Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Centroamerica on June 19, 2016, 01:28:28 PM
-
I wanted to create a poll to see what the majority of Catholics believe regarding the private revelations of God the Father to Saint Catherine of Sienna. If you have read this classic work, please take the poll. Thanks.
Please comment about your vote.
-
This isn't worded well and should be corrected. I meant this option to be for those who would argue that such a great saint would not lie about this revelation, so the work must be believed, especially if one considers that canonizations before V2 were always considered to be infallible. In other words, you believe it is true and also that to doubt it touches on papal fallibilty making it binding.
"To choose to not believe that the Dialogue was received by a private revelation to Saint Catherine of Sienna means to say that the canonized saint lied about her revelation and committed a grave act of deception."
-
I just voted on this poll. I have been using the Dialogue for mental prayer on weekdays. I haven't read the entire thing but most of it. I voted that I believe it is true and to some point binding because if you claim it isn't true you accuse a canonized saint of a grave sin. (That was the third, poorly worded option). I still believe it is private revelation, but being the work of a canonized saint calling upon papal infallibility gives it a binding nature (unless you would make some silly claim like that it was fraudulently attributed to her.)
I guess the options could be a little better.
-
centroamerica - you are getting ahead of yourself. The real question is whether pre v2 canonizations are infallible. Canon Hesse says he personally believes that they are, but that the church does not dogmatically teach it. I respect that answer. However, in my case, I do not believe that pre v2 canonizations are infallible. I don't mean to derail your thread, but you are pivoting on unstable ground. Because, it is not a decided subject.
-
centroamerica - you are getting ahead of yourself. The real question is whether pre v2 canonizations are infallible. Canon Hesse says he personally believes that they are, but that the church does not dogmatically teach it. I respect that answer. However, in my case, I do not believe that pre v2 canonizations are infallible. I don't mean to derail your thread, but you are pivoting on unstable ground. Because, it is not a decided subject.
I appreciate your post, and I agree with Canon Hesse. I guess that if one chooses to believe that Saint Catherine of Siena were not truly a saint, there would be no definitive argument. The question remains: Would anyone accuse the saint of fabricating a fraudulent work such as this?
-
No, a canonized saint could not have lied about so grave a matter. Yes, canonizations are infallible. No, that is not dogma in the strict sense but it's at least proximate to faith. To deny it would be an extremely grave sin against the faith, just not heresy proper. Heresy proper severs from membership in the Church. So to deny this would be a mortal sin against the faith though it would not strictly put you outside the Church.
So, no, she did not lie. Nevertheless, it can sometimes happen that what comes from a visionary's own mind crosses over into what comes from God ... without any prejudice against the person's sanctity. So one might question the authenticity of the Dialogues or at least some parts of them without necessarily having to accuse the visionary of mendacity.
So until such a time as the Church were to definitively rule on these works, only God knows for sure how authentic they are.
-
You pose a false dilemma: either these Dialogues are truly from God or the St. Catherine lied. Thus I cannot vote in your poll as currently worded.
-
No, a canonized saint could not have lied about so grave a matter. Yes, canonizations are infallible. No, that is not dogma in the strict sense but it's at least proximate to faith. To deny it would be an extremely grave sin against the faith...
Waiting for the spin on this is like waiting for Obama to blame guns...
[/color]
Where did the soul know of this her dignity, in being kneaded and united with the Blood of the Lamb, receiving the grace in Holy Baptism, in virtue of the Blood? In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: 'Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?' And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking. But let no one be so mad as so to arrange his deeds, that, in the hope of receiving it, he puts off confessing until the last extremity of death, when he may not be able to do so. In which case, it is not at all certain that I shall not say to him, in My Divine Justice: 'You did not remember Me in the time of your life, when you could, now will I not remember you in your death.'
"You see then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite. This is in virtue of the infinite Divine nature, united with the finite human nature, which human nature endures pain in Me, the Word, clothed with your humanity. But because the one nature is steeped in and united with the other, the Eternal Deity drew to Himself the pain, which I suffered with so much fire and love.
-
Here is canon hesse talking about the possibility of saints who may not be saints - minute 112:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhwrfoWIXsY
In response to canon hesse's suspicion, yes, the pope has keys. But, Christ also provides another instrument. Recall the parable of the cockle and the good seed. Recall the parable of the marriage feast.
-
No, a canonized saint could not have lied about so grave a matter.
Never heard of St. Catherine of Sienna's "Dialogue". What grave error did she say?
-
No, a canonized saint could not have lied about so grave a matter.
Never heard of St. Catherine of Sienna's "Dialogue". What grave error did she say?
New to the Catholic Church? Welcome home if you are. If you're not (or even if you are), you should know that you have an obligation to continue to read about your Faith well after Catechism classes.
-
No, a canonized saint could not have lied about so grave a matter.
Never heard of St. Catherine of Sienna's "Dialogue". What grave error did she say?
I have $5000+ library on the subject of the Catholic Faith, all traditional and most pre-1900's and maybe 3-5 books are Novus Ordo conservative (which I didn't read past one chapter).
This "Dialogue" is private revelation, not something I am attracted to.
-
No, a canonized saint could not have lied about so grave a matter.
Never heard of St. Catherine of Sienna's "Dialogue". What grave error did she say?
I have $5000+ library on the subject of the Catholic Faith, all traditional and most pre-1900's and maybe 3-5 books are Novus Ordo conservative (which I didn't read past one chapter).
This "Dialogue" is private revelation, not something I am attracted to.
Especially since it came from a woman, Heavens to Betsy!
-
Bishop Faure recommended St. Catherine of Siena's the Dialogue to me in a confession in Holy Week of 2014 back when he was a priest.
-
No, a canonized saint could not have lied about so grave a matter. Yes, canonizations are infallible. No, that is not dogma in the strict sense but it's at least proximate to faith. To deny it would be an extremely grave sin against the faith...
Waiting for the spin on this is like waiting for Obama to blame guns...
[/color]
Where did the soul know of this her dignity, in being kneaded and united with the Blood of the Lamb, receiving the grace in Holy Baptism, in virtue of the Blood? In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: 'Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?' And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking. But let no one be so mad as so to arrange his deeds, that, in the hope of receiving it, he puts off confessing until the last extremity of death, when he may not be able to do so. In which case, it is not at all certain that I shall not say to him, in My Divine Justice: 'You did not remember Me in the time of your life, when you could, now will I not remember you in your death.'
"You see then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite. This is in virtue of the infinite Divine nature, united with the finite human nature, which human nature endures pain in Me, the Word, clothed with your humanity. But because the one nature is steeped in and united with the other, the Eternal Deity drew to Himself the pain, which I suffered with so much fire and love.
This is where Feeneyism and rejecting the teaching of the Church leads you to: absurdity and insanity.
Once you embrace the error that you can pick and choose what to believe in (sounds like Protestantism!) and go against the common teaching of theologians, you end up in absurdities such as this one.
You reject BOD, a Catholic teaching, and now you have found a saint that teaches it in private revelation, so you're forced to choose between your false dilemma.
Well guess what? Saint Bridget of Sweden also teaches BOD in her revelations.
Will you also reject hers?
You also subscribe to the error of accepting only infallible things, and thinking highly of Hesse.
You asked Last Tradican if he's new to the Church and told him to read up on Catholicism.
The irony!
-
Bishop Faure recommended St. Catherine of Siena's the Dialogue to me in a confession in Holy Week of 2014 back when he was a priest.
Why would you take his advice if he's not a Feeneyite?
-
Bishop Faure recommended St. Catherine of Siena's the Dialogue to me in a confession in Holy Week of 2014 back when he was a priest.
Why would you take his advice if he's not a Feeneyite?
So, you're accusing me of being a Feenyite? Really?
-
Bishop Faure recommended St. Catherine of Siena's the Dialogue to me in a confession in Holy Week of 2014 back when he was a priest.
Why would you take his advice if he's not a Feeneyite?
So, you're accusing me of being a Feenyite? Really?
:roll-laugh2:
I read this thread -- on 3 hours sleep -- and got the exact opposite impression.
The reading comprehension of some individuals is downright pathetic.
I think some people need to do more reading and less watching (tv, movies, videos).
-
Bishop Faure recommended St. Catherine of Siena's the Dialogue to me in a confession in Holy Week of 2014 back when he was a priest.
Why would you take his advice if he's not a Feeneyite?
So, you're accusing me of being a Feenyite? Really?
:roll-laugh2:
I read this thread -- on 3 hours sleep -- and got the exact opposite impression.
The reading comprehension of some individuals is downright pathetic.
I think some people need to do more reading and less watching (tv, movies, videos).
Right!
-
Where did the soul know of this her dignity, in being kneaded and united with the Blood of the Lamb, receiving the grace in Holy Baptism, in virtue of the Blood? In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: 'Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?' And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking. But let no one be so mad as so to arrange his deeds, that, in the hope of receiving it, he puts off confessing until the last extremity of death, when he may not be able to do so. In which case, it is not at all certain that I shall not say to him, in My Divine Justice: 'You did not remember Me in the time of your life, when you could, now will I not remember you in your death.'
"You see then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite. This is in virtue of the infinite Divine nature, united with the finite human nature, which human nature endures pain in Me, the Word, clothed with your humanity. But because the one nature is steeped in and united with the other, the Eternal Deity drew to Himself the pain, which I suffered with so much fire and love.
We have here a private revelation teaching what is precisely called explicit baptism of desire, baptism of blood, the sacrament of confession, and a perfect act of contrition (which as Trent teaches, requires that the person desire to go to confession to a priest, as it says above "requires with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers").
Any arguments on those observations?
-
Bishop Faure recommended St. Catherine of Siena's the Dialogue to me in a confession in Holy Week of 2014 back when he was a priest.
Why would you take his advice if he's not a Feeneyite?
So, you're accusing me of being a Feenyite? Really?
I think he got confused between my post and yours; mine was nested in yours.
-
Where did the soul know of this her dignity, in being kneaded and united with the Blood of the Lamb, receiving the grace in Holy Baptism, in virtue of the Blood? In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: 'Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?' And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking. But let no one be so mad as so to arrange his deeds, that, in the hope of receiving it, he puts off confessing until the last extremity of death, when he may not be able to do so. In which case, it is not at all certain that I shall not say to him, in My Divine Justice: 'You did not remember Me in the time of your life, when you could, now will I not remember you in your death.'
"You see then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite. This is in virtue of the infinite Divine nature, united with the finite human nature, which human nature endures pain in Me, the Word, clothed with your humanity. But because the one nature is steeped in and united with the other, the Eternal Deity drew to Himself the pain, which I suffered with so much fire and love.
We have here a private revelation teaching what is precisely called explicit baptism of desire, baptism of blood, the sacrament of confession, and a perfect act of contrition (which as Trent teaches, requires that the person desire to go to confession to a priest, as it says above "requires with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers").
Any arguments on those observation?
Just to clarify for those with what Matthew rightly pointed out as being less than average reading skills, I most certainly believe that the Dialogue of Saint Catherine is legitimate, I read the Dialogue most days lately in mental prayer, and I pray to Saint Catherine everyday. Regarding Baptism of Desire, I have always believed it to be Catholic dogma.
Thanks.
-
Bishop Faure recommended St. Catherine of Siena's the Dialogue to me in a confession in Holy Week of 2014 back when he was a priest.
Why would you take his advice if he's not a Feeneyite?
So, you're accusing me of being a Feenyite? Really?
I think he got confused between my post and yours; mine was nested in yours.
You're probably right. Usually 'disputaciones' is pretty level-headed, I think.
-
Where did the soul know of this her dignity, in being kneaded and united with the Blood of the Lamb, receiving the grace in Holy Baptism, in virtue of the Blood? In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: 'Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?' And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking. But let no one be so mad as so to arrange his deeds, that, in the hope of receiving it, he puts off confessing until the last extremity of death, when he may not be able to do so. In which case, it is not at all certain that I shall not say to him, in My Divine Justice: 'You did not remember Me in the time of your life, when you could, now will I not remember you in your death.'
"You see then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite. This is in virtue of the infinite Divine nature, united with the finite human nature, which human nature endures pain in Me, the Word, clothed with your humanity. But because the one nature is steeped in and united with the other, the Eternal Deity drew to Himself the pain, which I suffered with so much fire and love.
We have here a private revelation teaching what is precisely called explicit baptism of desire, baptism of blood, the sacrament of confession, and a perfect act of contrition (which as Trent teaches, requires that the person desire to go to confession to a priest, as it says above "requires with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers").
Any arguments on those observations?
-
Back on topic, I'm neither here nor there when it comes to private revelations, even if coming from saints. I believe in the infallibility of canonizations, but personal sanctity doesn't render someone infallible. Obviously it would have been contrary to sanctity if St. Catherine had deliberately tried to deceive with these, but it would not be if she were simply mistaken in mixing some of her own thinking with actual authentic revelations. You can find contradictions in the private revelations of various different holy people.
Other issues include the reliability of manuscripts, especially when others are responsible for writing them down. St. Catherine's words were allegedly written down by others and delivered while she was in ecstasy. So other hands were involved. And then who knows what interpolations may have found their way into the text later.
-
Bishop Faure recommended St. Catherine of Siena's the Dialogue to me in a confession in Holy Week of 2014 back when he was a priest.
Why would you take his advice if he's not a Feeneyite?
So, you're accusing me of being a Feenyite? Really?
:roll-laugh2:
I read this thread -- on 3 hours sleep -- and got the exact opposite impression.
The reading comprehension of some individuals is downright pathetic.
I think some people need to do more reading and less watching (tv, movies, videos).
Pathetic eh? Let's see:
I haven't been reading here for a while, and to be honest I don't know if Centroamerica is a Feeneyite.
I come in last night and what I see is a thread from someone questioning private revelations, then ridiculing the idea that rejecting canonizations would be mortal sin, and finally, when someone asks what ERROR do the revelations contain, the OP, without any explanation, posts something teaching BOD/BOB and specifically highlights this.
What other conclusion would someone draw except that the OP objects to BOD/BOB and is looking for a way to reject these revelations or say canonizations can be rejected with impunity?
You call that pathetic? I went only with the information on the thread here. Like I said, I don't know if Centroamerica is a Feeneyite. I didn't look into anyone's posts before posting.
-
What other conclusion would someone draw except that the OP objects to BOD/BOB and is looking for a way to reject these revelations or say canonizations can be rejected with impunity?
That makes sense.
Centro both accepts BoD and rejects the infallibility of canonizations. He started this poll as an attempt to get ammunition in support of BoD. But, if he does not believe in the infallibility of canonizations, then he undermines the use of this source in support of BoD ... except based on his private judgment assessment that the Dialogue is authentic in every last detail.
I on the other hand profess the infallibility of canonizations but do not believe that this infallibility renders the saint infallible.
-
What other conclusion would someone draw except that the OP objects to BOD/BOB and is looking for a way to reject these revelations or say canonizations can be rejected with impunity?
That makes sense.
Centro both accepts BoD and rejects the infallibility of canonizations. He started this poll as an attempt to get ammunition in support of BoD. But, if he does not believe in the infallibility of canonizations, then he undermines the use of this source in support of BoD ... except based on his private judgment assessment that the Dialogue is authentic in every last detail.
I on the other hand profess the infallibility of canonizations but do not believe that this infallibility renders the saint infallible.
So, first I am accused of rejecting the dogma of Baptism of Desire and now I am accused of rejecting the infallibilty of canonizations. Does anybody want to accuse me of secretly being communist? Jєωιѕн? Mohameddan? This seems like it is the thread to do it on?
-
I just voted on this poll. I have been using the Dialogue for mental prayer on weekdays. I haven't read the entire thing but most of it. I voted that I believe it is true and to some point binding because if you claim it isn't true you accuse a canonized saint of a grave sin. (That was the third, poorly worded option). I still believe it is private revelation, but being the work of a canonized saint calling upon papal infallibility gives it a binding nature (unless you would make some silly claim like that it was fraudulently attributed to her.)
I guess the options could be a little better.
All the libel here being spewed against me by both Ladislaus and Disputaciones is easily refuted by reading my third post on this thread (which was posted before anyone else even commented on page 1!!!!).
-
I just voted on this poll. I have been using the Dialogue for mental prayer on weekdays. I haven't read the entire thing but most of it. I voted that I believe it is true and to some point binding because if you claim it isn't true you accuse a canonized saint of a grave sin. (That was the third, poorly worded option). I still believe it is private revelation, but being the work of a canonized saint calling upon papal infallibility gives it a binding nature (unless you would make some silly claim like that it was fraudulently attributed to her.)
I guess the options could be a little better.
All the libel here being spewed against me by both Ladislaus and Disputaciones is easily refuted by reading my third post on this thread (which was posted before anyone else even commented on page 1!!!!).
Then why did you ridicule what Ladislaus said about it being a mortal sin to reject canonizations?
-
Circular email from December 17, 2002.
______________________________________________________
Dear Friends,
The article attached below is truly incredible, in the fullest sense of that word.
Faced with the obvious fact that JPII's "canonisations" are rubbish, Bishop Williamson has a choice to make. Either he accepts the theological certainty that canonisations are infallible acts, in accordance with the teaching of the sound theologians of before V2, and thus rejects the impious claim of JPII to the See of St. Peter, or he accepts JPII's ridiculous claim and undermines the truth that canonisations are infallible.
Tragically, he chooses the latter course, thus participating in the very same process of destruction carried on by JPII and the whole V2 sect. This conclusion is inescapable.
Bishop Williamson writes, "Indeed before Vatican II, Catholic theologians agreed that canonizations (not beatifications) of Saints were virtually infallible, for two main reasons."
That is quite false. The theologians were divided, prior to Vatican II, into two camps. The liberals, who were a tiny minority and who denied or cast doubt on the infallibility of canonisations, and the orthodox theologians who affirmed Holy Church's infallibility in the matter. It is completely incorrect to state that "Catholic theologians agreed that canonizations of Saints were virtually infallible." This is like characterising the abortion debate as "a general agreement by mankind that life virtually begins at conception," on the basis that some deny it, and some affirm it. The statement is ridiculous and false, and very, very, misleading.
Canon G.D. Smith, in his tome, "The Teaching of the Catholic Church" (1952), stated baldly that "the Church exercises her infallibility in the solemn canonisation of saints. For it is unthinkable that the lives of those whom the Church upholds as models of heroic sanctity should be other than she declares them to be." (p. 713, Emphasis added.) I can't see any way to reconcile that with Bishop Williamson's claim of agreement that canonisations are virtually infallible.
Van Noort, another pre-V2 theologian, tells us that Canon Smith's doctrine is the common opinion. Once again, there isn't any way that Bishop Williamson's claim can be made to reflect that assertion. He is wrong.
But it gets worse. Bishop Williamson proceeds to explain that there were two reasons that the pre-V2 theologians held their position. "Firstly, the proposing of model Catholics to be venerated and imitated as Saints is so central to Catholics' practice of their faith, that Mother Church could hardly be mistaken in the matter." That word "hardly" is false, mischievous, and calculated to undermine the truth.
Bishop Williamson then provides the alleged second reason supporting the traditional doctrine. "This being so, secondly, the pre-Vatican II Popes took such care in examining candidates for canonization, and successful candidates they canonized with such solemnity, that their act of canonizing was as close as could be to a pronouncement of the Popes' solemn and infallible magisterium." The same technique is here employed, this time in the words, "as close as could be." Let's take a look at Van Noort's presentation of these two reasons, and see whether or not there can be any excuse for Bishop Williamson's assertions.
Van Noort, in his theology manual, "Christ's Church" (English edition 1957, p. 118) begins, "Proof:
"1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: 'By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.'
"2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protege of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? But it cannot be inferred: therefore the Church must also be infallible in authenticating the relics of the saints; for (a) the Church never issues so solemn a decree about relics; and (b) the cases are not parallel, for in the case of relics, it is a question of relative cult, while in that of the saints it is one of absolute cult."
Neither of these reasons is presented as leading to a conclusion such as could honestly be described by relative terms such as "hardly" or "as close as could be."
Just to ensure that there is no doubt at all that the "common opinion" of theologians prior to V2 was as Van Noort says, let's add another source, Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 299) "To the secondary object of infallibility belong: a) Theological conclusions derived from a formally revealed truth by aid of a natural truth of reason. b) Historical facts on the determination of which the certainty of a truth of Revelation depends (facta dogmatica). c) Natural truths of reason which are intimately connected with truths of Revelation. For further details see Introduction, Par. 6. d) The canonisation of saints, that is, the final judgment that a member of the Church has been assumed into eternal bliss and may be the object of general veneration. The veneration shown to the saints is, as St. Thomas teaches, 'to a certain extent a confession of the faith, in which we believe in the glory of the saints' (Quodl. 9, 16). If the Church could err in her opinion, consequences would arise which would be incompatible with the sanctity of the Church."
Once again, absolute statements, not relative ones.
Equally false is Bishop Williamson's doctrine regarding tradition and the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. He explains it as follows, "ln fact unchangingness is so essential to this doctrine, that conformity with Tradition is the criterion of the Church's infallible ordinary magisterium. ln other words if one wants to know what cannot be false in the day-to-day teaching of the Church's teachers, the way to tell is to measure what is being said against what the Church has said down all the centuries. If it corresponds to Tradition, the teaching is infallible, and if it does not, it is not infallible."
The magisterium is the teaching office of the Church. Infallible means incapable of failing. Not, did not fail, but incapable of doing so. Consequently, Bishop Williamson's explanation makes no sense. Let's remove the technical terms from his paragraph and see how it reads. I'll put the replacement words in italics.
"ln fact unchangingness is so essential to this doctrine, that conformity with Tradition is the criterion of the Church's infallible ordinary teaching office. ln other words if one wants to know what cannot be false in the day-to-day teaching of the Church's teachers, the way to tell is to measure what is being said against what the Church has said down all the centuries. If it corresponds to Tradition, the teaching cannot fail, and if it does not, it is able to fail."
It is immediately obvious that this is nonsensical. An office can be fallible or not fallible. A teaching is either true or false. But a teaching cannot be said to be incapable of failing or capable of failing. A teaching does not act. A teacher does. And it is the Church as teacher which exercises the teaching office which we call the magisterium.
Moreover, Bishop Williamson's doctrine makes the infallibility of the Church depend upon her teaching, not vice versa as is the correct doctrine. In other words, in Bishop Williamson's doctrine we can know when a teacher is infallible by whether he agrees with what the Church has taught before. But this is to remove any value at all from the doctrine of infallibility, because if we know what the Church has taught before, we do not need to know whether our teacher can fail - we already know what is true and what is false. Indeed, in this Alice-in-Wonderland theology we do not need a teacher at all. We have already been taught. That is, as far as I can tell, axiomatic.
The truth is quite different from this mish-mash of mistaken terms and senseless sentences. The truth is simply that the ordinary, universal, magisterium is infallible, which means that the Church cannot teach universally, in time or space, what is not true. Thus the bishops cannot all teach false doctrine at the same time, nor could a series of popes teach false doctrine over a lengthy period. Nor could the Church establish laws which tend to harm souls. Thus Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, a consultor to the Roman Congregations under Pope Pius XII, in his De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (Gregorian University, Rome, 1951), states that “…, neither general councils nor the pope can establish laws that include sin…and nothing could be included in the Code of Canon Law that is in any way opposed to the rules of faith or to evangelical holiness."
And nor, let it be said without any qualification, could the Church propose "as models of heroic sanctity," to be honoured and imitated by the Universal Church, Modernists such as Msgr. Escriva de Balaguer.
Yours in Christ our King,
John Lane.
________________________________________
Bishop Williamson's letter - December 2002
NEWCHURCH "CANONIZATIONS"
December 6, 2002
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
The October 6 "canonization" of Msgr. Escriva de Balaguer, founder of the "Opus Dei", like the September "beatification" of Pope John XXIII, launcher of Vatican II, re-opens an old and hurtful wound - how can the Catholic Church do such things? And if it is not the Catholic Church that is doing them, what is it?
For indeed it is clear beyond any doubt that the CatbolicChurch prior to Vatican II when she was still essentially faithful to Catholic Tradition, would never have beatified the Pope who initiated the Council which devastated that Tradition, nor canonized the founder of "Opus Dei", an organization preparing the way for that Council.
There is an abundance of quotes, proudly published by "Opus Dei" itself, to prove that Msgr. Escriva shared and promoted key ideas of Vatican II. Here are two: Msgr. Escriva himself said, "Ours is the first organization which, with the authorization of the Holy See, admits non-Catholics, Christian or non-Christian. I have always defended liberty of conscience" ("Conversaciones con Mons. Escriva", ed. Rialp, p.296). And his successor at the head of "Opus Dei" said about Msgr. Escriva's book "Camino", "It prepared millions of people to get in tu ne with, and to accept in depth, some of the most revolutionary teachings which 30 years later would be solemnly promulgated by the Church at Vatican II'' ("Estudios sobre 'Camino"', Msgr. Alvaro dei Portillo, ed. Rialp, p.58).
Therefore, for Pope John XXIII to have been truly a Blessed, and for Msgr. Escriva to have been truly a Saint, the Second Vatican Council would have to have been a true Council, or a Council true to Catholic Tradition. Which is ridiculous, as at least regular readers of this Letter know. Yet are not Catholic canonizations meant to be infallible?
Indeed before Vatican II, Catholic theologians agreed that canonizations (not beatifications) of Saints were virtually infallible, for two main reasons. Firstly, the proposing of model Catholics to be venerated and imitated as Saints is so central to Catholics' practice of their faith, that Mother Church could hardly be mistaken in the matter. This being so, secondly, the pre-Vatican II Popes took such care in examining candidates for canonization, and successful candidates they canonized with such solemnity, that their act of canonizing was as close as could be to a pronouncement of the Popes' solemn and infallible magisterium.
But since Vatican II, firstly the models chosen for imitation are liable, like John XXIII and Msgr. Escriva, to be chosen for their alignment on Vatican II, i.e. on the destruction of Catholic Tradition, and secondly, the formerly strict process of examination of candidates has been so loosened under the Vatican II popes and there has followed such a flood of canonizations under John Paul II, thaf the whole process of canonizing has lost, together with its solemnity, any likelihood of infallibility. Indeed, how can John Paul II intend to do anything infallible, or therefore do it, when he often acts and talks, for instance about "living tradition", as though Truth can change?
So this or that Saint "canonized" by John Paul II may in fact be in Heaven, even Msgr. Escriva, God knows, but it is certainly not his "canonization" by this Pope which can make us sure of the fact. Nor need we then feel obliged to venerate any of the post-Vatican II "Saints".
Which leaves us with the problem we began with: the Catholic Church has the divine promise of indefecti- bility, i.e. it cannat fail ("Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" - Mt. XXVII, 20). Then how can canonizations, which are meant through infallibility to partake in that indefectibility, fail, by partaking instead in Vatican II? Are we not obliged to admit either that Vatican II was not so bad after all (as the priests of Campos are now doing), or else that the sedevacantists are right after all in saying that John Paul II is not really pope? Sedevacantism would explain any amount of fallibility on his part!
The Society of St. Pius X, following Archbishop Lefebvre (1905-1991), adopts neither the Conciliar nor the sedevacanti5t solution. It believes that the Second Vatican Council was amongst the greatest disasters in the history of the Catholic Church, yet it considers that the popes who promoted that Council and its ideas (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II) were or are true popes. How can that be? How can true popes so act as to destroy the true Church?
Firstly, God creates all of us human beings free, with free will, because He does not want robots in His Heaven. That applies also to the churchmen, to whom He chooses to entrust His Catholic Church. These have there- fore an astonishing degree of freedom to build up or to destroy the Church. For instance, when Our Lord asks if he will find the Faith when he cornes back on earth (Lk XVIII, 8), we know for certain that by men's (not only church- men's) fault, the Catholic Church will be very small at the Second Coming.
However Our Lord also promised that the gales of Hell would never prevail against his Church (Mt. XVI, 18), and so we also know for certain that God will never allow the wickedness of men to go so far as to destroy His Church completely. ln this certainty that the Church will never completely fail lies her indefectibility, and sinGe the first function of the Church is to teach Our Lord's doctrine of salvation, then upon indefectibility in existing follows infallibility in teaching. For souls of good will, the Catholic Church and her Truth will always be there.
So the Catholic Church to the end of lime will never cease, on however small a scale, to make heard amongst men the doctrine of salvation, the Deposit of the Faith. From eternity this doctrine proceeds tram God the Father to God the Son, it was faithfully entrusted by the Incarnate God to His Apostles, and it has been handed down as unchanging Tradition through the successors of the Apostles ever since. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away", says Our Lord (Lk. XXI, 33). ln tact unchangingness is so essential to this doctrine, that conformity with Tradition is the criterion of the Church's infallible ordinary magisterium. ln other words if one wants to know what cannat be taise in the day-to-day teaching of the Church's teachers, the way to tell is to measure what is being said against what the Church has said down all the centuries. If it corresponds to Tradition, the teaching is infallible, and if it does not, it is not infallible. Moreover, the Church's infallible extraordinary magisterium is the servant of this ordinary magisterium, insofar as it provides a divinely protected guarantee that such and such a doctrine belongs within the Church's true doctrine, i.e. within ordinary Tradition.
Therefore Tradition, or conformity with what the Church has always taught, is the ultimate yardstick or measure of the Church's infallible teaching, ordinary or extraordinary. Therefore anything outside Tradition is fallible, and anything contradicting Tradition is certainly taise, for instance the new Vatican II teaching on religious liberty and ecuмenism. But John XXIII was beatified, and Msgr. Escriva was "canonized", for their sympathy with these Conciliar novelties. Therefore such "canonizations" are certainly to some extent contrary to Catholic Tradition, and to that extent they are automatically not infallible, without my having to examine any further. "If an angel tram Heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Gal l, 8).
So if one asks how it cao be God's own churchmen who do so much damage to His Church, the answer is that He gives them great freedom, short of letting them completely destroy His Church, and because out of any evil they do he will bring some greater good. For instance, out of dubious canonizations he cao bring to "Traditional Catholics" a still better grasp of the primacy of Tradition.
And to the question how canonizations, meant to be infallible, cao instead be Conciliar, the answer is that if God allows a pope to believe in Vatican II, He may surely also allow him to take action and to "canonize" in accor- dance with Vatican II, and to loosen the strict old rules oftrue canonization which virtually guaranteed the candidate's conformity with Tradition. If Catholics are misled who blindly follow Church authority when it goes astray, that is their own problem, but Catholics who follow Tradition will, on Si. Paul's command, with prudence, "anathematize" any clear departure tram it.
So we may absolutely refuse Vatican II and all its pomps and all its works and yet not have to become sedevacantists, so long as we understand that Church indefectibility does not mean that parts of the Church will never be destroyed, only that the Church will never be completely destroyed. Similarly Church infallibility does not mean that the Church's teachers will teach untruth by, for instance, dubious "canonizations", only that, amongst other truths, the truth of Christian sanctity will never be totally falsified or silenced.
ln conclusion, these more or less Conciliar "canonizations" are correspondingly fallible, and are automatically not infallible. Obviously, Padre Pio was an entirely Traditional Saint, and we need not doubt the worthiness of his canonization. However, it might be advisable not to profit by his Newchurch "canonization" to venerate him officially or in public, insofar as that might be liable to give to other Newchurch "canonizations" a credit which is not due to them.
Dear readers, I must warmly thank all of you whose spiritual and mate rial support has carried the seminary through a remarkably happy calendar year. All September's entrants are still with us, in tact two more have corne! Very many thanks.
Let the men sign up for the five-day retreat here tram December 26 to 31. And let me wish all of you a happy Christmas free of sentimentalism, but forgive me if I again invite you to send me no cards, because I am abroad until early January. Get sentimental about my poor desk!
With all good wishes and blessings, in Christ,
+ Richard Williamson
-
By the way, even if I believe it was reasonable, I apologize for jumping to conclusions about you, Centroamerica, and saying what I said.
-
I just voted on this poll. I have been using the Dialogue for mental prayer on weekdays. I haven't read the entire thing but most of it. I voted that I believe it is true and to some point binding because if you claim it isn't true you accuse a canonized saint of a grave sin. (That was the third, poorly worded option). I still believe it is private revelation, but being the work of a canonized saint calling upon papal infallibility gives it a binding nature (unless you would make some silly claim like that it was fraudulently attributed to her.)
I guess the options could be a little better.
All the libel here being spewed against me by both Ladislaus and Disputaciones is easily refuted by reading my third post on this thread (which was posted before anyone else even commented on page 1!!!!).
Then why did you ridicule what Ladislaus said about it being a mortal sin to reject canonizations?
I ridiculed it because it is his position that doesn't make sense!!! Every word you spoke to me on your first post on this thread could easily have been spoken to him. In fact, he admits this by stating here that you probably confused his thread with mine. Most regular posters on here know that Ladislaus is an obstinant Feenyite. He clearly says that it would be grave to deny that St. Catherine is not a canonized saint and impossible to reject the Dialogue as a fable or lie, but then I quoted a line to him of something he absolutely rejects and dedicates his time to pushing on Cath Info, thus showing a clear contradiction in him! This, apparently, hit him so hard he tried to deflect the attention onto me by falsely accusing me of rejecting pre-V 2 canonizations (which was proven to be false in an earlier post on this thread). In further defensiveness, he claims to be omnipotent and know that my motive for starting this thread was to get ammo against Feenyites (paraphrased), which he apparently walked right into.
Also, this was completely false and never happened on this thread...
when someone asks what ERROR do the revelations contain, the OP, without any explanation, posts something teaching BOD/BOB and specifically highlights this.
I made no comment regarding what ERROR was asked about. I believe that the Dialogue of St. Catherine contains no errors and no post was ever posted in reference to that.
The post citing the Dialogue was posted by me much before the other poster asked about what supposed errors it contained. This entire claim is completely false that Disputaciones made and can easily be seen by reviewing the thread.
-
All we can do is to conclude practically with St. Bonaventure, that it would be a most incredible and most horrible thing to doubt of the true beatitude of any one whom the Church, has canonized; with Melchior Canus, that a man who did so would be temerarious, impudent, and irreligious; with Benedict XIV. that he would be rash, give scandal to the Church, dishonour the Saints, favour the heretics who deny the authority of the church in canonization, and would himself savour of heresy, as preparing the way for infidels to deride the faithful; that that man would be an asserter of an erroneous opinion, and obnoxious to the heaviest penalties, who should dare to affirm that the sovereign pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, or that this or that Saint canonized by him was not to be reverenced with the cultus dulise; and, finally, with the Dominican Billuart, that whosoever should deny that any one canonized by the Church was a Saint and in glory would not certainly be a formal heretic, but would be, first, temerarious, because he would contradict the common opinion of the Church in a matter excellently well founded, and whose opposite has no adequate foundation; it is the most insolent madness, says St. Augustine, to dispute whether that ought to be done which the whole Church does; secondly, scandalous, as drawing the faithful away from the cultus of the Saints; thirdly, impious, as insulting and dishonouring the Church and her Saints; and, fourthly, he would savour of the heresy of the sectaries who deride the canonizations of the Church, and deny the cultus and invocation of Saints. Still let us remember, for the very possibilities of charity are dear to a disciple of the Cross, the words with which Pritanius closes a similarly severe conclusion: Suspicionem haeresis memoravi, non autem haeresim formalem.
cf. Faber, An Essay on Beatification, Canonization and the Processes of the Congregation of Rites, pp. 131-134.
I took this quote from here: https://www.novusordowatch.org/canonization-johnpaul2.pdf (https://www.novusordowatch.org/canonization-johnpaul2.pdf)
-
Also, this was completely false and never happened on this thread...
when someone asks what ERROR do the revelations contain, the OP, without any explanation, posts something teaching BOD/BOB and specifically highlights this.
I made no comment regarding what ERROR was asked about. I believe that the Dialogue of St. Catherine contains no errors and no post was ever posted in reference to that.
The post citing the Dialogue was posted by me much before the other poster asked about what supposed errors it contained. This entire claim is completely false that Disputaciones made and can easily be seen by reviewing the thread.
You're totally right. I just checked and it indeed didn't happen that way.
I didn't double check before my post, and i thought that's what you had done (replied to Last Tradhican's question of error simply with the BOD phrase) so i deeply apologise.
I feel like being swallowed by the earth right about now haha!
Oh the embarrassment. This will never happen again.
-
It would be wrong to think that only pre-Vatican 2 canonizations are infallible.
In 1987, The Novus Ordo Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei. In this work, the following statement was made: “With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecuмenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts)...”
Thus we see that one is not free, even according to official Vatican II Church teaching, to reject a canonization.
cf. https://www.novusordowatch.org/canonization-johnpaul2.pdf (https://www.novusordowatch.org/canonization-johnpaul2.pdf)
The only way the post-V2 canonizations are NOT infallible is if they were decreed by a false pope.
-
I ridiculed it because it is his position that doesn't make sense!!! Every word you spoke to me on your first post on this thread could easily have been spoken to him. In fact, he admits this by stating here that you probably confused his thread with mine. Most regular posters on here know that Ladislaus is an obstinant Feenyite. He clearly says that it would be grave to deny that St. Catherine is not a canonized saint and impossible to reject the Dialogue as a fable or lie, but then I quoted a line to him of something he absolutely rejects and dedicates his time to pushing on Cath Info, thus showing a clear contradiction in him! This, apparently, hit him so hard he tried to deflect the attention onto me by falsely accusing me of rejecting pre-V 2 canonizations (which was proven to be false in an earlier post on this thread).
My position is ridiculous only to those without the mental capacity to make simple distinctions. Only thing that "hit [me] hard" is your incompetence when dealing with theological matters.
Canonizations are infallible.
Nevertheless, the works of those who have been canonized are not infallible ... though it would not be as a result of some conscious duplicity (which would in fact be contrary to heroic sanctity).
How difficult is this, Centro? There's no contradiction here whatsoever. You can find discrepancies between the accounts of Christ's life written by Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda for instance. Are you on the brink of another nervous breakdown such as you had at one time in the EENS sub-forum?
PS -- Centro must hold canonizations to be fallible ... or else consider John Paul II a saint, since he's a proponent of R&R. Evidently he makes a distinction between pre-V2 canonizations and post-V2 canonizations ... presumably based on the ridiculous argument that that latter are not infallible because they didn't do enough research on the subject. Sorry, but if the V2 popes are legitimate popes then we know with the certainty of faith that JP2 is a saint.
-
The only way the post-V2 canonizations are NOT infallible is if they were decreed by a false pope.
Yeah, these guys argue that some/most/all? V2 canonizations are fallible because they don't do enough research and due diligence when investigating the cause. Of course that's absurd, since this charism of infallibility is a negative one which prevents the Church from causing harm to souls by proposing for veneration of someone who might be a scoundrel and even in hell.
-
It is a theological error to claim that Private Revelations (even by saints) MUST be believed as if they were infallible matters of Faith and Morals. Not only does the Church teach that all private revelation need not be believed; but actually the Church goes further more and cautions against it. Of course, private revelations of saints have more weight than those of mere laymen, but still Catholics are not required to believe in them. No private revelation can ever contradict dogma. They have merit as long as they affirm what the Church teaches.
-
You can find discrepancies between the accounts of Christ's life written by Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda for instance.
I think Emmerich's writings are highly unreliable. Supposedly Clemens Brentano edited the heck out of them.
I was once reading one of her books, i think it was "Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations", and it said point blank that, even though the Bible itself says only 8 people were saved in the Flood, she nevertheless knows there were hundreds of people in the Ark and consequently hundreds survived, not just 8.
That was shocking and reason enough to stop reading it for me.
-
It is a theological error to claim that Private Revelations (even by saints) MUST be believed as if they were infallible matters of Faith and Morals. Not only does the Church teach that all private revelation need not be believed; but actually the Church goes further more and cautions against it. Of course, private revelations of saints have more weight than those of mere laymen, but still Catholics are not required to believe in them. No private revelation can ever contradict dogma.
Except of course if they go along with the Feeneyite or St. Benedict Center, then they are infallible in your mind.
Not only is the novus ordo a new religion as is the doctrine spewed from your culture.
-
It is a theological error to claim that Private Revelations (even by saints) MUST be believed as if they were infallible matters of Faith and Morals. Not only does the Church teach that all private revelation need not be believed; but actually the Church goes further more and cautions against it. Of course, private revelations of saints have more weight than those of mere laymen, but still Catholics are not required to believe in them. No private revelation can ever contradict dogma.
Except of course if they go along with the Feeneyite or St. Benedict Center, then they are infallible in your mind.
Not only is the novus ordo a new religion as is the doctrine spewed from your culture.
Private revelations are not infallible, period.
EENS has been thrice infallibly defined by the highest authority of the Church via ex-cathedra papal statements and ecuмenical councils.
We are in no need of private revelations to support EENS.
-
Fact of the matter is that Ladislaus and the other obstinant heretics that have commented on this thread denying baptism of blood and desire have to do mental jumping of hurdles to clutch onto to their arrogant denial of something that is constant in Church teaching.
No private revelation can ever contradict dogma. They have merit as long as they affirm what the Church teaches.
Notice she doesn't say that they have merit if they are true. The only thing that matters is that they don't contradict Feenyism. then, they have "merit". What a joke!
So, which is it? The Dialogue of St. Catherine is authentic private revelation of what God the Father conversed with her or not?
In order to clutch onto the faithless heresy you breath to propagate, you are forced to one of the following actions:
a. Deny that the Dialogue is authentic and accuse the Church of promoting a fraud.
b. Take the Ladislaus route and accuse St. Catherine of "being confused" about what both God the Father and Christ said to her, even though it is extremely clear.
c. Deny that St. Catherine is a true Catholic saint and accuse her of a blasphemous lie.
Take your pick, chooser.
-
Fact of the matter is that Ladislaus and the other obstinant heretics that have commented on this thread denying baptism of blood and desire have to do mental jumping of hurdles to clutch onto to their arrogant denial of something that is constant in Church teaching.
No private revelation can ever contradict dogma. They have merit as long as they affirm what the Church teaches.
Notice she doesn't say that they have merit if they are true. The only thing that matters is that they don't contradict Feenyism. then, they have "merit". What a joke!
So, which is it? The Dialogue of St. Catherine is authentic private revelation of what God the Father conversed with her or not?
In order to clutch onto the faithless heresy you breath to propagate, you are forced to one of the following actions:
a. Deny that the Dialogue is authentic and accuse the Church of promoting a fraud.
b. Take the Ladislaus route and accuse St. Catherine of "being confused" about what both God the Father and Christ said to her, even though it is extremely clear.
c. Deny that St. Catherine is a true Catholic saint and accuse her of a blasphemous lie.
Take your pick, chooser.
I rather do not dig into this with you, Centroamerica. Frankly, I'm not sure you are mentally stable to handle this topic, after these type of emotional breakdowns:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/?a=topic&t=38849&min=12&num=3
-
Fact of the matter is that Ladislaus and the other obstinant heretics that have commented on this thread denying baptism of blood and desire have to do mental jumping of hurdles to clutch onto to their arrogant denial of something that is constant in Church teaching.
No private revelation can ever contradict dogma. They have merit as long as they affirm what the Church teaches.
Notice she doesn't say that they have merit if they are true. The only thing that matters is that they don't contradict Feenyism. then, they have "merit". What a joke!
So, which is it? The Dialogue of St. Catherine is authentic private revelation of what God the Father conversed with her or not?
In order to clutch onto the faithless heresy you breath to propagate, you are forced to one of the following actions:
a. Deny that the Dialogue is authentic and accuse the Church of promoting a fraud.
b. Take the Ladislaus route and accuse St. Catherine of "being confused" about what both God the Father and Christ said to her, even though it is extremely clear.
c. Deny that St. Catherine is a true Catholic saint and accuse her of a blasphemous lie.
Take your pick, chooser.
Yeah. And like I said, you can also add the Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden because in them, Jesus Himself expounded the doctrine of BOD.
I think the Revelations of St. Bridget are even more highly approved of by the Church than the Dialogue is.
-
Fact of the matter is that Ladislaus and the other obstinant heretics that have commented on this thread denying baptism of blood and desire have to do mental jumping of hurdles to clutch onto to their arrogant denial of something that is constant in Church teaching.
No private revelation can ever contradict dogma. They have merit as long as they affirm what the Church teaches.
Notice she doesn't say that they have merit if they are true. The only thing that matters is that they don't contradict Feenyism. then, they have "merit". What a joke!
So, which is it? The Dialogue of St. Catherine is authentic private revelation of what God the Father conversed with her or not?
In order to clutch onto the faithless heresy you breath to propagate, you are forced to one of the following actions:
a. Deny that the Dialogue is authentic and accuse the Church of promoting a fraud.
b. Take the Ladislaus route and accuse St. Catherine of "being confused" about what both God the Father and Christ said to her, even though it is extremely clear.
c. Deny that St. Catherine is a true Catholic saint and accuse her of a blasphemous lie.
Take your pick, chooser.
I rather do not dig into this with you, Centroamerica. Frankly, I'm not sure you are mentally stable to handle this topic, after these type of emotional breakdowns:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/?a=topic&t=38849&min=12&num=3
In other words, you have no argument and choose to cleave to your heresy out of obstinate pride of not searching for any truth, but simply being right, which is clearly manifested in the endless debates with non-Catholics like yourself.
:heretic:
-
We have here a private revelation teaching what is precisely called explicit baptism of desire, baptism of blood, the sacrament of confession, and a perfect act of contrition (which as Trent teaches, requires that the person desire to go to confession to a priest, as it says above "requires with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers").
Any arguments on those observations?
That is all this thread is, no revelation. What is the big deal? Practically every BODer rejects this "revelation" by their belief that anyone can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest. They totally reject this revelation , yet they post it as proof (of what?).
-
FEENYITES ARE FATHERLESS BASTARDS AND ARE NOT CATHOLIC. THEY SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO SPREAD THEIR VENOM PUBLICLY. THE BEST PLACE FOR THEM IS THE STAKE BECAUSE THEY ARE HARDENED HERETICS THAT WILL MOST LIKELY NEVER REPENT. THE COMMON GOOD CALLS FOR THEIR BLOOD.
It's strange that the BoDers have such incredible venom and hatred for "Feeneyites". Centro, when's the last time you called for the same treatment of the V2 Papal Claimants? Never have you uttered such harsh words against the modernists and heretics of the Conciliar establishment. They openly deny EENS, whereas Feeneyites defend it. Answer is that the Cushingite heretics like Centro despise the dogma EENS ... for entirely emotional reasons. You see, the Cushingites care not for the rare case of someone who has the Catholic faith, intends to become Catholic, and then dies before actually receiving the Sacrament. It's all about eroding EENS. And their ecclesiology ends up being identical with that of Vatican II ... which they denounce so vociferously.
-
Baptism of desire is de fide. This is not a disputable point. If you look on my blog, you will see plenty against the Modernist anti-Christs occupying Rome. Again, you bear false witness against me and crack out rash accusations. I'm not particulary typing against the Modernists on this thread because they haven't come here spreading heresy like the deniers of Catholic dogma have. Frankly, Modernists don't always pretend to be 100% Catholic like the perverse Feenyites do. The Feenyite non-Catholic heretics give the illusion of being fully Traditional Catholic, but they mix a drop of poison in the glass of otherwise pure water and come here offering drinks to thirsty souls. They inadvertently give glory to God just as the demons in hell do, against their own will, because they strengthen the true servants of God.
-
The most adamant defenders of strict EENS are Spaniards and South Americans. I never heard anything my whole life but that ALL Protestants and Jews (the only non-Catholics in South America) go to hell.
Likely, I am of an older generation, because if Catholics in South America believed that today, they would not have all become Protestants like they have.
-
We have here a private revelation teaching what is precisely called explicit baptism of desire, baptism of blood, the sacrament of confession, and a perfect act of contrition (which as Trent teaches, requires that the person desire to go to confession to a priest, as it says above "requires with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers").
Any arguments on those observations?
That is all this thread is, no revelation. What is the big deal? Practically every BODer rejects this "revelation" by their belief that anyone can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest. They totally reject this revelation , yet they post it as proof (of what?).
The OP of this thread is typical of what I call Faux-BODers, Fake BODers, they claim to believe in the baptism of desire, then they deny it by believing that people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest.
-
We have here a private revelation teaching what is precisely called explicit baptism of desire, baptism of blood, the sacrament of confession, and a perfect act of contrition (which as Trent teaches, requires that the person desire to go to confession to a priest, as it says above "requires with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers").
Any arguments on those observations?
That is all this thread is, no revelation. What is the big deal? Practically every BODer rejects this "revelation" by their belief that anyone can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest. They totally reject this revelation , yet they post it as proof (of what?).
The OP of this thread is typical of what I call Faux-BODers, Fake BODers, they claim to believe in the baptism of desire, then they deny it by believing that people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest.
Will you quit trolling me and adding more libel here. The amount of libel against me on this thread is incredible.
-
Fact of the matter is that Ladislaus and the other obstinant heretics that have commented on this thread denying baptism of blood and desire have to do mental jumping of hurdles to clutch onto to their arrogant denial of something that is constant in Church teaching.
No private revelation can ever contradict dogma. They have merit as long as they affirm what the Church teaches.
Notice she doesn't say that they have merit if they are true. The only thing that matters is that they don't contradict Feenyism. then, they have "merit". What a joke!
So, which is it? The Dialogue of St. Catherine is authentic private revelation of what God the Father conversed with her or not?
In order to clutch onto the faithless heresy you breath to propagate, you are forced to one of the following actions:
a. Deny that the Dialogue is authentic and accuse the Church of promoting a fraud.
b. Take the Ladislaus route and accuse St. Catherine of "being confused" about what both God the Father and Christ said to her, even though it is extremely clear.
c. Deny that St. Catherine is a true Catholic saint and accuse her of a blasphemous lie.
Take your pick, chooser.
I rather do not dig into this with you, Centroamerica. Frankly, I'm not sure you are mentally stable to handle this topic, after these type of emotional breakdowns:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/?a=topic&t=38849&min=12&num=3
In other words, you have no argument and choose to cleave to your heresy out of obstinate pride of not searching for any truth, but simply being right, which is clearly manifested in the endless debates with non-Catholics like yourself.
:heretic:
The same could be argued about St. Gregory nαzιanzen, eastern doctor of the Church . Was he infallible when he explicitly denied the notion of a salvific Baptism of Desire?
What think you?
-
In other words Centroamerica, (or any other BODer in this thread) why would you think St. Catherine's words on Baptism are infallible, but reject those of St. Gregory nαzιanzen in which he explicitly denies B. of Desire?
Both are Doctors of the Church.
-
We have here a private revelation teaching what is precisely called explicit baptism of desire, baptism of blood, the sacrament of confession, and a perfect act of contrition (which as Trent teaches, requires that the person desire to go to confession to a priest, as it says above "requires with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers").
Any arguments on those observations?
That is all this thread is, no revelation. What is the big deal? Practically every BODer rejects this "revelation" by their belief that anyone can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest. They totally reject this revelation , yet they post it as proof (of what?).
The OP of this thread is typical of what I call Faux-BODers, Fake BODers, they claim to believe in the baptism of desire, then they deny it by believing that people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest.
It is really very simple, all that a BODer has to say is that they believe in explicit baptism of desire as taught by St. Thomas, and they reject the teaching that a non-believer in Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, and the Holy Trinity can be saved. It is that simple. Yet, as anyone can see, they will not do it, as the OP demonstrates. They are so embarrassed of what they believe ("that anyone can be saved without without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest"), that they are afraid of speaking about it openly and with conviction.
-
It is really very simple, all that a BODer has to say is that they believe in explicit baptism of desire as taught by St. Thomas, and they reject the teaching that a non-believer in Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, and the Holy Trinity can be saved. It is that simple. Yet, as anyone can see, they will not do it, as the OP demonstrates. They are so embarrassed of what they believe ("that anyone can be saved without without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest"), that they are afraid of speaking about it openly and with conviction.
[/quote]
I used to not believe in BOD but now I do only for those who believe in Christ and the Trinity and the Incarnation. I do not believe that non-believers can be saved. I know there are a lot of traditionalists who believe that nearly anyone can be saved by baptism of desire no matter what they believe, but I do not believe this.
-
The same could be argued about St. Gregory nαzιanzen, eastern doctor of the Church . Was he infallible when he explicitly denied the notion of a salvific Baptism of Desire?
What think you?
The huge difference here is that St. Gregory nαzιanzus did not claim that God Himself or God the Son came down from heaven and said it to him. He stated a simple opinion like St. Thomas did when he denied the Immaculate Conception. The parallel is good because both were respected theologians, Doctors of the Church, and fallible saints. A saint such as St. Catherine claiming that both God the Father and God the Son explained baptism of desire in very clear terms is very hard to dismiss and the non-Catholic Feenyites have few options. Ladislaus dismisses it as a case of the "confused saint". Apparently, St. Catherine is not alone in being accused by Ladislaus. He must also apply this to Saint Bridget's private revelation. The circus never ends with you impostors who seek to steal the Truth from souls.
-
FEENYITES ARE FATHERLESS BASTARDS AND ARE NOT CATHOLIC. THEY SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO SPREAD THEIR VENOM PUBLICLY. THE BEST PLACE FOR THEM IS THE STAKE BECAUSE THEY ARE HARDENED HERETICS THAT WILL MOST LIKELY NEVER REPENT. THE COMMON GOOD CALLS FOR THEIR BLOOD.
It's strange that the BoDers have such incredible venom and hatred for "Feeneyites". Centro, when's the last time you called for the same treatment of the V2 Papal Claimants? Never have you uttered such harsh words against the modernists and heretics of the Conciliar establishment. They openly deny EENS, whereas Feeneyites defend it. Answer is that the Cushingite heretics like Centro despise the dogma EENS ... for entirely emotional reasons. You see, the Cushingites care not for the rare case of someone who has the Catholic faith, intends to become Catholic, and then dies before actually receiving the Sacrament. It's all about eroding EENS. And their ecclesiology ends up being identical with that of Vatican II ... which they denounce so vociferously.
I was reading Fr. Berry's book on the Church and he mentioned another case where BOD would be in effect. He mentioned the case where someone is putatively baptised and believes himself to be baptised and the Church considers him to have been baptised but in fact there was a defect in matter, form or intention which was not recognized. Fr. Berry stated that such a person would not be damned because their intention was to enter the Church and it was not their own fault that the sacrament was invalidly administered. I wonder if NO baptisms might be invalid in some cases due to the faulty intention of some of these "priests" some of whom are truly wicked. In any case, I would think this type of situation would be even more rare than the death of a catechumen. But it is an interesting case to consider.
-
FEENYITES ARE FATHERLESS BASTARDS AND ARE NOT CATHOLIC. THEY SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO SPREAD THEIR VENOM PUBLICLY. THE BEST PLACE FOR THEM IS THE STAKE BECAUSE THEY ARE HARDENED HERETICS THAT WILL MOST LIKELY NEVER REPENT. THE COMMON GOOD CALLS FOR THEIR BLOOD.
It's strange that the BoDers have such incredible venom and hatred for "Feeneyites". Centro, when's the last time you called for the same treatment of the V2 Papal Claimants? Never have you uttered such harsh words against the modernists and heretics of the Conciliar establishment. They openly deny EENS, whereas Feeneyites defend it. Answer is that the Cushingite heretics like Centro despise the dogma EENS ... for entirely emotional reasons. You see, the Cushingites care not for the rare case of someone who has the Catholic faith, intends to become Catholic, and then dies before actually receiving the Sacrament. It's all about eroding EENS. And their ecclesiology ends up being identical with that of Vatican II ... which they denounce so vociferously.
This is pure SSPXism,( or Laisneyism if you prefer). The first place outside of conciliarism that I experienced this type of odd hostility to objectively defined doctrine using all manner of theological hypotheses to rescue natives and other souls who are not part of the Church. It is clearly a liberal outlook on the doctrine of exclusive salvation which in the end denies it.
A private revelation of a Saint or a thrice defined dogma of the Church which must be held, as declared, to be saved, ....take your pick.............
-
In other words Centroamerica, (or any other BODer in this thread) why would you think St. Catherine's words on Baptism are infallible, but reject those of St. Gregory nαzιanzen in which he explicitly denies B. of Desire?
Both are Doctors of the Church.
Centroamerica claims that what makes St. Catherine's words infallible, (and therefore true, without the possibility of error) while St. Gregory nαzιanzen's false is that she said that God told her so. Sorry, but you will not find any theological source which would support such a notion of infallibility. What makes something infallible is only determined by the highest authority of the Church. Private revelations, even by saints, may contain error, because they are fallible.
Pope Pius XII states here that not even the works of the most eminent Doctors constitute the principal source of truth.
The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but, by divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures and depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation, she alone by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the source of truth.
Centroamerica simply chooses to believe in St. Catherine's words on Baptism, while reject St. Gregory's because he has a highly emotional attachment to the distorted version of BOD, as evident by his mental breakdowns on this subject.
-
Trent dogmatically defined that Baptism is necessary by necessity of means for salvation.
Consequently, those who claim that people can be saved without Baptism are promoting heresy.
If you believe in BoD, you must state that the Sacrament, operating through the votum, or "desire", saves; to state that the subjective dispositions can be salvific without reference to the Sacrament is heretical ... and it's also Pelagianism. So you must state, as the post Trent Doctors did, that people receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto rather than that they are saved without it.
-
So, then Blessed Pope Pius IX was a promoter of heresy and non-Catholic? Truth is that Cantarella and Ladislaus are non-Catholics who risk being condemned by the very dogma they pretend to defend.
On the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, is not a fault in the eyes of God. But who will presume to arrogate to himself the right to mark the limits of such an ignorance, holding in account the various conditions of peoples, of countries, of minds, and of the infinite multiplicity of human things?
Insert Ladislaus and Cantaheretic after the retorical question of the Supreme Pontiff.
-
I believe that most of the people on CI actually learn from what is being expounded here by those with an open mind to truth and doctrine. Unfortunately, there are some who will never learn anything because they have a "horse in the race".
I have read these EENS debates for years now, and have seen the gradual expansion of knowledge on the subject, which has come about as a result of the discussions by people who are seeking truth. At this point in time, I believe the best source for up to date information on the subject of EENS, is to be found on Cathinfo.
As it happens, anyone that has taken part in these debates for a time and still believes that people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, has "a horse in the race" regarding the salvation of non-Catholics. And that is the ONLY problem today, that long time Catholics on CI can still believe that "people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, and without baptism of blood".
-
If you believe in BoD, you must state that the Sacrament, operating through the votum, or "desire", saves; to state that the subjective dispositions can be salvific without reference to the Sacrament is heretical ... and it's also Pelagianism. So you must state, as the post Trent Doctors did, that people receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto rather than that they are saved without it.
I have no problem with this statement, if I understand it correctly. My only problem would be with the conditional particulate that starts the phrase. It's not an "if" clause. It is dogma, so it must be believed.
I would also state that nobody who dies outside of the Catholic Church is saved. If they are saved, they are saved in the Catholic Church. There is no debate on this issue. I follow the Church regarding interpretation of this and reject all personal interpretation of the Feenyite sects.
-
Notice how the Fake BODer never defines himself clearly:
The precise question:
As it happens, anyone that has taken part in these debates for a time and still believes that people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, has "a horse in the race" regarding the salvation of non-Catholics. And that is the ONLY problem today, that long time Catholics on CI can still believe that "people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, and without baptism of blood".
The Fake BODer "answer":
I would also state that nobody who dies outside of the Catholic Church is saved. If they are saved, they are saved in the Catholic Church. There is no debate on this issue. I follow the Church regarding interpretation of this
Does he believe that people are saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity?
He does not say, because he is too embarrassed to admit what he believes.
-
I doubt that any strict EENSer here will object to my saying that this quote by St. Augustine captures the essence of their belief on EENS:
St. Augustine:
“If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into
which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
Then there are the few (in my experience), but growing fast here on CI, believers in (salvation for the not sacramentaly baptized) salvation by explicit baptism of desire, baptism of Blood, with the belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. This group limits salvation to those who believe in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity and are saved by baptism of desire, or baptism of blood. I would call them strict Thomist BODer's
Then there is the third group which comprises the majority of Novus Ordo Catholics, the belief that somehow anyone can be saved even if they do not believe in the Incarnation of the Holy Trinity, nor have explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire die for Christ (baptism of Blood).
The strict EENSer should never debate explicit BOD with anyone but those that limit their belief in BOD to explicit BOD (the strict Thomist BODer ). Here on CI, that type of debate has pretty much disappeared.
All that is left on CI is the debate between those that believe that anyone can be saved ( what I call the Fake BODer) and the strict EENers and the strict Thomist BODer
-
The strict EENSer should never debate explicit BOD with anyone but those that limit their belief in BOD to explicit BOD (the strict Thomist BODer ). Here on CI, that type of debate has pretty much disappeared.
There are virtually no strict Thomist BODers on CI who actually have the interest to participate in these threads except for perhaps Nishant.
There are plenty of ones though, who confuse the theological teaching of "Baptism of Desire" (as explained by St. Thomas) with salvific "Invincible Ignorance" (misunderstanding Pius IX's citation), as does the OP, when they are in fact, two different concepts. The Baptism of Desire proper (this is, for justified catechumens) was the never an issue to EENS until the Modernists made it one. Nobody is disputing here that BOD was taught and / or speculated about in history (after the 1500's). But these people are blind to facts. These people are really obsessed with the idea that non-Catholics (even without explicit Faith on Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity) can be saved and then be said that they actually die as "Catholics". They do not let go, for sentimentalist reasons. They are not indifferent to the topic, as strict Thomist BODers usually are. These people really have a highly disordered, anti-Feeneyite obsession and spend great time campaigning against Fr. Feeney, promoting a false "BOD", and hiding behind St. Thomas to completely dilute the Catholic dogma of salvation.
And then you have those traditionalists in name only, who have dared to go where not even the conciliar Popes have gone: declaring a Baptism of Desire not a mere teaching, but actually a Dogma of the Faith and this regarding, not only catechumens (explicit believers of Christ) of course, but anyone of "good will".
-
The same could be argued about St. Gregory nαzιanzen, eastern doctor of the Church . Was he infallible when he explicitly denied the notion of a salvific Baptism of Desire?
What think you?
Is this what you're talking about?
Now let's look at another ancient Father whose words are used in the Treatise to attempt to deny BOD:
St. Gregory nαzιanz, 381 AD: "Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire. Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it… "If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?"
There are really two separate quotes in this. The first part has a really serious omission. Looking up the quote as given in Fr. Jurgens' book, it reads in full (and I underline that which was omitted):
St. Gregory nαzιanz, 381 AD: "Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire. Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it… I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, not only for their other sins, but also for their contempt of Baptism. The second group will also be punished, but less because it was not through wickedness as much as through foolishness that they brought about their own failure. The third group will be neither glorified nor punished by the just Judge; for though unsealed they are not wicked. They are not so much wrong-doers as persons who have suffered a loss… If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?"
Unhappily, the two ellipses still showing here in this second and correct giving of the quote are contained in the passage as provided in Fr. Jurgens' book. There is no way to tell whether these gaps represent gaps in the surviving docuмent or gaps in what Fr. Jurgens saw fit to present, but notice the significant passage edited out. It mentions a first group (the utterly animal and bestial) who spurn baptism, thus plainly adding that sin to their other sins, and who will be punished most severely, then a second group (those who delay out of carelessness or insatiable desire for other things), and who will also be punished, though not as much as the first group, and then a third group consisting of those unable to be baptized (the infants who do not get baptized by their parents). Because of the ellipse in Fr. Jurgen's book, it is not clear whether he would have gone on to mention those who were prevented from being baptized by some involuntary circuмstance as a fourth group who attain eternal life, or if he intended to lump such within the category of the unbaptized infants, but either way the unbaptized adult who dies thus unbaptized through no fault of his own is in no way to be punished as the Treatise would have one falsely believe. His description of the fate of the "third group" does seem a startlingly accurate description of the Limbo of the Children, specifically.
Regarding the latter half of the quote, it doesn't take much to see that he is speaking here not of God's judgment, but of the Church and how the Church is to judge someone. For as he puts it, "you" (that is the Church officials who must make some juridical or disciplinary decision) would not be in any position to judge if a man merely intends (but has no chance to carry out) a murder, then likewise neither is it your place to assume (on your part) a good intention on the part of one who has not received water baptism. But of course God who sees into the hearts of all most certainly CAN judge the murderer in the heart and the adulterer in the heart, and by that same token can also judge as to whose failure to obtain water baptism is through no fault of their own. And finally, the point is made that one cannot substitute the desire (even full and proper and capable of qualifying one for a Baptism of Desire should they die peremptorily) for the act, the actual celebration of the mystery of water baptism. Such a desire for baptism does not become a Baptism of Desire until and unless they indeed die somewhere short of the baptismal font through no fault of their own. Hence the rights and responsibilities in the Church, and most notably, to receive the other sacraments, does not belong to him, his mere longing does not qualify him for any of that. So again, there really is nothing here against BOD, and obviously nothing against BOB either.
Source: http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jul/jul21str.htm
-
Why is it that St. Gregory nαzιanzus, Our Lord to St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Bridget, The Trent Fathers, the Baltimore Catechism, Blessed Pope Pius IX, Archbishop Lefebvre and dozens others seem to repeat exactly what Cantaheretic and Ladischism both deny???
Could it be because Ladischism and Cantaheretic are unrepetant, obstinate, malicious, proud heretics?
:scratchchin:
-
So, then Blessed Pope Pius IX was a promoter of heresy and non-Catholic?
1) Pius IX never taught what you claim he did.
2) So then you agree with my statement that no one can be saved without Baptism but then claim that Pius iX teaches that people can be saved without Baptism.
It's very straightforward. Trent dogmatically taught that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. Consequently, to say that is heretical.
Yet 4 morons on here downthumbed that statement.
I did NOT say, nor have I ever said, that holding BoD is heretical ... if formulated along the lines of the Doctors, especially after Trent.
-
Why is it that St. Gregory nαzιanzus, Our Lord to St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Bridget, The Trent Fathers, the Baltimore Catechism, Blessed Pope Pius IX, Archbishop Lefebvre and dozens others seem to repeat exactly what Cantaheretic and Ladischism both deny???
Could it be because Ladischism and Cantaheretic are unrepetant, obstinate, malicious, proud heretics?
:scratchchin:
St. Gregory nαzιanzen, Pius IX, and the Trent Fathers do nothing of the sort. +Lefebvre had been poisoned by many centuries of erosion against the dogma EENS.
You can barely comprehend basic English, so it would be best that you try not to hurt yourself attempting theology.
-
There are virtually no strict Thomist BODers on CI who actually have the interest to participate in these threads except for perhaps Nishant.
Matto is another one who actually holds a Catholic view of BoD.
99% of these clowns are nothing but EENS-denying Pelagian heretics who have contempt for the Sacraments and also reject Trent's dogmatic teaching. And they have the audacity to call us heretics.
-
It's very straightforward. Trent dogmatically taught that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. Consequently, to say that is heretical.
Get off your high horse already. The stuff you do is condemned on principle. All you're doing is misleading people and piling up more to answer for at your judgment.
I would pack up and quit the show if I were you; play it safe. Going to Hell is not worth playing theologian on some forum, and all for nothing.
If even 1 person gets mislead because of what you disseminate, you will pay for it dearly.
-
It's very straightforward. Trent dogmatically taught that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. Consequently, to say that is heretical.
Get off your high horse already. The stuff you do is condemned on principle. All you're doing is misleading people and piling up more to answer for at your judgment.
I would pack up and quit the show if I were you; play it safe. Going to Hell is not worth playing theologian on some forum, and all for nothing.
If even 1 person gets mislead because of what you disseminate, you will pay for it dearly.
Come come, let's at least quote correctly what someone says before you condemn them to hell about something you do not understand. Here is what Ladislaus actually said:
Trent dogmatically defined that Baptism is necessary by necessity of means for salvation.
Consequently, those who claim that people can be saved without Baptism are promoting heresy.
If you believe in BoD, you must state that the Sacrament, operating through the votum, or "desire", saves; to state that the subjective dispositions can be salvific without reference to the Sacrament is heretical ... and it's also Pelagianism. So you must state, as the post Trent Doctors did, that people receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto rather than that they are saved without it.
-
If even 1 person gets mislead because of what you disseminate, you will pay for it dearly.
This is an interesting warning coming as it does from someone who is teaching that anyone can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, and without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
If Ladislaus were asked by a Hindu if they will go to heaven, Ladislaus would tell them that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation, that they must become Catholics, be baptized, and stay in a state of Grace thereafter.
What exactly would the author of the warning above say to a Hindu? I estimate he'd tell him that only God can answer that, but he will pray for him.
Who do you think God would condemn?
-
I do not consider the people with different opinions on this matter to be heretics even though they disagree. And I believe my SSPX priests do not either. I believe this because they do not refuse communion to either public Feeneyites or to those who think anyone at all can be saved. If they believed either one of these groups to be heretics, wouldn't they be obliged to refuse them communion under pain of sin?
-
There are virtually no strict Thomist BODers on CI who actually have the interest to participate in these threads except for perhaps Nishant.
Matto is another one who actually holds a Catholic view of BoD...
"who actually have the interest* to participate in these threads" being a key phrase
:popcorn:
[*or time, or stomach]
-
If even 1 person gets mislead because of what you disseminate, you will pay for it dearly.
This is an interesting warning coming as it does from someone who is teaching that anyone can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, and without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
If Ladislaus were asked by a Hindu if they will go to heaven, Ladislaus would tell them that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation, that they must become Catholics, be baptized, and stay in a state of Grace thereafter.
What exactly would the author of the warning above say to a Hindu? I estimate he'd tell him that only God can answer that, but he will pray for him.
Who do you think God would condemn?
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
-
Does anyone find it interesting that the 3 Saints/mystic whose private revelation has to deal with BoD and eens are all women?
St Catherine of Siena
St Brigid of Sweden
Anne Catherine Emmerich ( if you don't know what she said, I don't have the quote but she said that there were pagans in purgatory).
Quite interesting....emotion>logic, emotion>Catholic doctrine
-
Does anyone find it interesting that the 3 Saints/mystic whose private revelation has to deal with BoD and eens are all women?
St Catherine of Siena
St Brigid of Sweden
Anne Catherine Emmerich ( if you don't know what she said, I don't have the quote but she said that there were pagans in purgatory).
Quite interesting....emotion>logic, emotion>Catholic doctrine
That's funny. Don't you know 7 Doctors of the Church, all MEN, taught BOD?
-
Does anyone find it interesting that the 3 Saints/mystic whose private revelation has to deal with BoD and eens are all women?
St Catherine of Siena
St Brigid of Sweden
Anne Catherine Emmerich ( if you don't know what she said, I don't have the quote but she said that there were pagans in purgatory).
Quite interesting....emotion>logic, emotion>Catholic doctrine
That's funny. Don't you know 7 Doctors of the Church, all MEN, taught BOD?
I am talking about private revelation, not teachings.
-
If even 1 person gets mislead because of what you disseminate, you will pay for it dearly.
This is an interesting warning coming as it does from someone who is teaching that anyone can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, and without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
I dont teach that because the Church has never taught that. You are a liar and bad willed. I submit to what the Church teaches even in catechisms; you don't.
You Feneyites engage in the Protestant idea of private interpretation.
If you knew anything about Catholicism, you would know that it operates under authority and that nobody is allowed to come up with his own conclusions about anything. Anything you publish has to be reviewed and approved by the Church. You would also know laymen have no business coming up with theological conclusions since they have neither the training nor the authority.
The most anyone can be is an echo, resounding what the Church already teaches and not engaging in private interpretation and disseminating one's conclusions.
If Ladislaus were asked by a Hindu if they will go to heaven, Ladislaus would tell them that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation, that they must become Catholics, be baptized, and stay in a state of Grace thereafter.
What exactly would the author of the warning above say to a Hindu? I estimate he'd tell him that only God can answer that, but he will pray for him.
Master Ladislaus is the new Master Luther to you eh? You follow Master Ladislaus instead of following the Church's approved teachers like St. Thomas?
You lie and judge rashly again, because I would tell him the same thing, because there is a difference between the contemplation of scenarios and laying out of principles and an actual case where you're dealing with a person directly.
But Feeneyites like yourself are incapable of making simple distinctions and routinely employ the fallacy of the slippery slope.
Who do you think God would condemn?
Those who don't submit to Church teaching, like yourself, but instead follow an excommunicated priest and internet poster and engage in private interpretation.
It's really that simple: you Feeneyites refuse to submit to the Church and engage in private interpretation of the Magisterium, coming up with opinions the Church has never taught. This very idea has always been condemned.
In fact, there was a specific Bull issued stating that no one at all may presume to interpret the canons of the Council of Trent contrary to what the APPROVED theologians and teachers of the Church taught. The penalty was excommunication.
But this is exactly what you Feeneyites do: privately interpret the canons of Trent and everything else and come up with your own conclusions, because you will not find a single theologian or approved teacher that interprets the canons of Trent like Master Ladislaus here or the excommunicate Fr. Feeney.
Tell me, do you accept the teaching of perfect contrition? That you can be saved without sacramental confession? Do you believe you can be saved without ever receiving the Holy Eucharist?
-
Does anyone find it interesting that the 3 Saints/mystic whose private revelation has to deal with BoD and eens are all women?
St Catherine of Siena
St Brigid of Sweden
Anne Catherine Emmerich ( if you don't know what she said, I don't have the quote but she said that there were pagans in purgatory).
Quite interesting....emotion>logic, emotion>Catholic doctrine
That's funny. Don't you know 7 Doctors of the Church, all MEN, taught BOD?
I am talking about private revelation, not teachings.
So what? What's your point?
And i don't trust in Emmerich's revelations, by the way. They have been tampered with so we can't know whats legit and whats not.
-
If even 1 person gets mislead because of what you disseminate, you will pay for it dearly.
This is an interesting warning coming as it does from someone who is teaching that anyone can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, and without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
I dont teach that because the Church has never taught that. I submit to what the Church teaches even in catechisms; you don't.
Notice how the Fake-BODer never clearly defines what he believes.
"I submit to what the Church teaches", does not define theologically what one believes on this subject, because the Church teaches the strict-EENS of say St. Francis Xavier and Holy Office under Pope Pius X, and it also allows the teaching of the salvation of anyone of Vatican II.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
-
Here's a prior posting to another Fake BODer, same thing, they never define what they believe because they are embarrassed to do so.
Notice how the Fake BODer never defines himself clearly:
The precise question:
As it happens, anyone that has taken part in these debates for a time and still believes that people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, has "a horse in the race" regarding the salvation of non-Catholics. And that is the ONLY problem today, that long time Catholics on CI can still believe that "people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, and without baptism of blood".
The Fake BODer "answer":
I would also state that nobody who dies outside of the Catholic Church is saved. If they are saved, they are saved in the Catholic Church. There is no debate on this issue. I follow the Church regarding interpretation of this
Does he believe that people are saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity?
He does not say, because he is too embarrassed to admit what he believes.
-
Tradhican:
The post is about the Dialogue of St. Catherine of Sienna. What do you believe regarding this? There are only so many options. Was it God the Father truly speaking to her or was she wrong?
-
Notice how the Fake-BODer never clearly defines what he believes.
Never clearly define what i believe? You've never even asked me.
If you must know, i believe all that was taught up till 1958. I was delivered of the Feeneyite heresy years ago and came to understand that there are subtleties and distinctions etc. in theology and things which still have not been defined definitively IN SOME THINGS, such as, whether explicit faith is necessary without exception in the Trinity and Incarnation as well. THIS HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED BY THE CHURCH YET. St. Alphonsus treats them as opinions, with different levels of certainty, not dogma. This was hard for me to accept because it seems patently obvious that you must absolutely believe in Jesus Christ explicitly to be saved, but there it is, thats how it is. This is a fact which those who ignore the rules of theology simply don't LIKE to accept, for whatever reason.
But those are the facts. We all know the Church did not promulgate or define everything all at once, and this dogma has many intricacies.
It takes humility to say, "Hey, my opinion is worthless and i have no business pontificating on theological matters, much less condemn those who don't agree with my own (condemned) private interpretation of the Magisterium. All i can do is inform myself as best i can and be prudent and wait for the matter to be settled."
"I submit to what the Church teaches", does not define theologically what one believes on this subject, because the Church teaches the strict-EENS of say St. Francis Xavier and Holy Office under Pope Pius X, and it also allows the teaching of the salvation of anyone of Vatican II.
The Church has been teaching heresy for centuries then? Or maybe Feeney is the heretic and the one who's wrong?
Choosing between the Church and Feeney, you choose Feeney. Is that not idolatry? To follow a person rather than the Church?
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
This does not conflict with BOD. It says those who DIE AS infidels are damned. By definition, one who achieves BOD doesn't die as an infidel because supernatural faith is required without exception for BOD, and you can't have supernatural faith and remain an infidel at the same time can you? Even Suprema Haec Sacra teaches supernatural faith is absolutely necessary.
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
How did St. Francis Xavier know that in all those centuries, not one of those relatives was enlightened and achieved supernatural faith? He couldn't have known that, its impossible, unless he had some revelations, which i don't know about. So i don't know if i agree with this quote because it means condemning thousands of people which you have no way to know whether they were actually enlightened at some point or not. Saints are not infallible and they can say erroneous things sometimes. Or do you believe he was infallible?
And if you think what i say is "heretical", then do you believe it is beyond God's power to enlighten savages and give them supernatural faith? Of course not, you believe this yourself. So you have to agree that this quote seems wrong, or maybe he said other things which qualified it, who knows.
Well then: do you accept the teaching of perfect contrition? That you can be saved without sacramental confession? Do you believe you can be saved without ever receiving the Holy Eucharist?
-
If you must know, i believe all that was taught up till 1958. I was delivered of the Feeneyite heresy ...."Hey, my opinion is worthless and i have no business pontificating on theological matters, much less condemn those who don't agree with my own (condemned) private interpretation of the Magisterium.
You contradict yourself by calling people who disagree with you, heretics and condemning them. And by not accepting teachings on EENS after 1958, you are also " pontificating on theological matters".
-
Well then: do you accept the teaching of perfect contrition? That you can be saved without sacramental confession? [/color]
The teaching is a dogma clearly defined in the Council of Trent. It requires at the least that the person desire to go to confession to a priest.
You believe that anyone can be saved even if they have no explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity, that is the subject of the discussion.
-
Well then: do you accept the teaching of perfect contrition? That you can be saved without sacramental confession? [/color]
The teaching is a dogma clearly defined in the Council of Trent. It requires at the least that the person desire to go to confession to a priest.
You believe that anyone can be saved even if they have no explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity, that is the subject of the discussion.
No, actually the subject of the discussion is whether or not you believe Saint Catherine committed a blasphemous lie when she wrote the Dialogue or if the Dialogue is true. You conveniently ignore this.
-
If you must know, i believe all that was taught up till 1958. I was delivered of the Feeneyite heresy ...."Hey, my opinion is worthless and i have no business pontificating on theological matters, much less condemn those who don't agree with my own (condemned) private interpretation of the Magisterium.
You contradict yourself by calling people who disagree with you, heretics and condemning them. And by not accepting teachings on EENS after 1958, you are also " pontificating on theological matters".
Well, you're actually right about that, it's not heretical.
But, it's still an error and a mortal sin to believe in it and it will send you to Hell.
-
You contradict yourself by calling people who disagree with you, heretics and condemning them. And by not accepting teachings on EENS after 1958, you are also " pontificating on theological matters".
No, because the Vatican 2 church and its hierarchy have directly preached, taught and done what the Church has always condemned. They go far beyond into direct heresy: they preach that one religion is as good as another and that you do not need to convert at all to be saved; they directly call the false religions themselves more or less good and praiseworthy and capable of saving people. They tell people who actually want to convert, NOT to convert. The Church has always condemned such heresies.
In fact, they contradict what even Vatican 2 taught. Vatican 2 said those who actually know about the Church and refuse submission will be condemned.
But BOD, on the other hand, is a common Church teaching, taught even as far back as the Roman Catechism and the original Douay Rheims New Testament and every catechism and theological work since.
Well then: do you accept the teaching of perfect contrition? That you can be saved without sacramental confession? [/color]
The teaching is a dogma clearly defined in the Council of Trent. It requires at the least that the person desire to go to confession to a priest.
Well it says the same about baptism: "...or the desire thereof."
And the Church's approved doctors and theologians, who alone the Church says can interpret Trent's canons, interpret this as being BOD.
Case closed.
And what about the Holy Eucharist? Do you believe it is necessary?
You believe that anyone can be saved even if they have no explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity, that is the subject of the discussion.
Did you not read what I wrote? Did you not read that I said the Church has not yet defined this? Explicit belief in those 2 mysteries is the "most common and true opinion', NOT a dogma yet.
Do you understand this?
You need to submit and accept the fact that this has not been dogmatically defined yet.
-
If you must know, i believe all that was taught up till 1958. I was delivered of the Feeneyite heresy ...."Hey, my opinion is worthless and i have no business pontificating on theological matters, much less condemn those who don't agree with my own (condemned) private interpretation of the Magisterium.
You contradict yourself by calling people who disagree with you, heretics and condemning them. And by not accepting teachings on EENS after 1958, you are also " pontificating on theological matters".
Well, you're actually right about that, it's not heretical.
But, it's still an error and a mortal sin to believe in it and it will send you to Hell.
You are again pontificating and condemning. The strict EENS of St. Francis Xavier that I quoted is not anomaly in Church teaching and I could quote many other saints and doctors teaching the same, and not a one has been "condemned to hell" by the Church.
You have to accept the fact of what I said before:
the Church teaches the strict-EENS of say St. Francis Xavier and Holy Office under Pope Pius X, and it also allows the teaching of the salvation of anyone of Vatican II.
-
You believe that anyone can be saved even if they have no explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity, that is the subject of the discussion.
Did you not read what I wrote? Did you not read that I said the Church has not yet defined this? Explicit belief in those 2 mysteries is the "most common and true opinion', NOT a dogma yet.
Do you understand this?
You need to submit and accept the fact that this has not been dogmatically defined yet.
You are asking me to "submit" and accept to the same thing that I already accept and was telling you all along:
the Church teaches the strict-EENS of say St. Francis Xavier and Holy Office under Pope Pius X, and it also allows the teaching of the salvation of anyone of Vatican II.
It still does not change the fact that you believe that anyone can be saved even if they have no explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
It does not change the fact that I believe in the strict EENS of St. Augustine or St Francis Xavier :
St. Augustine:
“If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into
which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
-
If you must know, i believe all that was taught up till 1958. I was delivered of the Feeneyite heresy ...."Hey, my opinion is worthless and i have no business pontificating on theological matters, much less condemn those who don't agree with my own (condemned) private interpretation of the Magisterium.
You contradict yourself by calling people who disagree with you, heretics and condemning them. And by not accepting teachings on EENS after 1958, you are also " pontificating on theological matters".
Well, you're actually right about that, it's not heretical.
But, it's still an error and a mortal sin to believe in it and it will send you to Hell.
You are again pontificating and condemning. The strict EENS of St. Francis Xavier that I quoted is not anomaly in Church teaching and I could quote many other saints and doctors teaching the same, and not a one has been "condemned to hell" by the Church.
You have to accept the fact of what I said before:
the Church teaches the strict-EENS of say St. Francis Xavier and Holy Office under Pope Pius X, and it also allows the teaching of the salvation of anyone of Vatican II.
This is the general discussion forum so I'm surprised this thread is still up. It should be moved any moment now.
-
You contradict yourself by calling people who disagree with you, heretics and condemning them. And by not accepting teachings on EENS after 1958, you are also " pontificating on theological matters".
No, because the Vatican 2 church and its hierarchy have directly preached, taught and done what the Church has always condemned. They go far beyond into direct heresy: they preach that one religion is as good as another and that you do not need to convert at all to be saved; they directly call the false religions themselves more or less good and praiseworthy and capable of saving people. They tell people who actually want to convert, NOT to convert. The Church has always condemned such heresies.
In fact, they contradict what even Vatican 2 taught. Vatican 2 said those who actually know about the Church and refuse submission will be condemned.
To discuss VatII teachings on EENS on this thread would be a distraction. If you want, start a thread on it in the Crisis section and we can discuss it there. Suffice it to say that you'd have to prove to me where Vatican II taught anything that is not taught by the sources that you follow in your belief that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. Fr. Fenton did not condemn Vatican II.
-
You contradict yourself by calling people who disagree with you, heretics and condemning them. And by not accepting teachings on EENS after 1958, you are also " pontificating on theological matters".
No, because the Vatican 2 church and its hierarchy have directly preached, taught and done what the Church has always condemned. They go far beyond into direct heresy: they preach that one religion is as good as another and that you do not need to convert at all to be saved; they directly call the false religions themselves more or less good and praiseworthy and capable of saving people. They tell people who actually want to convert, NOT to convert. The Church has always condemned such heresies.
In fact, they contradict what even Vatican 2 taught. Vatican 2 said those who actually know about the Church and refuse submission will be condemned.
To discuss VatII teachings on EENS on this thread would be a distraction. If you want, start a thread on it in the Crisis section and we can discuss it there. Suffice it to say that you'd have to prove to me where Vatican II taught anything that is not taught by the sources that you follow in your belief that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. Fr. Fenton did not condemn Vatican II.
Go here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=41314
-
Well, it's difficult to have a serious theological discussion with Justin Bieber LOL. (You can thank Matthew for that one.)
To the point, however, it's the Cushingites who always conflate the issue of BoD with the broader question of ecclesiology with which most "Feeneyites" are actually concerned. In fact, very few of us are all that concerned about the traditional/classic view of BoD. We have little or no concern with someone like Nishant or Matto here on CI who hold to that view, and we wouldn't waste 30 seconds of our time arguing with them.
So let's get back to the crux of the matter. Do you believe that it's a tenable Catholic opinion to state that those who do not profess the Catholic faith (including at least minimally explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation) can be saved and therefore be within the Church?
-
Well, it's difficult to have a serious theological discussion with Justin Bieber LOL. (You can thank Matthew for that one.)
To the point, however, it's the Cushingites who always conflate the issue of BoD with the broader question of ecclesiology with which most "Feeneyites" are actually concerned. In fact, very few of us are all that concerned about the traditional/classic view of BoD. We have little or no concern with someone like Nishant or Matto here on CI who hold to that view, and we wouldn't waste 30 seconds of our time arguing with them.
So let's get back to the crux of the matter. Do you believe that it's a tenable Catholic opinion to state that those who do not profess the Catholic faith (including at least minimally explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation) can be saved and therefore be within the Church?
That is not the subject. Please see my last several posts on this thread. thanks.
-
Well, it's difficult to have a serious theological discussion with Justin Bieber LOL. (You can thank Matthew for that one.)
Anyone who bothers to see carefully can see it's not the same hairstyle.
And where's your picture?
-
Well, it's difficult to have a serious theological discussion with Justin Bieber LOL. (You can thank Matthew for that one.)
To the point, however, it's the Cushingites who always conflate the issue of BoD with the broader question of ecclesiology with which most "Feeneyites" are actually concerned. In fact, very few of us are all that concerned about the traditional/classic view of BoD. We have little or no concern with someone like Nishant or Matto here on CI who hold to that view, and we wouldn't waste 30 seconds of our time arguing with them.
So let's get back to the crux of the matter. Do you believe that it's a tenable Catholic opinion to state that those who do not profess the Catholic faith (including at least minimally explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation) can be saved and therefore be within the Church?
That is not the subject. Please see my last several posts on this thread. thanks.
Actually, that is the ONLY subject that should occupy space on any CI thread about EENS. All else is a waste of time and beating around the bush. St. Augustine calls it the vortex of confusion and in our time it is called as diabolical disorientation, to think that anypone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity (and of course without without explicit BOD, without BOB, without a perfect act of contrition.....).
St. Augustine:
“If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished[/u] in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into
which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
-
Actually, that is the ONLY subject that should occupy space on any CI thread about EENS. All else is a waste of time and beating around the bush.
Yes, the Cushingites ALWAYS deflect the discussion to BoD because they can find support for it in St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus. They then try to imply that the positions of these Doctors regarding BoD support their own broader implicit-faith ecclesiology ... which they most certainly do not.
Problem with that ecclesiology for a Traditional Catholic is that, if you hold it, you must say that there's no error in Vatican II and therefore no justification for the Traditional movement. That's why EENS is THE burning issue for Traditional Catholics. If I accepted the ecclesiology held by most Traditional Catholics, I would be forced to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II. I could apply a hermeneutic of continuity to V2 that makes V2 look like Trent ... again, assuming their ecclesiology.
We can quibble that various catechumens or catechumen-like people have in voto membership in the Church or else have an imperfect membership in the Church due to their profession of the faith (one of the criteria for membership as laid out by St. Robert Bellarmine) combined with in voto reception of Baptism. That's the line along which St. Robert himself tentatively argued that catechumens could possibly be saved. We can go back and forth on that, but it's a moot discussion.
When, however, the likes of +Lefebvre, +Fellay, +Sanborn, +McKenna, and the majority of Traditional bishops and priests have said that people like Hindus and Muslims could be saved without having to profess the faith (and without conversion before death) and intending to receive Baptism, then the ecclesiological implications of this are mind-blowing.
So if these can be saved, it must mean that they are within the Church before they die. Consequently, the Church now consists not only of true actual Catholic members of the Church (whether catechumens fall into this category somehow or not is a purely hypothetical discussion) ... but also of various Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, etc. Now you clearly have subsistence ecclesiology, where the central visible core of the Church consists not only of the actual/public (and perhaps in voto) members while you have various invisible members, not co-extensive with the Body of the Church, who are yet within it ... to varying degrees. Now suddenly you have various degrees of partial communion with this subsistent core depending on how close doctrinally you might be (materially) to the fullness of Catholic doctrine. Now these are truly separated brethren, brethren because they are within the Church (if they can be saved) and separated because of their material separation from the visible Church. Now, when their intention to do the will of God itself pleases God and becomes salvific, since they have a right to please God and save their souls, they clearly have a right to follow their even erroneous consciences (since doing so pleases God and saves their soul).
I simply cannot comprehend how Traditional Catholics cannot see this ... except due to some cognitive dissonance on their part.
If this implicit-faith ecclesiology is tenable, then Vatican II does NOT teach error or heresy but simply adopts this opinion as that of the Church. Since when is adopting a probable opinion tantamount to heresy? In fact, the Church adopted the minority opinion of Abelard when she embraced the doctrine of Limbo for infants as her own.
-
Actually, that is the ONLY subject that should occupy space on any CI thread about EENS. All else is a waste of time and beating around the bush.
Yes, the Cushingites ALWAYS deflect the discussion to BoD because they can find support for it in St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus. They then try to imply that the positions of these Doctors regarding BoD support their own broader implicit-faith ecclesiology ... which they most certainly do not.
Problem with that ecclesiology for a Traditional Catholic is that, if you hold it, you must say that there's no error in Vatican II and therefore no justification for the Traditional movement. That's why EENS is THE burning issue for Traditional Catholics. If I accepted the ecclesiology held by most Traditional Catholics, I would be forced to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II. I could apply a hermeneutic of continuity to V2 that makes V2 look like Trent ... again, assuming their ecclesiology.
We can quibble that various catechumens or catechumen-like people have in voto membership in the Church or else have an imperfect membership in the Church due to their profession of the faith (one of the criteria for membership as laid out by St. Robert Bellarmine) combined with in voto reception of Baptism. That's the line along which St. Robert himself tentatively argued that catechumens could possibly be saved. We can go back and forth on that, but it's a moot discussion.
When, however, the likes of +Lefebvre, +Fellay, +Sanborn, +McKenna, and the majority of Traditional bishops and priests have said that people like Hindus and Muslims could be saved without having to profess the faith (and without conversion before death) and intending to receive Baptism, then the ecclesiological implications of this are mind-blowing.
So if these can be saved, it must mean that they are within the Church before they die. Consequently, the Church now consists not only of true actual Catholic members of the Church (whether catechumens fall into this category somehow or not is a purely hypothetical discussion) ... but also of various Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, etc. Now you clearly have subsistence ecclesiology, where the central visible core of the Church consists not only of the actual/public (and perhaps in voto) members while you have various invisible members, not co-extensive with the Body of the Church, who are yet within it ... to varying degrees. Now suddenly you have various degrees of partial communion with this subsistent core depending on how close doctrinally you might be (materially) to the fullness of Catholic doctrine. Now these are truly separated brethren, brethren because they are within the Church (if they can be saved) and separated because of their material separation from the visible Church. Now, when their intention to do the will of God itself pleases God and becomes salvific, since they have a right to please God and save their souls, they clearly have a right to follow their even erroneous consciences (since doing so pleases God and saves their soul).
I simply cannot comprehend how Traditional Catholics cannot see this ... except due to some cognitive dissonance on their part.
If this implicit-faith ecclesiology is tenable, then Vatican II does NOT teach error or heresy but simply adopts this opinion as that of the Church. Since when is adopting a probable opinion tantamount to heresy? In fact, the Church adopted the minority opinion of Abelard when she embraced the doctrine of Limbo for infants as her own.
Let's see your picture in the photo thread eh?
Forget about this BOD stuff.
"Fuggedaboutit."
-
This is why Matthew says that the Feenyites are obsessive. They can't understand that this post is about if you believe that Saint Catherine was blaphemous or confused, not EENS. The Feenyite heretic non-Catholics cannot have a single discussion without trampling on catholic dogma with their protestant self-interpretation as being the final authority of the Church. And in doing so they cast numerous saints and popes outside the Church. The darkened intellect of apostates.
News flash!
This thread is about whether or not you believe Saint Catherine or if you believe you are smarter and holier than she.
The topic is about Saint Catherine and the Dialogue. Do you believe she told the Truth?
The topic here is not Feenyite heresy but Saint Catherine of Sienna
I would kindly like to ask that if you aren't going to comment on the Dialogue or Saint Catherine, get off this thread.
-
This is why Matthew says that the Feenyites are obsessive. They can't understand that this post is about if you believe that Saint Catherine was blaphemous or confused, not EENS. The Feenyite heretic non-Catholics cannot have a single discussion without trampling on catholic dogma with their protestant self-interpretation as being the final authority of the Church.
Lying idiot, the first post to mention BoD on this thread was YOURS. I posted twice regarding distinctions that failed to appear in your poll, without any mention of EENS, and then you pasted in a passage from St. Catherine regarding BoD (with that passage underlined). YOU are the one who derailed your own thread onto this subject.
And then even after your post I decided not to get into the issue. Next reference to "Feeneyism" comes from the anti-Feeneyite Bieber (aka Disputaciones).
You Cushingite jackasses are the ones who derailed this thread into BoD and then accuse us of doing it. You are bad willed liars all around, even in simple matters like this where the truth of it can be easily ascertained.
-
This thread is about whether or not you believe Saint Catherine or if you believe you are smarter and holier than she.
The topic is about Saint Catherine and the Dialogue. Do you believe she told the Truth?
The topic here is not Feenyite heresy but Saint Catherine of Sienna
I would kindly like to ask that if you aren't going to comment on the Dialogue or Saint Catherine, get off this thread.
YOU are the one who started the derailing of this thread, followed by fellow Cushingite Disputaciones. So shut up already.
-
Lying idiot... you pasted in a passage from St. Catherine regarding BoD ...Next reference to "Feeneyism" comes from the anti-Feeneyite Bieber (aka Disputaciones).
You Cushingite jackasses are the ones...You are bad willed liars all around...shut up!
That's a very emotional response. Are you sure that you are stable enough for a conversation on these matters? It's not that I want the entire discussion of Baptism of Desire off of this thread (fyi Extra Ecclesiam Nula Salus was never in the discussion), it's that I am asking that it be regarding the topic of the private revelation of St. Catherine (e.g. Why she was wrong as you believe, why we are allowed to reject entirely the Dialogue, or if you believe she lied, etc). You purposely ignore the theme of the thread, which is what your thoughts are about the Dialogue of St. Catherine of Sienna and how, as a self-appointed lay theologian, you arrived at that conclusion. You continue to ignore this complete and obsess over EENS, which has only been mentioned by you on this thread. Even Cinderella was on discussion and spoke about her opinion of the Dialogue.
Just to make the conversation that much more interesting, Disputaciones mentioned the "Revelation of St. Bridget of Sweden" and that it also mentions Baptism of Desire. Disputaciones suggested that it was even more highly esteemed than the Dialogue of St. Catherine. I investigated that claim, and look at the jewel I found here:
She was canonized in the year 1391 by Pope Boniface IX, which was confirmed by the Council of Constance in 1415. Because of new discussions about her works, the Council of Basel confirmed the orthodoxy of the revelations in 1436.
-
Lying idiot, the first post to mention BoD on this thread was YOURS. I posted twice regarding distinctions that failed to appear in your poll, without any mention of EENS, and then you pasted in a passage from St. Catherine regarding BoD (with that passage underlined). YOU are the one who derailed your own thread onto this subject.
And then even after your post I decided not to get into the issue. Next reference to "Feeneyism" comes from the anti-Feeneyite Bieber (aka Disputaciones).
You Cushingite jackasses are the ones who derailed this thread into BoD and then accuse us of doing it. You are bad willed liars all around, even in simple matters like this where the truth of it can be easily ascertained.
Self-enclosed reasoning of a mad man.
When will you post your picture?
Twice now you've called me Bieber, so let's see what you look like.
-
Lying idiot... you pasted in a passage from St. Catherine regarding BoD ...Next reference to "Feeneyism" comes from the anti-Feeneyite Bieber (aka Disputaciones).
You Cushingite jackasses are the ones...You are bad willed liars all around...shut up!
That's a very emotional response. Are you sure that you are stable enough for a conversation on these matters?
You confuse truth with emotion. It's the only appropriate response to your flat-out lie in attempting to smear "Feeneyites". There's also another word; it's called hypocrisy. You are the one who did exactly what you are accusing us of doing.
Need I remind you about your own complete and total meltdown regarding this subject not too long ago? Again, it's called hypocrisy. You completely lost your marbles and now claim that we are the ones who are "unstable".
-
When will you post your picture?
Twice now you've called me Bieber, so let's see what you look like.
I am not interested in putting my picture up on the internet. There's no real upside to that other than to satisfy various people's curiosity.
-
Just to make the conversation that much more interesting, Disputaciones mentioned the "Revelation of St. Bridget of Sweden" and that it also mentions Baptism of Desire.
So after repeated calls by yourself to get away from BoD and return to the original topic, you again push into BoD. Once again, the appropriate term is hypocrisy.
This topic slid naturally over into the question of what the infallibility of canonizations entails but then you injected BoD into the discussion (while blaming us for having done so).
-
So after repeated calls by yourself to get away from BoD and return to the original topic
It's not that I want the entire discussion of Baptism of Desire off of this thread (fyi Extra Ecclesiam Nula Salus was never in the discussion), it's that I am asking that it be regarding the topic of the private revelation of St. Catherine (e.g. Why she was wrong as you believe, why we are allowed to reject entirely the Dialogue, or if you believe she lied, etc). You purposely ignore the theme of the thread, which is what your thoughts are about the Dialogue of St. Catherine of Sienna and how, as a self-appointed lay theologian, you arrived at that conclusion.
In other words, if you ignore to even speak or answer questions about what your thoughts are regarding the Dialogue (and this includes BOD in the Dialogue), you really shouldn't post on the thread because you ignore the very purpose of the thread. If you want to rant your heretical views of Feeneyism, at least have the decency to do it within the context of the post, O emotional one.
-
Ah, yes, you start a thread trying to make some kind of theological point but if I respond in kind then I am a self-appointed lay theologian. Perhaps you perceive me that way because I can actually make a theological argument, whereas you are incapable of the same.
You have a complete mental/emotional breakdown discussing this issue not too long ago, where you demand our eternal damnation and post complete gibberish, but I am the emotional one because I call you out for what you are ... a lying hypocritical idiot.
-
In other words, if you ignore to even speak or answer questions about what your thoughts are regarding the Dialogue (and this includes BOD in the Dialogue), you really shouldn't post on the thread because you ignore the very purpose of the thread.
Except that I didn't ignore your original topic. I answered it LONG ago ... within the first couple of posts I made. Perhaps you also need work at reading comprehension.
As I stated before, you set up your poll in the form of a false dilemma (a logical fallacy). Therefore I could not vote. You are claiming that either everything in the Dialogues comes verbatim from God Himself or else St. Catherine lied. So let's frame your "argument" as a syllogism.
Major: Either everything in the Dialogues comes verbatim from God Himself or else St. Catherine lied.
Minor: But the Church has canonized St. Catherine.
Minor: Pre-Vatican II canonizations are infallible.
Conclusion: St. Catherine could not have lied, and therefore everything in the Dialogues comes verbatim from God Himself and must be true.
That's your muddled argument when given some semblance of logical structure.
I respond by identifying the Major as a false dilemma.
St. Catherine certainly would not have "lied" but the nature of communications such as these leave them open to error. They are not infallibly-inspired texts along the lines of Sacred Scripture. Being mistaken about something is not incompatible with sanctity ... as lying would be.
As many of the mystics have explained, divine communications of this nature take place in a way that transcends human language, in "secret words, which it is not granted to man to utter" (2 Corinthians 12). Consequently, these communications must be translated somehow through the mind of the recipient, and so they are necessarily filtered by the subject. It would be very easy for some of the subject's own perceptions to enter into the communications themselves. And, as the term "Dialogues" suggests, there's a back and forth flow between God and the subject. In addition, St. Catherine reportedly uttered these words while in ecstasy as someone else recorded them. Now, unless she spoke in slow motion, there's always a chance that these were not transcribed correctly. And, then, when the text was edited or copied, interpolations can always enter in ... whether deliberately or by accident. It's well known that several approved accounts about the details of Christ's Life contradict one another on many specific concrete points ... so that they could not all be exactly correct. Again, was there a difference in perception by the subjects or did the subject's own imagination and thoughts intrude into the scenes?
So, as I've said, I answered your question long ago. Look at my first two posts. And yet you again lie by claiming that I have "ignored" your original point regarding the Dialogues. Several posters here on CI operate in bad will and constantly claim that you didn't address their point after you had just done so ... because they didn't get the answer they wanted. So their cognitive dissonance makes them filter out the response as if it didn't happen.
-
Hey, centro,
When you lie, at least try to do a better job of it and don't lie about things that can easily be exposed as lies through simple fact-checking.
You lied first that it was we "Feeneyites" who derailed this thread (being "obsessed" as we are with EENS) when it can be easily verified in the first couple pages that it was YOU who first introduced BoD into the discussion and that the second post on the subject was made by another anti-Feeneyite.
Then you lied by claiming that I had ignored your points about the Dialogues when I in fact addressed them with my first two posts, all easily verified by looking at the first page of this thread. I directly addressed your topic without any mention of EENS or BoD.
I imagine that my mere presence on this thread caused you to uncloak and expose your original intent.
-
So, in short, after all the accusations and insults are filtered out, we can determine that you believe that the Dialogue is in error on the point of Baptism of desire because of various circuмstances that could have affected the final copy that we have today?
And regarding the "revelations of St. Bridget" that were approved by a Council of the Church as being orthodox what is your excuse? The council was also mistaken? All the saints and council in the Church were mistaken on the issue of baptism of Desire and the self-appointed lay theologian, Ladislaus is correct? You are a son of Luther!
Read, you heretic, what the Council and clergy approved regarding the "Revelation of St. Bridget":
Likewise, too, one thing is the baptism of water, another that of blood, another that of wholehearted desire. God, Who knows the hearts of all people, knows how to take all of these circuмstances into account.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/p0Cn5Bla-x0[/youtube]
Everybody was wrong and Ladislaus is right! What arrogance.
-
So, in short, after all the accusations and insults are filtered out,
You conveniently also filter out the solid theological argument exposing your initial false dilemma. In fact, you very conveniently filter out truth in general based on your own cognitive dissonance. You filter out the dogmatic teachings of the Church regarding EENS and the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.
-
Where did the soul know of this her dignity, in being kneaded and united with the Blood of the Lamb, receiving the grace in Holy Baptism, in virtue of the Blood? In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: 'Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?' And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking. But let no one be so mad as so to arrange his deeds, that, in the hope of receiving it, he puts off confessing until the last extremity of death, when he may not be able to do so. In which case, it is not at all certain that I shall not say to him, in My Divine Justice: 'You did not remember Me in the time of your life, when you could, now will I not remember you in your death.'
"You see then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite. This is in virtue of the infinite Divine nature, united with the finite human nature, which human nature endures pain in Me, the Word, clothed with your humanity. But because the one nature is steeped in and united with the other, the Eternal Deity drew to Himself the pain, which I suffered with so much fire and love.
And re-reading this passage more carefully, there's no indication here whatsoever that these three baptisms, which "work together", can substitute for Sacramental Baptism. In fact, God is written to have said that those who receive the SACRAMENT of Confession receive the "Baptism of Blood". God does say that this Baptism suffices (as Trent teaches) when Sacramental Confession might be unavailable at death, but at no point does He state that this Baptism of Blood can substitute for Sacramental Baptism for initial justification. Just as in the St. Bridget passage, it's never stated that this Baptism of Blood can avail to the reception of the Beatific Vision.
-
So we can confirm it: the Feenyites have officially scrapped the Dialogue of St. Catherine but they follow Sister Faustina and her fake devotions. Pathetic!
http://store.catholicism.org/faustina-a-saint-for-our-times.html
-
Fact of the matter is that Ladislaus and the other obstinant heretics that have commented on this thread denying baptism of blood and desire have to do mental jumping of hurdles to clutch onto to their arrogant denial of something that is constant in Church teaching.
No private revelation can ever contradict dogma. They have merit as long as they affirm what the Church teaches.
Notice she doesn't say that they have merit if they are true. The only thing that matters is that they don't contradict Feenyism. then, they have "merit". What a joke!
So, which is it? The Dialogue of St. Catherine is authentic private revelation of what God the Father conversed with her or not?
In order to clutch onto the faithless heresy you breath to propagate, you are forced to one of the following actions:
a. Deny that the Dialogue is authentic and accuse the Church of promoting a fraud.
b. Take the Ladislaus route and accuse St. Catherine of "being confused" about what both God the Father and Christ said to her, even though it is extremely clear.
c. Deny that St. Catherine is a true Catholic saint and accuse her of a blasphemous lie.
Take your pick, chooser.
Nice post!
-
Fact of the matter is that Ladislaus and the other obstinant heretics that have commented on this thread denying baptism of blood and desire have to do mental jumping of hurdles to clutch onto to their arrogant denial of something that is constant in Church teaching.
No private revelation can ever contradict dogma. They have merit as long as they affirm what the Church teaches.
Notice she doesn't say that they have merit if they are true. The only thing that matters is that they don't contradict Feenyism. then, they have "merit". What a joke!
So, which is it? The Dialogue of St. Catherine is authentic private revelation of what God the Father conversed with her or not?
In order to clutch onto the faithless heresy you breath to propagate, you are forced to one of the following actions:
a. Deny that the Dialogue is authentic and accuse the Church of promoting a fraud.
b. Take the Ladislaus route and accuse St. Catherine of "being confused" about what both God the Father and Christ said to her, even though it is extremely clear.
c. Deny that St. Catherine is a true Catholic saint and accuse her of a blasphemous lie.
Take your pick, chooser.
Yeah. And like I said, you can also add the Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden because in them, Jesus Himself expounded the doctrine of BOD.
I think the Revelations of St. Bridget are even more highly approved of by the Church than the Dialogue is.
VERY interesting. Thank you for this information.
-
Fact of the matter is that Ladislaus and the other obstinant heretics that have commented on this thread denying baptism of blood and desire have to do mental jumping of hurdles to clutch onto to their arrogant denial of something that is constant in Church teaching.
No private revelation can ever contradict dogma. They have merit as long as they affirm what the Church teaches.
Notice she doesn't say that they have merit if they are true. The only thing that matters is that they don't contradict Feenyism. then, they have "merit". What a joke!
So, which is it? The Dialogue of St. Catherine is authentic private revelation of what God the Father conversed with her or not?
In order to clutch onto the faithless heresy you breath to propagate, you are forced to one of the following actions:
a. Deny that the Dialogue is authentic and accuse the Church of promoting a fraud.
b. Take the Ladislaus route and accuse St. Catherine of "being confused" about what both God the Father and Christ said to her, even though it is extremely clear.
c. Deny that St. Catherine is a true Catholic saint and accuse her of a blasphemous lie.
Take your pick, chooser.
I rather do not dig into this with you, Centroamerica. Frankly, I'm not sure you are mentally stable to handle this topic, after these type of emotional breakdowns:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/?a=topic&t=38849&min=12&num=3
In other words, you have no argument and choose to cleave to your heresy out of obstinate pride of not searching for any truth, but simply being right, which is clearly manifested in the endless debates with non-Catholics like yourself.
:heretic:
Well-stated. Ladislaus is always saying "My position" this and "My position" that as if we should care. His position on the issue is not Catholic. How about Bellarmine's position is this and Liguori's position is that and Aquinas this and Pius XII that?
Why not simply quote the catechisms, Saints, Father, Doctors, Popes as I do and others do and let the people decide for themselves?
-
FEENYITES ARE FATHERLESS BASTARDS AND ARE NOT CATHOLIC. THEY SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO SPREAD THEIR VENOM PUBLICLY. THE BEST PLACE FOR THEM IS THE STAKE BECAUSE THEY ARE HARDENED HERETICS THAT WILL MOST LIKELY NEVER REPENT. THE COMMON GOOD CALLS FOR THEIR BLOOD.
It's strange that the BoDers have such incredible venom and hatred for "Feeneyites". Centro, when's the last time you called for the same treatment of the V2 Papal Claimants? Never have you uttered such harsh words against the modernists and heretics of the Conciliar establishment. They openly deny EENS, whereas Feeneyites defend it. Answer is that the Cushingite heretics like Centro despise the dogma EENS ... for entirely emotional reasons. You see, the Cushingites care not for the rare case of someone who has the Catholic faith, intends to become Catholic, and then dies before actually receiving the Sacrament. It's all about eroding EENS. And their ecclesiology ends up being identical with that of Vatican II ... which they denounce so vociferously.
The incredible irony. The kettle calling the snow black again.
-
FEENYITES ARE FATHERLESS BASTARDS AND ARE NOT CATHOLIC. THEY SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO SPREAD THEIR VENOM PUBLICLY. THE BEST PLACE FOR THEM IS THE STAKE BECAUSE THEY ARE HARDENED HERETICS THAT WILL MOST LIKELY NEVER REPENT. THE COMMON GOOD CALLS FOR THEIR BLOOD.
It's strange that the BoDers have such incredible venom and hatred for "Feeneyites". Centro, when's the last time you called for the same treatment of the V2 Papal Claimants? Never have you uttered such harsh words against the modernists and heretics of the Conciliar establishment. They openly deny EENS, whereas Feeneyites defend it. Answer is that the Cushingite heretics like Centro despise the dogma EENS ... for entirely emotional reasons. You see, the Cushingites care not for the rare case of someone who has the Catholic faith, intends to become Catholic, and then dies before actually receiving the Sacrament. It's all about eroding EENS. And their ecclesiology ends up being identical with that of Vatican II ... which they denounce so vociferously.
This is pure SSPXism,( or Laisneyism if you prefer). The first place outside of conciliarism that I experienced this type of odd hostility to objectively defined doctrine using all manner of theological hypotheses to rescue natives and other souls who are not part of the Church. It is clearly a liberal outlook on the doctrine of exclusive salvation which in the end denies it.
A private revelation of a Saint or a thrice defined dogma of the Church which must be held, as declared, to be saved, ....take your pick.............
Yes the SSPX clergy is wrong. The CMRI is wrong. All the traditional clergy are wrong as are the catechisms, sound theologians, Fathers, Doctors, Saints and Popes who speak to the issue and you are right. I get it.
-
So, then Blessed Pope Pius IX was a promoter of heresy and non-Catholic? Truth is that Cantarella and Ladislaus are non-Catholics who risk being condemned by the very dogma they pretend to defend.
On the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, is not a fault in the eyes of God. But who will presume to arrogate to himself the right to mark the limits of such an ignorance, holding in account the various conditions of peoples, of countries, of minds, and of the infinite multiplicity of human things?
Insert Ladislaus and Cantaheretic after the retorical question of the Supreme Pontiff.
Nice Post! :applause:
-
I believe that most of the people on CI actually learn from what is being expounded here by those with an open mind to truth and doctrine. Unfortunately, there are some who will never learn anything because they have a "horse in the race".
I have read these EENS debates for years now, and have seen the gradual expansion of knowledge on the subject, which has come about as a result of the discussions by people who are seeking truth. At this point in time, I believe the best source for up to date information on the subject of EENS, is to be found on Cathinfo.
As it happens, anyone that has taken part in these debates for a time and still believes that people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, has "a horse in the race" regarding the salvation of non-Catholics. And that is the ONLY problem today, that long time Catholics on CI can still believe that "people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, and without baptism of blood".
What is "expounded" here is mass disagreement which leads to the total confusion of many. This is not where the good willed should come to learn. Please read the sound theology manuals, Denzinger, the Catechism of Trent and Catholic sources. On the confusing issues of the day see where the traditional clergy are all in agreement whether SV or R & R such as they are on BOB/D and you will be safer than you would by learning from the contradictions posted here.
-
If you believe in BoD, you must state that the Sacrament, operating through the votum, or "desire", saves; to state that the subjective dispositions can be salvific without reference to the Sacrament is heretical ... and it's also Pelagianism. So you must state, as the post Trent Doctors did, that people receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto rather than that they are saved without it.
I have no problem with this statement, if I understand it correctly. My only problem would be with the conditional particulate that starts the phrase. It's not an "if" clause. It is dogma, so it must be believed.
I would also state that nobody who dies outside of the Catholic Church is saved. If they are saved, they are saved in the Catholic Church. There is no debate on this issue. I follow the Church regarding interpretation of this and reject all personal interpretation of the Feenyite sects.
Ladislaus is not an authority on the issue. Anyone who dies with a supernatural Faith and perfect charity is saved within the Church even if his desire for baptism and or membership is implicit. That is what the Church teaches.
-
Anyone who dies with a supernatural Faith and perfect charity is saved within the Church even if his desire for baptism and or membership is implicit. That is what the Church teaches.
Except that no one in the new dispensation can have supernatural faith and perfect charity without Baptism; that's dogma defined quite clearly by Trent.
-
Anyone who dies with a supernatural Faith and perfect charity is saved within the Church even if his desire for baptism and or membership is implicit. That is what the Church teaches.
Except that no one in the new dispensation can have supernatural faith and perfect charity without Baptism; that's dogma defined quite clearly by Trent.
Incorrect.