, something that's entirely irrelevant to whether Baptism (or explicit belief) is necessary by necessity of means. You basically say that because Baptism is only extrinsically necessary, that it's no longer necessary by necessity of means but rather by precept; those are two separate distinctions that have no bearing upon one another. But then, if you had ever had any training in basic logic, you would know this. Once again, epic fail.

Again you do not know what you are talking about. There are two types of "necessity of means".

1. Relative (either it or its replacements are absolutely necessary - Baptism)

2. Absolute or Intrinsic (It is absolutely necessary - Supernatural Faith)

You are a complete moron, and there's absolutely no reason to discuss theology with the likes of you. Here are the pairs of distinctions we've touched upon.

Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic
Means vs. Precept
Absolute vs. Relative

Here you further conflate absolute with intrinsic. Oh, by the way, do you realize that the Catechism of St. Pius X declares that the Sacrament of Baptism is "ABSOLUTELY" necessary for salvation? Look it up.

Means refers precisely to the fact that there's no other way for it to happen. So if we state that the SACRAMENT is necessary by necessity of means for salvation, this means that salvation cannot happen without the SACRAMENT.

Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic refers to whether a thing itself by its very definition requires something else in order to happen. So you are correct that Baptism is not necessary by intrinsic necessity but extrinsically because God ordained it to be that way. But whether God ordained it so or not, the question remains whether God ordained it to be necessary by necessity of means or by way of some other necessity. This distinction has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether Baptism can be substituted for by other means, as you keep claiming. Holy Orders too must happen through a Sacrament by extrinsic necessity and not intrinsic. But there's no such thing as Holy Orders by desire or any substitute for the Sacrament to receive Holy Orders. So just because something is not of intrinsic necessity, this does not prove that there's any other means possible for bringing it about.

Absolute vs. relative don't even apply here. Relative to what? If you claim it's relative then you must define what it's relative TO. Again, see the Catechism of St. Pius X which teaches that Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. I invite you to look it up.

Your language, furthermore, that the Sacrament can be "replaced" by something else is heretical. It denies Trent's dogma that the Sacrament is necessary for salvation. If it can be replaced by something else, then it's not necessary for salvation.

You spew heresy in almost every post of yours ... albeit without having any clue about which you write. You are thoroughly disqualified from having any further discussions on this subject. I am done responding to you.

Quote from: LoT

I have made these distinctions repeatedly.

Yeah, but you butcher them, conflate them, misunderstand them, misapply them, and draw false conclusions from them. It's one thing to throw words out there and another thing to explain how and where and under what conditions they apply. You just gratuitously assert, without any proof, that one or another type of necessity applies to Baptism. You end up sliding into heresy.

HOW DIFFICULT is it for you to keep the dogma of Trent and state that if there are such things as BoD/BoB they derive their efficacy from the Sacrament of Baptism, that people are not saved without the Sacrament but rather receive the Sacrament in voto? What exactly is your heretical malfunction?

No need to respond because I'm completely done with you. Please stop trying to do theology before you hurt yourself.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #22 on:** July 15, 2016, 01:27:26 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
Another epic fail is your constant false reliance upon the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic necessity, something that's entirely irrelevant to whether Baptism (or explicit belief) is necessary by necessity of means. You basically say that because Baptism is only extrinsically necessary, that it's no longer necessary by necessity of means but rather by precept; those are two separate distinctions that have no bearing upon one another. But then, if you had ever had any training in basic logic, you would know this. Once again, epic fail.

Again you do not know what you are talking about. There are two types of "necessity of means".

1. Relative (either it or its replacements are absolutely necessary - Baptism)

2. Absolute or Intrinsic (It is absolutely necessary - Supernatural Faith)

You are a complete moron, and there's absolutely no reason to discuss theology with the likes of you. Here are the pairs of distinctions we've touched upon.

Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic
Means vs. Precept
Absolute vs. Relative

Here you further conflate absolute with intrinsic. Oh, by the way, do you realize that the Catechism of St. Pius X declares that the Sacrament of Baptism is "ABSOLUTELY" necessary for salvation? Look it up.

Means refers precisely to the fact that there's no other way for it to happen. So if we state that the SACRAMENT is necessary by necessity of means for salvation, this means that salvation cannot happen without the SACRAMENT.

Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic refers to whether a thing itself by its very definition requires something else in order to happen. So you are correct that Baptism is not necessary by intrinsic necessity but extrinsically because God ordained it to be that way. But whether God ordained it so or not, the question remains whether God ordained it to be necessary by necessity of means or by way of some other necessity. This distinction has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether Baptism can be substituted for by other means, as you keep claiming. Holy Orders too must happen through a Sacrament by extrinsic necessity and not intrinsic. But there's no such thing as Holy Orders by desire or any substitute for the Sacrament to receive Holy Orders. So just because something is not of intrinsic necessity, this does not prove that there's any other means possible for bringing it about.

Absolute vs. relative don't even apply here. Relative to what? If you claim it's relative then you must define what it's relative TO. Again, see the Catechism of St. Pius X which teaches that Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. I invite you to look it up.

Your language, furthermore, that the Sacrament can be "replaced" by something else is heretical. It denies Trent's dogma that the Sacrament is necessary for salvation. If it can be replaced by something else, then it's not necessary for salvation.

You spew heresy in almost every post of yours ... albeit without having any clue about which you write. You are thoroughly disqualified from having any further discussions on this subject. I am done responding to you.

Quote from: LoT
I have made these distinctions repeatedly.

Yeah, but you butcher them, conflate them, misunderstand them, misapply them, and draw false conclusions from them. It's one thing to throw words out there and another thing to explain how and where and under what conditions they apply. You just gratuitously assert, without any proof, that one or another type of necessity applies to Baptism. You end up sliding into heresy.

HOW DIFFICULT is it for you to keep the dogma of Trent and state that if there are such things as BoD/BoB they derive their efficacy from the Sacrament of Baptism, that people are not saved without the Sacrament but rather receive the Sacrament in voto? What exactly is your heretical malfunction?

No need to respond because I'm completely done with you. Please stop trying to do theology before you hurt yourself.

The Catechism of Pius X also teaches BOD. It makes basic distinction that you can't.

You have lost. Let yourself win by accepting what those qualified and authorized to do so teach. Quite trying to outsmart your superiors with your idol intellect.

The sooner you do this the better it will be for your soul.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #23 on:** July 15, 2016, 01:36:57 PM »

AGAIN:

Baptism of water (sacramental Baptism) is necessary with a "necessity of precept" as well as with a "necessity of means". "Necessity of means" can be necessary with absolute or relative necessity. Sacramental Baptism is necessary with a necessity of means that is relative, not absolute or intrinsic. This means Sacramental Baptism or its substitutes (baptism of blood and baptism of "desire", properly known as the baptism of the Holy Ghost or of "repentance") is absolutely or intrinsically necessary for salvation to be possible. That is no one at all can be saved apart from sacramental Baptism or its two replacements i.e. baptism of desire or baptism of blood.

The Catholic Encyclopedia shows how faith is necessary with an absolute necessity of means while sacramental baptism is necessary with a relative necessity of means as follows:

Quote

Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case (necessity of means) the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case (necessity of precept), necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

When speaking of the "end" above we are speaking about the Beatific Vision or going to Heaven.

Necessity of precept - based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end. (The formula and water used in sacramental Baptism - sacramental Baptism cannot take place apart from the minimum formula and water. It is a necessity of precept because Jesus instituted it whereas before He did so some words spoken and water poured on the head would not do anything other than perhaps annoy the person the water was being poured on)

Quote

Contumacious refusal to enter the Church or to remain within it is mortally sinful. Any person who knows the Church to have been divinely instituted by Our Lord and yet refuses to enter it or to remain within it cannot attain eternal salvation. (Fenton regarding necessity of precept)

Necessity of means - without the necessity in question (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. (Faith = absolute necessity - sacramental Baptism = relative necessity)

Quote

No one at all can be saved unless he dies either as a member of the Church or with a genuine and sincere desire - either explicit or implicit - of entering the Church and remaining within it. (Fenton regarding the necessity of means by which one must die within the Church for salvation to be possible)

Intrinsic or absolute necessity - God can never grant salvation without the particular necessity being spoken of. There is no replacement or substitute for what is required intrinsically. A desire for that which is absolutely necessary, no matter how earnest and sincere, cannot replace or substitute for it. (Faith, Hope, Charity [Sanctifying Grace]). (Emphasis mine throughout.)

It is funny without a Pope we get self-appointed Popes who interpret and dictate Catholic teaching that is either to the "right" or to the "left" of Catholic teaching. Note: "Right" and "left" are used to appeal to our modern sense of thinking when, in reality, we only have truth or error. We have the heresy of universal salvation and an "equal and opposite heresy" of "no salvation apart from water".

We see this with Feeneyism. The teaching to the "right" of Catholic teaching tends to be more appealing to good willed traditional Catholics who are so tired being bombarded by the heresies to the "left" being taught today as Catholicism and that is how the Devil gets the rest of us who have not succuмbed to the V2 nonsense.