Author Topic: The Council of Florence and Baptism of Desire. (Read 19611 times)

bowler · « **Reply #225 on:** January 16, 2014, 05:22:02 PM »

Quote

Bowler said: Do we have to read a book to know what you believe? Just answer Gooch's questions are you capable of that? Honestly, all you Heroin BODers are the same, you are always hiding your real belief because you know how ridiculous it reads.

I believe that the only way one can be saved is by dying a sacramentally baptized Catholic in a state of grace ( a Catholic who believes in the Incarnation and the Trinity, and loves the Blessed Mother)? That is Bowler's position. You see how easy it is to explain! ....
Speak clearly like a man, not like all these Heroin BOD rats in the shadows!

Quote from: Ambrose

No, Bowler, I am not an "obscurist.". I have been very clear with you. You have an agenda, that is why nothing convinces you.

I told you that I believe the explanation as given by Msgr. Fenton is his magnificent well docuмented book that includes all up to date teaching of the Holy See.

What is it that you want from me, to write a 200 page answer for you? It's already written in Fenton's book. I will say exactly as he says.

I posted on the library forum a much easier article for those who can spare one hour to learn about this, but apparently that is too much for you. How many hours do you spend reading Dimond and SBC propaganda?

You are not a straight shooter, that's obvious to anyone. I give you a sentence explanation of my belief, you tell me to read Fenton.

Ambrose · « **Reply #226 on:** January 16, 2014, 07:14:52 PM »

Bowler,

I have answered answered you over and over. I have written thousands of words on here on this subject and you still are confused. Read the book!

I have clearly and explicitly stated on here what I believe, but you remain confused. Since you can't comprehend me, I am telling you that I believe exactly what Msgr. Fenton explains in his book and numerous articles on this issue.

If you can't afford the book, read the article I posted, it's not as in depth as the book, but it will only take you an hour to read, and I am saying that I believe exactly what Fenton explains.

bowler · « **Reply #227 on:** January 16, 2014, 07:25:05 PM »

Quote

Bowler said: In the CI thread entitled "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written" ( http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Quotes-that-BODers-Say-Must-Not-be-Understood-as-Written ) I posted 4 pages of clear dogmatic decrees which the Orwellian double-think Heroin BODers here on CI say are not to be understood as they are written. FOUR PAGES of just quotes!

I ask, is it possible to reason with any of these people to whom words have no meaning? After all, if to them, ALL those CLEARLY WORDED DOGMATIC decrees do not mean what they say, then how can we convince them of anything? Words have no meaning to these people.

Amdro,

It is impossible to reason with you, words have no meaning. Even in something so simple as my spelling out my belief in one sentence and asking to do the same, you still keep telling me to read a book to find out what you believe. This shows that your mind does not work like a normal human being. There is no point in asking you anything anymore. I'll just post for others in third person.

Ambrose · « **Reply #228 on:** January 16, 2014, 07:35:02 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote
Bowler said: In the CI thread entitled "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written" ( http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Quotes-that-BODers-Say-Must-Not-be-Understood-as-Written ) I posted 4 pages of clear dogmatic decrees which the Orwellian double-think Heroin BODers here on CI say are not to be understood as they are written. FOUR PAGES of just quotes!

I ask, is it possible to reason with any of these people to whom words have no meaning? After all, if to them, ALL those CLEARLY WORDED DOGMATIC decrees do not mean what they say, then how can we convince them of anything? Words have no meaning to these people.

Amdro,

It is impossible to reason with you, words have no meaning. Even in something so simple as my spelling out my belief in one sentence and asking to do the same, you still keep telling me to read a book to find out what you believe. This shows that your mind does not work like a normal human being. There is no point in asking you anything anymore. I'll just post for others in third person.

No, I have told you and others on here what I believe over and over again, but you just can't comprehend it. The problem is with you.

Are you afraid to read an article from an approved theologian? Why so much resistance?

If you think I am evading, ask me a specific question on what you are not understanding of what I have written. I will answer you, but so you know, there will be no difference between what I say and what Msgr. Fenton has written.

No more games, ask a specific question, or stop accusing me of evading.

bowler · « **Reply #229 on:** January 16, 2014, 07:42:04 PM »

The Council of Florence and Baptism of Desire.

Quote from: bowler

In the CI thread entitled "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written" ( http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Quotes-that-BODers-Say-Must-Not-be-Understood-as-Written ) I posted 4 pages of clear dogmatic decrees which the Orwellian double-think Heroin BODers here on CI say are not to be understood as they are written. FOUR PAGES of just quotes!

I ask, is it possible to reason with any of these people to whom words have no meaning? After all, if to them, ALL those CLEARLY WORDED DOGMATIC decrees do not mean what they say, then how can we convince them of anything? Words have no meaning to these people.

Here's just one example:

Clear Dogma (infallible)

Quote
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

A Heroin BODer (fallible opinion) mind:

Quote
From LaGrange's book Life Everlasting, under the chapter "The Number of The Elect" is the following:

..."Further, among non-Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of promitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even for pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God. These, as Pius IX says, can arrive at salvation. God never commands the impossible. To him who does what is in his power God does not refuse grace."

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #230 on:** January 16, 2014, 07:45:03 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

[.

No, I have told you and others on here what I believe over and over again, but you just can't comprehend it. The problem is with you.

Are you afraid to read an article from an approved theologian? Why so much resistance?

If you think I am evading, ask me a specific question on what you are not understanding of what I have written. I will answer you, but so you know, there will be no difference between what I say and what Msgr. Fenton has written.

No more games, ask a specific question, or stop accusing me of evading.[/quote]

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 10:
“Furthermore, they [the Fathers of the Fourth Lateran Council] knew that there
is no such thing as real membership in the Church militant of the New
Testament, the true and only ecclesia fidelium [Church of the faithful], apart
from the reception of the sacrament of baptism.”4

is he not contradicting the following?

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to
be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver
of regeneration and profess the true faith.”453

Ambrose · « **Reply #231 on:** January 16, 2014, 07:49:18 PM »

Gooch,

What do you think the contradiction is? Both statements state that in order for one to be a member of the Church, one must be baptized.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #232 on:** January 16, 2014, 07:55:14 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Gooch,

there is no such thing as real membership in the Church militant

or
only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver
of regeneration

1 of these statements are incorrect

Ambrose · « **Reply #233 on:** January 16, 2014, 09:20:07 PM »

Did you read the rest of Msgr. Fenton's sentence, "...apart from the reception of the sacrament of baptism."

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #234 on:** January 16, 2014, 09:28:17 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Did you read the rest of Msgr. Fenton's sentence, "...apart from the reception of the sacrament of baptism."

yes

so he admiits that one cannot be a “member” of the Catholic Church without having received the Sacrament of Baptism, but he also asserts that being “inside/within” the Church (which everyone must to be
saved) is not the same thing as being a “member.”

Can you show me when the Catholic Church has ever taught that non‐members as being inside the Catholic Church?

Ambrose · « **Reply #235 on:** January 16, 2014, 09:31:06 PM »

Quote from: gooch

Quote from: Ambrose
Did you read the rest of Msgr. Fenton's sentence, "...apart from the reception of the sacrament of baptism."

yes

so he admiits that one cannot be a “member” of the Catholic Church without having received the Sacrament of Baptism, but he also asserts that being “inside/within” the Church (which everyone must to be
saved) is not the same thing as being a “member.”

Can you show me when the Catholic Church has ever taught that non‐members as being inside the Catholic Church?

Well, then you must see there is no contradiction, both statements say the same thing: no Baptism = no membership.

Are we in agreement with this point? If yes, then I will move to your next point.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #236 on:** January 16, 2014, 09:35:38 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: gooch
Quote from: Ambrose
Did you read the rest of Msgr. Fenton's sentence, "...apart from the reception of the sacrament of baptism."

yes

so he admiits that one cannot be a “member” of the Catholic Church without having received the Sacrament of Baptism, but he also asserts that being “inside/within” the Church (which everyone must to be
saved) is not the same thing as being a “member.”

Can you show me when the Catholic Church has ever taught that non‐members as being inside the Catholic Church?

Well, then you must see there is no contradiction, both statements say the same thing: no Baptism = no membership.

Are we in agreement with this point? If yes, then I will move to your next point.

no baptism = no membership ..yes
no baptism = inside the church...no

bowler · « **Reply #237 on:** January 16, 2014, 09:48:12 PM »

Fenton = Judas Goat to lead sheep to slaughter into Vatican II Ecuмenism and religious liberty revolution

Ambrose · « **Reply #238 on:** January 16, 2014, 09:52:51 PM »

Quote from: gooch

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: gooch
Quote from: Ambrose
Did you read the rest of Msgr. Fenton's sentence, "...apart from the reception of the sacrament of baptism."

yes

so he admiits that one cannot be a “member” of the Catholic Church without having received the Sacrament of Baptism, but he also asserts that being “inside/within” the Church (which everyone must to be
saved) is not the same thing as being a “member.”

Can you show me when the Catholic Church has ever taught that non‐members as being inside the Catholic Church?

Well, then you must see there is no contradiction, both statements say the same thing: no Baptism = no membership.

Are we in agreement with this point? If yes, then I will move to your next point.

no baptism = no membership ..yes
no baptism = inside the church...no

I am happy that we at least settled the fact that the two statements are not contradictory.

Now, to the next point, you assert "no baptism = inside the church...no." On what authority do you make this assertion? What Pope, Doctor or theologian ever said this?

Ambrose · « **Reply #239 on:** January 16, 2014, 09:55:46 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Fenton = Judas Goat to lead sheep to slaughter into Vatican II Ecuмenism and religious liberty revolution

You should live in fear of God for mocking his servant. A beloved priest who loved God and His holy Church.