Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on October 02, 2009, 02:10:59 AM
-
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/desire.html (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/desire.html)
-
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/desire.html (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/desire.html)
Only for catechumens, no one else whatsoever. Show me a single Catholic source prior to 1800 that said that a non-Catholic could be saved without Baptism.
-
I often wonder of Feeney were alive today,would he be appaled at the cult-like status he has achieved.... :reporter:
-
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/desire.html (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/desire.html)
Only for catechumens, no one else whatsoever. Show me a single Catholic source prior to 1800 that said that a non-Catholic could be saved without Baptism.
So you're not a hard core feeneyite. And the sacrament of Baptism is NOT REQUIRED in EVERY case. Catechumens are NOT yet recieved the Sacrament.
-
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/desire.html (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/desire.html)
Only for catechumens, no one else whatsoever. Show me a single Catholic source prior to 1800 that said that a non-Catholic could be saved without Baptism.
I agree.
I think that Fr. Feeney said he doesn't know where unbaptised catechumens go if they die.
-
Show me a single Catholic source prior to 1800 that said that a non-Catholic could be saved without Baptism.
Can you be anything but a non-Catholic, without baptism?
-
Show me a single Catholic source prior to 1800 that said that a non-Catholic could be saved without Baptism.
Can you be anything but a non-Catholic, without baptism?
No, not a formal member of the Church (as defined in Mystici Corporis), but one can be united to the Church by supernatural Faith and Charity.
-
Show me a single Catholic source prior to 1800 that said that a non-Catholic could be saved without Baptism.
Can you be anything but a non-Catholic, without baptism?
No, not a formal member of the Church (as defined in Mystici Corporis), but one can be united to the Church by supernatural Faith and Charity.
Exactly.
-
So you're not a hard core feeneyite. And the sacrament of Baptism is NOT REQUIRED in EVERY case. Catechumens are NOT yet recieved the Sacrament.
No, but the vow is. Show me otherwise, and I will believe.
-
Show me a single Catholic source prior to 1800 that said that a non-Catholic could be saved without Baptism.
Can you be anything but a non-Catholic, without baptism?
No, not a formal member of the Church (as defined in Mystici Corporis), but one can be united to the Church by supernatural Faith and Charity.
This is heresy. It has been defined:
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html
-
Oh, and to make my position absolutely clear, I think that Pius XII was a heretic.
-
So you're not a hard core feeneyite. And the sacrament of Baptism is NOT REQUIRED in EVERY case. Catechumens are NOT yet recieved the Sacrament.
No, but the vow is. Show me otherwise, and I will believe.
Doesn't matter. The "vow" is implicit anyway. The point is that THE SACRAMENT of BAPTISM is not NOT required in EVERY case. Do you now admit this?
-
So you're not a hard core feeneyite. And the sacrament of Baptism is NOT REQUIRED in EVERY case. Catechumens are NOT yet recieved the Sacrament.
No, but the vow is. Show me otherwise, and I will believe.
Doesn't matter. The "vow" is implicit anyway. The point is that THE SACRAMENT of BAPTISM is not NOT required in EVERY case. Do you now admit this?
This is heresy, and if you had lived during the Middle Ages and said this, they would have burned you. A vow cannot be implicit, it cannot be unconscious. There are no "anonymous Christians," only Christians and non-Christians. From the Council of Trent:
Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
-
jehanne,
The point is that THE SACRAMENT of BAPTISM is not NOT required in EVERY case. Do you now admit this?
Now you know why I thought you were a female. :) No offense to any females out there, either. I knew Clare was a female...but not from her arguments. :)
-
"Jehanne" sorta looks like a girls name. Sounds like it too "Jan", "Jean" whatever.
So, DON, my man, please please please do not answer SJB question in the affirmative.
Or you will make yourself heretical.
-
There is NO supernatural Faith outside of the Church. This is bestowed IN BAPTISM. Don't make me drag out all the quotes from Trent.
-
jehanne,
The point is that THE SACRAMENT of BAPTISM is not NOT required in EVERY case. Do you now admit this?
Now you know why I thought you were a female. :) No offense to any females out there, either. I knew Clare was a female...but not from her arguments. :)
The name "Jehanne" is a French name. Actually, there are men and women who have had that name throughout history. A quick Google search will reveal who they are.
-
Don't make me drag out all the quotes from Trent.
Do it, please!
-
There is NO supernatural Faith outside of the Church.
Kind of like how there was NO supernatural Faith outside of the OT ѕуηαgσgυє?
Job ringing any bells?
-
Would you kindly cite the passages from Job that you believe support your position?
-
jehanne,
The point is that THE SACRAMENT of BAPTISM is not NOT required in EVERY case. Do you now admit this?
Now you know why I thought you were a female. :) No offense to any females out there, either. I knew Clare was a female...but not from her arguments. :)
The name "Jehanne" is a French name. Actually, there are men and women who have had that name throughout history. A quick Google search will reveal who they are.
Actually, I wasn't referring to your pseudonym...more your style of argument. Both you and CM apparently missed that. :)
-
jehanne,
The point is that THE SACRAMENT of BAPTISM is not NOT required in EVERY case. Do you now admit this?
Now you know why I thought you were a female. :) No offense to any females out there, either. I knew Clare was a female...but not from her arguments. :)
The name "Jehanne" is a French name. Actually, there are men and women who have had that name throughout history. A quick Google search will reveal who they are.
Actually, I wasn't referring to your pseudonym...more your style of argument. Both you and CM apparently missed that. :)
So, you're saying that I argue like a girl?!
-
Don't make me drag out all the quotes from Trent.
Do it, please!
the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;
In Baptism is bestowed the supernatural faith, whereby a man is justified. This is de fide.
For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity.
These are all received at once at Baptism.
For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circuмcision, availeth anything, nor uncircuмcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, catechumens beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow:
The tradition of the Apostles is that this saving faith does not exist in a catechumen previously to Baptism.
Finally, Trent teaches that no man can be justified (as you know) without the laver of regeneration or the votum for it. These are not mutually exclusive causes of justification, but both are required for justification to take place.
There is not dogmatic support for the contrary heretical opinion ANYWHERE.
-
the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;
Thanks! Sums it up nice, doesn't it?! No "implicit faith" here, eh? Quite the contrary.
-
jehanne,
The point is that THE SACRAMENT of BAPTISM is not NOT required in EVERY case. Do you now admit this?
Now you know why I thought you were a female. :) No offense to any females out there, either. I knew Clare was a female...but not from her arguments. :)
The name "Jehanne" is a French name. Actually, there are men and women who have had that name throughout history. A quick Google search will reveal who they are.
Actually, I wasn't referring to your pseudonym...more your style of argument. Both you and CM apparently missed that. :)
So, you're saying that I argue like a girl?!
Seriously, what else could I be saying.
-
jehanne,
The point is that THE SACRAMENT of BAPTISM is not NOT required in EVERY case. Do you now admit this?
Now you know why I thought you were a female. :) No offense to any females out there, either. I knew Clare was a female...but not from her arguments. :)
The name "Jehanne" is a French name. Actually, there are men and women who have had that name throughout history. A quick Google search will reveal who they are.
Actually, I wasn't referring to your pseudonym...more your style of argument. Both you and CM apparently missed that. :)
So, you're saying that I argue like a girl?!
Seriously, what else could I be saying.
Okay, fine. Fortunately, I think that the infallible decrees of the Church are clear enough, at least for me.
-
jehanne,
The point is that THE SACRAMENT of BAPTISM is not NOT required in EVERY case. Do you now admit this?
Now you know why I thought you were a female. :) No offense to any females out there, either. I knew Clare was a female...but not from her arguments. :)
The name "Jehanne" is a French name. Actually, there are men and women who have had that name throughout history. A quick Google search will reveal who they are.
Actually, I wasn't referring to your pseudonym...more your style of argument. Both you and CM apparently missed that. :)
So, you're saying that I argue like a girl?!
Seriously, what else could I be saying.
Okay, fine. Fortunately, I think that the infallible decrees of the Church are clear enough, at least for me.
Can you be sure you are infallible in understanding these decrees? It is a serious question too...could you be mistaken?
-
Can you be sure you are infallible in understanding these decrees? It is a serious question too...could you be mistaken?
Sure. From a historical point of view, absolutely not. Secular historians, even atheistic ones, virtually all acknowledge the fact that Catholics, from before the time of Saint Augustine, until well after the Reformation, believed that all non-Catholics perished in the "eternal fire." Catholic liberalism, which began in the 18th-century, introduced the theological novelty of "invincible ignorance," which is now applied to virtually all non-Catholics, by traditionalists and modernist Catholics alike. Here is but one historical example out of many:
http://smu.edu/ijas/1431trial.html
"When it was explained to her what the Church Militant meant, and [she was] admonished to believe and hold the article Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam, etc., and to submit to the Church Militant,
She answered: I believe in the Church on earth; but for my deeds and words, as I have previously said, I refer the whole matter to God, Who caused me to do what I have done.
She said also that she submits to God her Creator, Who caused her to do what she did; and refers it to Him in His own Person.
Asked if she means that she has no judge on earth, and our Holy Father the Pope is not her judge,
She replied: I will tell you nothing else. I have a good Master, Our Lord, in Whom I trust for everything, and not in any other.
She was told that if she did not wish to believe in the Church and in the article Ecclesiam Sanctam Catholicam, she would be a heretic to uphold [her views], and that she would be punished by other judges who would sentence her to be burned.
She answered: I will tell you nothing else. And [even] if I saw the fire, I should tell you what I have told you, and nothing else.
Questioned as to whether, if the General Council, that is to say our Holy Father, the Cardinals [and the rest] were here, she would be willing to submit..."
Many other historical examples exist.
-
Can you be sure you are infallible in understanding these decrees? It is a serious question too...could you be mistaken?
Sure. From a historical point of view, absolutely not. Secular historians, even atheistic ones, virtually all acknowledge the fact that Catholics, from before the time of Saint Augustine, until well after the Reformation, believed that all non-Catholics perished in the "eternal fire." Catholic liberalism, which began in the 18th-century, introduced the theological novelty of "invincible ignorance," which is now applied to virtually all non-Catholics, by traditionalists and modernist Catholics alike. Here is but one historical example out of many:
http://smu.edu/ijas/1431trial.html
"When it was explained to her what the Church Militant meant, and [she was] admonished to believe and hold the article Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam, etc., and to submit to the Church Militant,
She answered: I believe in the Church on earth; but for my deeds and words, as I have previously said, I refer the whole matter to God, Who caused me to do what I have done.
She said also that she submits to God her Creator, Who caused her to do what she did; and refers it to Him in His own Person.
Asked if she means that she has no judge on earth, and our Holy Father the Pope is not her judge,
She replied: I will tell you nothing else. I have a good Master, Our Lord, in Whom I trust for everything, and not in any other.
She was told that if she did not wish to believe in the Church and in the article Ecclesiam Sanctam Catholicam, she would be a heretic to uphold [her views], and that she would be punished by other judges who would sentence her to be burned.
She answered: I will tell you nothing else. And [even] if I saw the fire, I should tell you what I have told you, and nothing else.
Questioned as to whether, if the General Council, that is to say our Holy Father, the Cardinals [and the rest] were here, she would be willing to submit..."
Many other historical examples exist.
Invincible ignorance...or inculpable ignorance is not a theological novelty. Where are you getting this?
Can one be inculpably ignorant of a particular law? The concept is hardly "novel".
-
Can one be inculpably ignorant of a particular law? The concept is hardly "novel".
I have posted this quote from Saint Thomas over and over. Please read it:
"Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Isaiah 53:1: "Who hath believed our report?" It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.
If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22) "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin"; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as "referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ." " (Summa Theologica II II Q.10, A.1)
-
Very good.
-
Can one be inculpably ignorant of a particular law? The concept is hardly "novel".
I have posted this quote from Saint Thomas over and over. Please read it:
"Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Isaiah 53:1: "Who hath believed our report?" It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.
If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22) "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin"; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as "referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ." " (Summa Theologica II II Q.10, A.1)
I don't follow you. Supernatural Faith is required at all times and by all men. That is de fide. We are not talking about unbelievers.
-
Can one be inculpably ignorant of a particular law? The concept is hardly "novel".
I have posted this quote from Saint Thomas over and over. Please read it:
"Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Isaiah 53:1: "Who hath believed our report?" It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.
If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22) "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin"; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as "referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ." " (Summa Theologica II II Q.10, A.1)
I don't follow you. Supernatural Faith is required at all times and by all men. That is de fide. We are not talking about unbelievers.
Explicit faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the One and Only Son of God, Creator of all visible and invisible, is required of all! This is de fide catholica. Buddhists, Jews, and Muslims do not have this, which is why they will all end-up in hell, unless, "before the end of life," they come into faith with Jesus Christ and are joined to His Mystical Body, which is the Holy Roman and Apostolic Catholic Church. We can hope for salutary repentance for them, but this is only a theological possibility, not a certainty.
-
Jesus said (DRBO.org is not working) that no one goes to the Father, but by Him.......finite....
back to you Pope CM......
-
Jesus said (DRBO.org is not working) that no one goes to the Father, but by Him.......finite....
back to you Pope CM......
My and CM's views are pretty close. Bod and BoB apply only to catechumens, and no one else. This is the immemorial faith of the Church.
-
Jesus said (DRBO.org is not working) that no one goes to the Father, but by Him.......finite....
back to you Pope CM......
My and CM's views are pretty close. Bod and BoB apply only to catechumens, and no one else. This is the immemorial faith of the Church.
Then sacramental Baptism is NOT absolutely required for salvation. Supernatural Faith and Charity are sufficient in some cases.
-
back to you Pope CM......
Hey........did you makle that one uiop.........all by yourslef?
Then sacramental Baptism is NOT absolutely required for salvation. Supernatural Faith and Charity are sufficient in some cases.
Show me the dogmatic definition that supports this view, and be prepared to answer questions about it.
And if you don't or can't, then know that you are inventing your own 'dogma' outside of the Solemn Magisterium.
-
back to you Pope CM......
Hey........did you makle that one uiop.........all by yourslef?.
I can be in rare form your Holiness....... :roll-laugh2:
-
Jesus said (DRBO.org is not working) that no one goes to the Father, but by Him.......finite....
back to you Pope CM......
My and CM's views are pretty close. Bod and BoB apply only to catechumens, and no one else. This is the immemorial faith of the Church.
So, you both agree on the Baptism issues-how about the sede issues?
Do we havea valid Pope now?
if not, who was last one?
how do we get another?
are we all damned here at CI that do not hold CM's views (he has intimated as much, how abouts you??)
-
back to you Pope CM......
Hey........did you makle that one uiop.........all by yourslef?
Then sacramental Baptism is NOT absolutely required for salvation. Supernatural Faith and Charity are sufficient in some cases.
Show me the dogmatic definition that supports this view, and be prepared to answer questions about it.
And if you don't or can't, then know that you are inventing your own 'dogma' outside of the Solemn Magisterium.
actually answered many times over-you do not beleive, so no reason to go int that again....(note, there is no biblical proof that the 40th martyr on the lake was water baptized with trinitarian formula, no Mary Magdalene, no the thief on cross...)
-
There is NO supernatural Faith outside of the Church. This is bestowed IN BAPTISM. Don't make me drag out all the quotes from Trent.
Would not one have to have faith and intellect both to be drawn to the Church to then, in turn, get the baptism?????
-
There is NO supernatural Faith outside of the Church.
Kind of like how there was NO supernatural Faith outside of the OT ѕуηαgσgυє?
Job ringing any bells?
good points........Gladius, you are one Sede that can at least make a good point or generate some validity for your position...
-
Oh, and to make my position absolutely clear, I think that Pius XII was a heretic.
um......uh huh.......ok.......
-
So you're not a hard core feeneyite. And the sacrament of Baptism is NOT REQUIRED in EVERY case. Catechumens are NOT yet recieved the Sacrament.
No, but the vow is. Show me otherwise, and I will believe.
Doesn't matter. The "vow" is implicit anyway. The point is that THE SACRAMENT of BAPTISM is not NOT required in EVERY case. Do you now admit this?
This is heresy, and if you had lived during the Middle Ages and said this, they would have burned you. A vow cannot be implicit, it cannot be unconscious. There are no "anonymous Christians," only Christians and non-Christians. From the Council of Trent:
Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
it is not optional, but at times, cannot be administered.....there are always exceptions beyond a persons means......
you know, the cut and paste job is like Prots, they thump the bible and say "thats what it says, thats what it means" without going any further....very anti-intellectual and much closer to Prot-ism this Sedeism...
What Trent is saying is some were saying it is optional,therefore, will not get it or wait until it suits me....this was opinion of anabaptists and some others....did not mean those who would not help it.....again, Trent did not teach some form of double Predestination.........
-
"Jehanne" sorta looks like a girls name. Sounds like it too "Jan", "Jean" whatever.
So, DON, my man, please please please do not answer SJB question in the affirmative.
Or you will make yourself heretical.
you likely have already condemned him.........if not, give it time......your first comments are insulting to him....does not prove your sede thesis at all, but is a certain turn off if you are trying to prove something........perhaps we should delve into your real name, background,etc.......
lets keep to dicussion......I may mock you and use some snide humor, but have not gotten that personal....well,yet.....
-
Jesus said (DRBO.org is not working) that no one goes to the Father, but by Him.......finite....
back to you Pope CM......
My and CM's views are pretty close. Bod and BoB apply only to catechumens, and no one else. This is the immemorial faith of the Church.
Then sacramental Baptism is NOT absolutely required for salvation. Supernatural Faith and Charity are sufficient in some cases.
Absolutely not. The "faith" must be explicit faith in Jesus Christ. If you do not acknowledge that, I see no reason to discuss this any further with you.
-
Oh, and to make my position absolutely clear, I think that Pius XII was a heretic.
um......uh huh.......ok.......
He taught the heresy of "implicit faith"; hence, "implicit membership" in the Church. We've been through this, so I see no need to keep repeating myself. So, at this point, I am done. Last post for this thread, as we are going (once again) in circles. :light-saber:
-
Jesus said (DRBO.org is not working) that no one goes to the Father, but by Him.......finite....
back to you Pope CM......
My and CM's views are pretty close. Bod and BoB apply only to catechumens, and no one else. This is the immemorial faith of the Church.
Then sacramental Baptism is NOT absolutely required for salvation. Supernatural Faith and Charity are sufficient in some cases.
Absolutely not. The "faith" must be explicit faith in Jesus Christ. If you do not acknowledge that, I see no reason to discuss this any further with you.
Then sacramental Baptism is NOT absolutely required for salvation. Is that right?
-
Jesus said (DRBO.org is not working) that no one goes to the Father, but by Him.......finite....
back to you Pope CM......
My and CM's views are pretty close. Bod and BoB apply only to catechumens, and no one else. This is the immemorial faith of the Church.
Then sacramental Baptism is NOT absolutely required for salvation. Supernatural Faith and Charity are sufficient in some cases.
Absolutely not. The "faith" must be explicit faith in Jesus Christ. If you do not acknowledge that, I see no reason to discuss this any further with you.
Then sacramental Baptism is NOT absolutely required for salvation. Is that right?
Okay, this is it!! Sacramental Baptism is absolutely required for salvation or at least the explicit vow for it. Two and only options are available for eternal life:
1) Get validly and fruitfully baptized and die without mortal sin.
2) Have the explicit vow to do #1 and have it on your calendar/schedule, but through no fault of your own, die without being able to do it. Very rare, by the way, as one could get baptized conditionally after death.
Please note that Option #2 is not a guarantee of making it, so standard disclaimers apply. As always, be sure to read the fine print.
-
Jesus said (DRBO.org is not working) that no one goes to the Father, but by Him.......finite....
back to you Pope CM......
My and CM's views are pretty close. Bod and BoB apply only to catechumens, and no one else. This is the immemorial faith of the Church.
Then sacramental Baptism is NOT absolutely required for salvation. Supernatural Faith and Charity are sufficient in some cases.
Absolutely not. The "faith" must be explicit faith in Jesus Christ. If you do not acknowledge that, I see no reason to discuss this any further with you.
Then sacramental Baptism is NOT absolutely required for salvation. Is that right?
Okay, this is it!! Sacramental Baptism is absolutely required for salvation or at least the explicit vow for it. Two and only options are available for eternal life:
1) Get validly and fruitfully baptized and die without mortal sin.
2) Have the explicit vow to do #1 and have it on your calendar/schedule, but through no fault of your own, die without being able to do it. Very rare, by the way, as one could get baptized conditionally after death.
Please note that Option #2 is not a guarantee of making it, so standard disclaimers apply. As always, be sure to read the fine print.
What is it, jehanne?
Are you now suddenly asserting your manhood?
Sacramental Baptism is absolutely required for salvation or at least the explicit vow for it.
So the Sacrament itself IS NOT REQUIRED in all cases.
Is that right? A simple yes will suffice.
-
Ouch! My name is "Don." Now, fair's fair. Are you male or female? Besides, why bring my "manliness" into it?
Sacramental Baptism is required in all cases.
-
Ouch! My name is "Don." Now, fair's fair. Are you male or female? Besides, why bring my "manliness" into it?
Sacramental Baptism is required in all cases.
It was a joke, Don. Sorry.
Now, how can you say this? Explicit desire is NOT a Sacrament.
-
Ouch! My name is "Don." Now, fair's fair. Are you male or female? Besides, why bring my "manliness" into it?
Sacramental Baptism is required in all cases.
It was a joke, Don. Sorry.
Now, how can you say this? Explicit desire is NOT a Sacrament.
You never answered my question. The Sacrament would need to be performed after death, conditionally, or in Purgatory. Christ no doubt baptized those holy souls in the Limbo of the Just, after his death but prior to his Resurrection. The same would need to occur with a catechumen.
-
Ouch! My name is "Don." Now, fair's fair. Are you male or female? Besides, why bring my "manliness" into it?
Sacramental Baptism is required in all cases.
It was a joke, Don. Sorry.
Now, how can you say this? Explicit desire is NOT a Sacrament.
You never answered my question. The Sacrament would need to be performed after death, conditionally, or in Purgatory. Christ no doubt baptized those holy souls in the Limbo of the Just, after his death but prior to his Resurrection. The same would need to occur with a catechumen.
Do you have a source for this? A Sacrament after death administered in purgatory?
-
Come on Don, don't you see how baptism of desire forces you to avoid answering questions straight up? It's a heresy. Let it go.
-
Come on Don, don't you see how baptism of desire forces you to avoid answering questions straight up? It's a heresy. Let it go.
SJB is a heretic, and I am done talking with her.
-
Come on Don, don't you see how baptism of desire forces you to avoid answering questions straight up? It's a heresy. Let it go.
SJB is a heretic, and I am done talking with him.
So now, ladies and gentleman, if any have followed this conversation, which I doubt; is it the Sedevacantist or the Feeneyite who gives traditionalists a bad name?
Pius XII was a heretic, Pius XI was, Benedict XV was...St. Thomas was...until they find quoting him useful. You fellows are doing your best to make this place a joke.
-
SJB, I never said Aquinas was a heretic. That judgment has been made in the negative by the external forum, by way of his canonization. That doesn't mean that he was right about all of his teachings, though.
And as for the others, I don't yet know of any heresies by Pius XI, though he was subject to the publicly heretical Benedict XV, as was Pius XII, who was also publicly heretical. Their works speak for themselves, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
-
SJB are you a boy or a girl.
-
SJB, I never said Aquinas was a heretic. That judgment has been made in the negative by the external forum, by way of his canonization. That doesn't mean that he was right about all of his teachings, though.
And as for the others, I don't yet know of any heresies by Pius XI, though he was subject to the publicly heretical Benedict XV, as was Pius XII, who was also publicly heretical. Their works speak for themselves, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
So now, ladies and gentleman, if any have followed this conversation, which I doubt; is it the Sedevacantist or the Feeneyite who gives traditionalists a bad name?
-
SJB are you a boy or a girl.
I think it was much funnier when I did this. You and Jehanne didn't even get it.
-
I was being serious. I don't know the answer. I don't know anything at all about you, really, other than that you are a sede and BoD heretic.
-
I was being serious. I don't know the answer. I don't know anything at all about you, really, other than that you are a sede and BoD heretic.
Why do you need to know any more?
The J in SJB stands for John...not Jehanne...but John.
-
I don't John. Nice to meet you. I hope you convert.
-
I don't John. Nice to meet you. I hope you convert.
Convert to what? Your non-Catholic rule of Faith?
This is all about the Catholic rule of Faith. You have chosen a different rule...because of the crisis, no doubt. But you are still wrong.
-
Some think men (which is good) can think themselves outside the Church (which is bad). This is the result of not having a Pope for 51 years. Hopefully those who reject the doctrine of BOB/D will be saved by the BOD they do not believe in due to what is hopefully their sincere beliefs.
To disagree with the moral unity of all the saints, Fathers, Doctors, Popes, theologians and the council who spoke to the isssue is off the charts ludicrous and putting yourself on pretty high ground.
You have gone too far. Reign it back in before it is too late.
BTW - Catholic Martyr - I had made a comment that our Lady is indeed co-redemtrix, not of her own power but because Christ willed it so and gave her the opportunity to help redeem us in a secondary and subordinate way by offering her sufferings during the crucifixion with Christ for our salvation.
Do you also deny that she is the mediatrix of all graces, i.e. that she sends us the graces that Christ won for us. She is not the first cause of those graces but she does mediate them to us. Not because Christ could not do it Himself but because he willed a pure human being to play a role, the same holds true for the co-redemtrix. Not as an equal but in a secondary and supportive way. This humiliates the devil further that a human being, a woman playes such an integral role in his defeat.
We are all co-redeemers in fact if Saint Paul is correct that he makes up for the suffering that is lacking in the sufferings of Christ. Not because what Christ did was not enough but because he wants us to play a role in our and each others salvation through interceding prayer among other things. We can offer our sufferings for the sake of other people's souls. This is co-redemption but not misunderstood as you misunderstand the teaching of BOB/D, i.e. that our acts are necessary apart from Christ, the source and cause of all grace for our salvation.
Benedict 15 did not claim that at all. He merely claims that our Lady, after Christ, played a primary role in our redemption but submitting to His will more perfectly than anyone else.
-
Another saddo feenyite is making an embarrassing case against Fr. Feeney over at AQ on the Shroud of Turin thread.
Dang, it's almost unbelievable.
-
Benedict XV's words are objectively heretical. He says that "she together with Christ redeemed the human race".
Mary's role is NOT co-redemption. There is ONE mediator of redemption, Jesus Christ, our SOLE Redeemer, and only he can be said to have redeemed.
Christ redeemed us by His sufferings, the Most Holy Virgin' suffering was meritorious glory as well as of grace, whereby those redeemed may be assisted in attaining salvation, but she did not redeem anyone.
It is INTERCESSION of which you speak. The Blessed Virgin Mary does what you say she does, because she is our Mediatrix of intercession and our Co-Redemptrix by participation in the redemption, playing a subordinate and COMPLETELY DIFFERENT role, such as that of providing flesh for the Redeemer.
Catholics are all mediators of INTERCESSION. Christ's merit, whereby he paid infinitely more than the necessary price to redeem humankind once and for all, gave us power to merit the benefits of this redemption both for ourselves and for others; this is not co-redemption but intercession. He already paid the price. We intercede with God in order to receive some of this infinite value for ourselves, and we are given the liberty to give it up for others. But we cannot be said to have paid the price for anyone's redemption, only to be meagerly working off a debt that God is merciful enough to call even, despite that we could never pat it back in full. I believe this is what you mean, but you are using the wrong terminology.
Do you agree with my explanation?
If not, please explain clearly.
-
Pope Benedict's words are not objectively heretical, unless you want to condemn every Saint and Pope listed in this article as a heretic also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix)
-
Catholic Martyr,
You are indeed a clear and logical thinker which is why I admire you. But logic does not always get it right.
When it rains the driveway gets wet.
The driveway is wet so it must have rained.
No, I just finished washing my car.
Co comes from the Latin word "cuм" which means "with" not "equal too".
God creates man but he certainly uses our help. Not because He could not create man without our help but because He chooses to "need" our help. Our we not "co-creaters" when offspring results through procreation?
Our Lady, indeed, helped our Lord redeem the world as she suffered together "with" our Lord as He was redeeming the world.
It was through a man and a women that the world fell and it is through the New Adam and the New Eve that it was redeemed. Christ chose to use Mary's suffering during to crucifixion to be a part of the redemption of mankind. She redeemed the world with Christ in a secondary and subordinate role, not as the primary or first cause but she assisted none-the-less and in a unique and singular way.
-
When it rains the driveway gets wet.
The driveway is wet so it must have rained.
Did you look at the road and the other driveways before coming to that conclusion?
Pope Benedict's words are not objectively heretical, unless you want to condemn every Saint and Pope listed in this article as a heretic also...
Stevus, really you need to pay much better attention to the issues. You didn't even read the article you posted, did you? How many Saints does it list?
POPE Leo XIII calls her Co-Redemptrix, which does not contradict the decree of Trent, which states that Jesus Christ ALONE is our redeemer (as I have relayed in my blog (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/07/blessed-virgin-mary-co-redeemer.html)).
POPE Pius X states that she merits for us de congruo (merit gratuitously given) what Christ HAD ALREADY merited de condigno (merit owed in strict justice for the work done). This is exactly what I say.
The remaining 'popes' I don't even care what they said, because as you know I have written them off as antipopes, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO BoD. Even if I believed in the BoD heresy, I would still reject Benedict XV as a heretic.
LoT, the prefix "co" also means "subordinate". The Blessed Virgin was subordinate to Christ in his work of redemption, and played a completely different role.
She redeemed the world with Christ
I'm afraid that your explanation is heretical and contrary to the following decree:
...Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer...
To say that Mary is our redeemer in any way is heretical, even if it is with and subordinated to Christ. It is not heretical to say that she merits (de congruo) grace and salvation for us, nor is it heretical to say that she was co-Redemptrix, provided we do not believe this means she performed the same task, but that she was subordinate to God in His task, while playing an altogether different role.
She was a co-worker with a different job.
-
Stevus, really you need to pay much better attention to the issues. You didn't even read the article you posted, did you? How many Saints does it list?
Ever heard of Saint Iraneus or Saint Pius X? And I'm the one who didn't read the article?
I've just linked to a website that demonstrates Saints and Popes have believed the same "heresy" you accuse the current Pope of. They are all saying the same thing.
-
I never said I read the article. I did a keyword search for Saints, and found none. But I see that St. Irenaeus is mentioned (saint was not before his name".
I'd like to study his writings on the matter before I comment further.
-
Hardly surprising (http://www.newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q=irenaeus+mary+cause+of+salvation+fiat&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A9#525) that I cannot find any writings confirming that St. Irenaeus ever said any such things.
If you know of something please direct me to it, otherwise, I don't buy it for a moment.
-
When it rains the driveway gets wet.
The driveway is wet so it must have rained.
Did you look at the road and the other driveways before coming to that conclusion?
Pope Benedict's words are not objectively heretical, unless you want to condemn every Saint and Pope listed in this article as a heretic also...
Stevus, really you need to pay much better attention to the issues. You didn't even read the article you posted, did you? How many Saints does it list?
POPE Leo XIII calls her Co-Redemptrix, which does not contradict the decree of Trent, which states that Jesus Christ ALONE is our redeemer (as I have relayed in my blog (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/07/blessed-virgin-mary-co-redeemer.html)).
POPE Pius X states that she merits for us de congruo (merit gratuitously given) what Christ HAD ALREADY merited de condigno (merit owed in strict justice for the work done). This is exactly what I say.
The remaining 'popes' I don't even care what they said, because as you know I have written them off as antipopes, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO BoD. Even if I believed in the BoD heresy, I would still reject Benedict XV as a heretic.
LoT, the prefix "co" also means "subordinate". The Blessed Virgin was subordinate to Christ in his work of redemption, and played a completely different role.
She redeemed the world with Christ
I'm afraid that your explanation is heretical and contrary to the following decree:
...Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer...
To say that Mary is our redeemer in any way is heretical, even if it is with and subordinated to Christ. It is not heretical to say that she merits (de congruo) grace and salvation for us, nor is it heretical to say that she was co-Redemptrix, provided we do not believe this means she performed the same task, but that she was subordinate to God in His task, while playing an altogether different role.
She was a co-worker with a different job.
So you admit she is a co-redemtrix. Isn't that all Benedict XV said. She didn't perform the same task as if she did it instead of Him. She did it with him in a secondary and subordinate way and would not have been able to help Him in this task if He did not Will or allow her to do so. He certainly did not need her help but willed to need her help. I am not sure we really disagree here but I am also highly doubtful that Benedict XV disagreed either.
-
So you admit she is a co-redemtrix. Isn't that all Benedict XV said.
No. He didn't say anything of the sort. POPE Leo XIII is the one who used the term co-Redemptrix, and it has an orthodox understanding - that the Most Holy Virgin was a subordinate in Christ's work of redemption, but not by redeeming, but by providing the human flesh He would assume, and then interceding on behalf of those, for whom she would merit (de congruo) grace, which had already been paid for by Christ.
And she is not a co-redemptrix, she is THE co-Redemptrix. No other person was a subordinate participator with Him in His role in the unique way in which she was.
She didn't perform the same task as if she did it instead of Him. She did it with him in a secondary and subordinate way and would not have been able to help Him in this task if He did not Will or allow her to do so. He certainly did not need her help but willed to need her help. I am not sure we really disagree here but I am also highly doubtful that Benedict XV disagreed either.
Regardless of what his subjective beliefs were, his words took the title given to the Most Holy Virgin by Pope Leo into an objectively heretical direction, saying that she, together with Christ, redeemed mankind. This wording means we have TWO REDEEMERS, plain and simple, even if Christ is the principal Redeemer without Whom, there could be no Redemption. But this is still wrong, and contrary to Trent, which says Jesus Christ alone is our Redeemer.
He was objectively heretical on this and other points, and he was an active part in the dismantling of the Sodalitium Pianum, which was THE anti-Modernist league in the Catholic Church, dedicated to uphold the rigorous anti-heresy standards of the late Pope Pius X. He promulgated bad 'laws' in his heretical Code. Antipope.
Unless, of course, you're like the Dimonds, and you believe that a pope can PUBLICLY teach material heresy, and remain pope, despite never retracting. The question then becomes, how many material heresies until he ceases to be pope? One? Five? One hundred and five?
I hope you convert.
Convert to what? Your non-Catholic rule of Faith?
This is all about the Catholic rule of Faith. You have chosen a different rule...because of the crisis, no doubt. But you are still wrong.
That's a laugh. Here's my rule:
ex cathedra[/i],]Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding...
...For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles...
...Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
Do you not follow this rule? Do you not tremble at the consequences for rejecting this rule?
-
So it seems it's not my rule after all...
-
That's a laugh. Here's my rule:
Except that's not a rule of Faith. You seem to have trouble grasping some very simple concepts.
-
That's a laugh. Here's my rule:
Except that's not a rule of Faith. You seem to have trouble grasping some very simple concepts.
You are a name-caller, SJB. You act like whoever disagrees with whatever you have to say is not following "the rule of Faith." You've presented your case, and I am simply not convinced. I could cite a number of atheistic, Protestant, Jєωιѕн, and Catholic, etc., scholars who are not convinced, either. The Church, historically, taught the damnation of all non-Catholics. You might as well as say that blacks had equal rights as those of whites in the Antebellum American South.
-
-
The Church, historically, taught the damnation of all non-Catholics.
Those outside the Church, when they die, are damned. This is NOT equal to what you said above. You think it is...but it is not.
-
The Church, historically, taught the damnation of all non-Catholics.
Those outside the Church, when they die, are damned. This is NOT equal to what you said above. You think it is...but it is not.
If they are inside the Church when they die, then they are Catholic. QED. Other than that, I agree with your statement 100%!
-
The Church, historically, taught the damnation of all non-Catholics.
Those outside the Church, when they die, are damned. This is NOT equal to what you said above. You think it is...but it is not.
If they are inside the Church when they die, then they are Catholic.
They die WITHIN the Church, with true supernatural Faith...nowhere does it say they became MEMBERS before their death. If someone dies without supernatural Faith, they are damned. If they die within the Church, they can be saved.
-
The Church, historically, taught the damnation of all non-Catholics.
Those outside the Church, when they die, are damned. This is NOT equal to what you said above. You think it is...but it is not.
If they are inside the Church when they die, then they are Catholic.
They die WITHIN the Church, with true supernatural Faith...nowhere does it say they became MEMBERS before their death. If someone dies without supernatural Faith, they are damned. If they die within the Church, they can be saved.
It they have explicit faith in Jesus Christ, the vow for sacramental Baptism, and submission to the Roman Pontiff, sure, then they are Catholic, every bit as you or me (and yes, I do profess all those things), and they will go straight from being part of the Church Militant to the Church Suffering, as most of us (myself included) will end-up, but like us (I hope!), they will be part of the Church Triumphant, eventually. So, they are every bit as members of the One True Church as anybody who has the name 'Catholic.'
On the other hand, if they are lacking one or more of the above attributes, then, no, I would say, based upon the Tradition of the Church, they are lost for Eternity. As always, salutary repentance is an option. There is, however, only one Heaven, not Buddhist, not Hindu, not Islamic, and not Jєωιѕн, but only one, where Jesus Christ, the One and Only Son of God, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, will rule and reigneth forever and forever.
We've been through this enough, so the last word is (if you want it) yours. This will be my last post on this topic for quite some time. Sometimes, people just have to "agree to disagree."
-
That's a laugh. Here's my rule:
Except that's not a rule of Faith. You seem to have trouble grasping some very simple concepts.
The concept I grasp is that you claim to follow the same rule I do, which is the infallible teaching office of Holy Church.
I also grasp the concept that because you disagree with the positions I hold as a result of holding to this rule, which is THE rule, you fallaciously imply that I hold a different rule than the correct one, and you demonstrate your contempt for the correct rule by asserting that the positions, which necessarily follow from adherence to it, are wrong.