Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: bowler on January 14, 2014, 12:43:09 PM
-
This quote below comes from a Heroin BODer, a Heroin BODer is a person who believes that anyone can be saved in any false religion, even if they have no explcit desire to be Catholic, or explicit desire to be baptized, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity. Is this the "feelings oriented" reason, the reason why they defend their wacked out liberal counterfeit Heroin BOD? (WARNING : We are not discussing here baptism of desire of the catechumen, nor baptism of blood, nor any BOD which requires a desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. Be forewarned anyone that posts here in favor of BOD is talking strictly about Heroin BOD.)
The horrifying heresy of Feeneyism which turns God into an arbitrary tyrant and damns the innocent to an eternity of torments scared many good willed Catholics into embracing the opposite heresy of everyone is saved.
on another thread I asked a CI poster:
Dear Andysloan,
Which teaching do you think is dangerous #1 or #2:
1) to believe that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if the have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity. (=Heroin BOD of Amdro, Lover of Truth, SJB)
2)
St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”
St. Augustine: “However much progress the catechumen should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.”
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 [/u]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)
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3:
“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily III. On Phil. 1:1-20:
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXV: “Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful is the sentence. ‘It is not possible,’ He [Christ] saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”
-
If baptism was not necessary, it would not be a command of God to His apostles.
Heroin BODrs are in a fantastic delirium where sin has no consequences and everyone is potentially saved, even that the church is not necessary so there is no crisis HEY!
:cool: :smoke-pot:
-
The horrifying heresy of Feeneyism which turns God into an arbitrary tyrant and damns the innocent to an eternity of torments scared many good willed Catholics into embracing the opposite heresy of everyone is saved.
Is that the reason why Heroin BODers are so rabidly against people who believe the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, literally, as it is written?
-
If baptism was not necessary, it would not be a command of God to His apostles.
Heroin BODrs are in a fantastic delirium where sin has no consequences and everyone is potentially saved, even that the church is not necessary so there is no crisis HEY!
:cool: :smoke-pot:
Soulguard,
Are you buying Bowler's product? You, as an Irishman should see straight through him, you surprise me.
-
The horrifying heresy of Feeneyism which turns God into an arbitrary tyrant and damns the innocent to an eternity of torments scared many good willed Catholics into embracing the opposite heresy of everyone is saved.
Is that the reason why Heroin BODers are so rabidly against people who believe the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, literally, as it is written?
If so, then what about all of these scriptural passages, are they also "horrifying , turning God into an arbitrary tyrant and damns the innocent to an eternity of torments"?
These are two examples of servants of God who are rejected. Notice that they all did work, for example the foolish virgins did go to buy oil, and the one talent servant did bury the talent, however, that was not enough!
Is this also "horrifying , turning God into an arbitrary tyrant and damns the innocent to an eternity of torments"?
The foolish virgins
1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like to ten virgins, who taking their lamps went out to meet the bridegroom and the bride. 2 And five of them were foolish and five wise. 3 But the five foolish, having taken their lamps, did not take oil with them. 4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with the lamps. 5 And the bridegroom tarrying, they all slumbered and slept. 6 And at midnight there was a cry made: Behold the bridegroom cometh. Go ye forth to meet him. 7 Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise: Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. 9 The wise answered, saying: Lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell and buy for yourselves. 10 Now whilst they went to buy the bridegroom came: and they that were ready
went in with him to the marriage. And the door was shut. 11 But at last came also the other virgins, saying: Lord, Lord, open to us. 12 But he answering said: Amen I say to you, I know you not.
13 Watch ye therefore, because you know not the day nor the hour.
The one talent servant
14 For even as a man going into a far country called his servants and delivered to them his goods; 15 And to one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one, to every one according to his proper ability: and immediately he took his journey. 16 And he that had received the five talents went his way and traded with the same and gained other five. 17 And in like manner he that had received the two gained other two. 18 But he that had received the one. going his way, digged into the earth and hid his lord's money. 19 But after a long time the lord of those servants came and reckoned with them. 20 And he that had received the five talents coming brought other five talents, saying: Lord, thou didst deliver to me five talents. Behold I have gained other five over and above. 21 His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22 And he also that had received the two talents came and said: Lord, thou deliveredst two talents to me. Behold I have gained other two. 23 His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant: because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 24 But he that had received the one talent came said: Lord, I know that thou art a hard man; thou reapest where thou hast not sown and gatherest where thou hast not strewed. 25 And being afraid, I went and hid thy talent in the earth. Behold here thou hast that which is thine. 26 And his, lord answering, said to him: Wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not and gather where I have not strewed. 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers: and at my coming I should have received my own with usury. 28 Take ye away therefore the talent from him and give it him that hath ten talents. 29 For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away. 30 And the unprofitable servant, cast ye out into the exterior darkness. There,
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The parable of the marriage feast.
2 The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king who made a marriage for his son. 3 And he sent his servants to call them that were invited to the marriage: and they would not come. .....8 Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. 9 Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. 10 And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.
11 And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment.
12 And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having on a wedding garment? But he was silent. 13 Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into
the exterior darkness. There, shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
-
Heroin BODers never answer anything straight. Meanwhile the believers in John 3:5 as it is written, strictly post clear teachings, as they are written. John 3:5ers are straight shooters, while Heroin BODers are obscurists, always affraid to speak clearly.
That is why more and more Catholics are opening up their eyes and seeing that they've been lied to concerning the salvation of those that have no explicit desire to be Catholics.
-
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/13Jun/jun3ftt.htm
No Salvation Outside the Church
"Tough luck, dude, if you were not baptized with water!"
The title says it all "Tough luck, dude, if you were not baptized with water!"
The Heroin BODer is a determinist, he believes that God has no control over the events in our lives. Therefore, they see the clear dogmas on EENS and the sacrament of baptism, and they say it is uncharitable to "interpret" them as they are written, that people who believe thus are saying ""Tough luck, dude, if you were not baptized with water!"
That is the bottom line, the Heroin BODer is a determinist, being determinists they believe that:
- someone is born by pure chance in a place far away.
Answer: No one is born by chance in a place other than EXACTLY where God's providence put them.
- they believe that they saved themselves by learning the faith, but that their neighbor did not have the same teachers/opportunity.
Answer - The Heroin BODer did practically NOTHING to get their "knowledge", it ALL came from God's Grace. Even their accepting God's Grace came from God. When they go to their final judgement, they will then know that all they did was maybe lean 1/10 of 1 degree toward God, and He did the rest. God provides the same to all persons. But the Heroin BODer does not believe that. They believe that there are people who by chance (determinist) may be lost.
- the Heroin BODer, as a determinist, believes that the Holy Ghost would make all the clear dogmatic decrees on EENS and the Sacrament of Baptism, and NEVER ONCE teaching any form of baptism of desire infallibly, while at the same time EVERY SINGLE clear dogmatic decree does not mean what they say. In other words, they believe that God from before he created the world, thought of this "system" of teaching infallible something which does not mean what it says. AFTERALL, the Heroin BODer believes that someone can be saved who has no belief in Christ and the Trinity, nor has any explicit desire to be baptized, or to be a Catholic. Only a determinist could come up with such a "god", a god who has no control over the events of life, a god who's grace is useless.
see see http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29140&f=9&min=0&num=5 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29140&f=9&min=0&num=5)
"Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circuмstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]
In other words before a man is conceived, God in his infinite knowledge has already put that person through the test with millions of possible combinations and possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation;along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance (of millions of possible combinations!!!) and God will be free in determining which future history and final destiny He assigns each soul.
The idea of salvation outside the Church is opposed to the Doctrine of Predestination. This Doctrine means that from all eternity God has known who were His own. It is for the salvation of these, His Elect, that Providence has directed, does direct, and will always direct, the affairs of men and the events of history. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that happens, has not been taken into account by the infinite God, and woven into that tapestry in which is written the history of the salvation of His saints. Central in this providential overlordship is the Church itself, which is the sacred implement which God devised for the rescuing of His beloved ones from the damnation decreed for those who would not. (Mt. 23:37).
The Doctrine of Divine Election means that only certain individuals will be saved. They will be saved primarily because, in the inscrutable omniscience of God, only certain individuals out of all the human family will respond to the grace of salvation. In essence, this doctrine refers to what in terms of human understanding and vision, is before and after, the past, the present, and the future, but what in God is certain knowledge and unpreventable fact, divine action and human response.
Calvin and others have made the mistake of believing that these words mean that predestination excludes human choice and dispenses from true virtue. Catholic doctrine explains simply that the foreknowledge of God precedes the giving of grace. It means, further, that, since without grace there can be no merit, and without merit no salvation, those who will be saved must be foreknown as saved by God, if they are to receive the graces necessary for salvation.
Those who say there is salvation outside the Church (no matter how they say it) do not comprehend that those who are in the Church have been brought into it by the Father, through Christ the Savior, in fulfillment of His eternal design to save them. The only reason that God does not succeed in getting others into the Church must be found in the reluctant will of those who do not enter it. If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children. Nothing prevents His using the skies for his billboard, and the clouds for lettering, or the rolling thunder for the proclamation of His word. (Indeed, for believers, He does just this: "The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands." I Ps. 18: 11. But for atheists the heavens have no message at all.) If poverty were the reason some do not believe, he could load them down with diamonds; if youth were the reason, He could make sure they grew to a hoary old age. If it were merely the want of information, put a library on their doorstep, or a dozen missionaries in their front room. Were it for a want of brains, he could give every man an I.Q. of three hundred: it would cost Him nothing.
The idea that someone died before he was able to receive Baptism, suggests that God was unable to control events, so as to give the person time to enter the Church. If time made any difference, God could and would keep any person on earth a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years.
Thus, what is the meaning of this election? That from all eternity God has ordered the events of history, so that His Elect might have the grace of salvation. And how do they know of this election? By the fact that they are in the Church, through no deservingness of their own? They know of no reason why God should bestow this grace, the knowledge of the truth, and the willingness and power to believe it, upon them, while others, who seem more worthy, go without it. As regards His Elect, not only has God determined to bestow necessary grace, but also, all His actions in the world must be seen as part of His salvific plan. In a word, nothing that He does is unrelated to the salvation of His Beloved Sheep. Human history, apart from the glory of Holy Church, and the salvation of the Elect, and the punishment of the wicked, has little importance for almighty God. Yet, all these purposes are only a part of the manifestation of His glory.
Those who speak of it have the problem of reconciling the mystery of Predestination with the idea of "baptism of desire." From all eternity, almighty God has known the fate of every soul. In His Providence, He has arranged for the entrance into the Church of certain millions of persons, and has seen to it that they receive the grace of faith, the Sacrament of Baptism, the grace of repentance, the forgiveness of their sins, and all the other requisites of salvation. According to The Attenuators, in the case of "non Catholic saints," and of those who died before they might receive Baptism, God was simply unable to see to these necessaries. Untoward and unforeseen circuмstances arose which prevented His providing these other millions with the means of salvation. Theirs is a story of supreme irony, that although the God of omniscience and omnipotence mastered the history of all nations and the course of every life, angelic and human, in the case of certain ones, His timing was off by just a few days, or hours, or minutes. It was His earlier intention to make sure that they received Baptism of water; He had it all planned out; but alas! on the particular day of their demise, His schedule was so full, that He simply could not get to them; for which reason, in that it was His fault, He is bound to provide an alternative instrumentality: "baptism of desire" is his substitute for the real thing!
The Diluters of the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation do not perceive the Pelagian tenor of their position, that some may be saved outside the Church through nothing but their good will. It is exactly because this is impossible and, more important, offensive to God, that the notion must be
rejected. We say impossible, because no man can save himself. The fact that every man must receive Baptism and thus enter the Church means that he is dependent upon God to make it possible for him to receive the Sacrament, and further, through this Sacrament, it is Christ Who acts to purge the sinner of his sins, and ingraft him into His Mystical Body. No individual can do this by himself. He is dependent upon another to pour the water and say the words, and he is dependent upon God to provide this minister, and to make the sacramental sign effective of grace. It is thus so that none may attribute his salvation to his own doing.
Pride is the chief vice of man, as it was and is of the demons of Hell. It is pride more than any other fault that blinds men to the truth, that obstructs faith, and hardens their hearts to conversion from sin.
The Doctrine of Predestination is that almighty God from all eternity both knew and determined who would be saved, that is, who would allow Him to save them. He would be the cause of their salvation, and, as there is no power that can even faintly obstruct or withstand Him, there is no power which can prevent His saving whom He wishes, except, of course, the man himself.
-
This quote below comes from a Heroin BODer, a Heroin BODer is a person who believes that anyone can be saved in any false religion, even if they have no explcit desire to be Catholic, or explicit desire to be baptized, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity. Is this the "feelings oriented" reason, the reason why they defend their wacked out liberal counterfeit Heroin BOD? (WARNING : We are not discussing here baptism of desire of the catechumen, nor baptism of blood, nor any BOD which requires a desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. Be forewarned anyone that posts here in favor of BOD is talking strictly about Heroin BOD.)
The horrifying heresy of Feeneyism which turns God into an arbitrary tyrant and damns the innocent to an eternity of torments scared many good willed Catholics into embracing the opposite heresy of everyone is saved.
Uhhh, I thought that it was basic Catholic Catechism that the human race is already damned. Nobody is born innocent. We are all guilty of Original Sin. Therefore we die. It does not take much for those with eyes to see and ears to hear that this is true. Salvation only come from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The denial of that dogma has led to the chaos we now see in the Church and the world.
This kind of statement demonstrate an awful ignorance of the Catholic Faith which the vast majority of Catholics display today. Instead of focusing our efforts in displaying TRUE CHARITY by converting lost souls to Catholicism, we are "making" nice with everyone and trying to please the world. This only leads to utter ignorance of the Faith and thus, sure damnation for the majority of mankind.
-
The problem here is in the intellect of bowler, stubborn, matto, cantrella, etc.
Regardless of the possible reasons behind this defect in the intellect, it is there nonetheless. I suggest Matthew ban all discussion of BOB/BOD.
-
SJB, now there's an example of a Heroin BODer on CI, he never contributes anything worth even reading. One sentence ad hominem responses. I have had SJB on HIDE for months now, and every once in a while I'll un-hide him to see if he has changed, and every time it is always the same, a one sentence nothing or ad hominem response.
Latino men are always making jokes about their man friends, so mush so, that if their friends don't make jokes about them, they start to worry if there is something really wrong with themselves.
-
The problem here is in the intellect of bowler, stubborn, matto, cantrella, etc.
Regardless of the possible reasons behind this defect in the intellect, it is there nonetheless. I suggest Matthew ban all discussion of BOB/BOD.
I suggest he ban all who repeatedly promote error on the topic.
-
The problem here is in the intellect of bowler, stubborn, matto, cantrella, etc.
Regardless of the possible reasons behind this defect in the intellect, it is there nonetheless. I suggest Matthew ban all discussion of BOB/BOD.
I suggest he ban all who repeatedly promote error on the topic.
I believe Matthew either holds the same error, or is very sympathetic to it.
-
0
-
The horrifying heresy of Feeneyism which turns God into an arbitrary tyrant and damns the innocent to an eternity of torments scared many good willed Catholics into embracing the opposite heresy of everyone is saved.
It was actually Lover of Truth who made that quoted comment. Of course, he will not touch the question posed on this thread.
Which teaching do you think is dangerous #1 or #2:
1) to believe that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if the have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity. (=Heroin BOD of Amdro, Lover of Truth, SJB)
2) St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
-
The promoters of this heresy have been clever enough to mask it as though it is Catholic truth. Their sophistries are convincing to those who lack a philosophical and theological background, or those who have not learned their Faith from approved books.
Every heresy of every age pretends that they are the orthodox authentic true Faith. This one does the same, and it is just as dangerous to Catholics as the Lutherans, the Anabaptists, the Mennonites, etc.
All of these heresies among so many others began with Catholics allowing themselves to be duped by sophistry, the same as is being used here.
This heresy would have been an isolated sect in the tiny town of Still River, Massachusetts, if not for the chaos of Vatican II and the internet age which has allowed it to spread.
-
Regardless of the possible reasons behind this defect in the intellect, it is there nonetheless. I suggest Matthew ban all discussion of BOB/BOD.
Yes, our intellect must be defective because we cannot accept you Vatican II Orwellian double-think. :smoke-pot: :fryingpan:
-
Amdro,
You might as well post a 0, for you never contribute anything.
Has anyone ever called St. Augustine, St. Ambrose and St. John Chrysostom (and all the other Fathers who believed John 3:15 as it is written) heretics like you do?
Answer my question, which is more dangerous your Heroin BOD or believing John 3:15 as it is written?
-
Regardless of the possible reasons behind this defect in the intellect, it is there nonetheless. I suggest Matthew ban all discussion of BOB/BOD.
Yes, our intellect must be defective because we cannot accept you Vatican II Orwellian double-think. :smoke-pot: :fryingpan:
This thread is only about Heroin BOD, it even has a Warning stating so, therefore, SJB is saying that I am defective because I refuse to believe "that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity".
This is most interesting because this is what all of the defenders of Heroin BOD are essentially saying. To be "intelligent" and "not defective" and "not get thrown out of a Catholic Forum", you must accept Heroin BOD, the belief that "anyone in any false religion can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity.
Accept it, Accept it, Accept it and be free, anyone in any false religion can be saved
(http://mentallyfine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hypnotist-with-a-fob-watc-001.jpg)
-
The problem here is in the intellect of bowler, stubborn, matto, cantrella, etc.
Regardless of the possible reasons behind this defect in the intellect, it is there nonetheless. I suggest Matthew ban all discussion of BOB/BOD.
I suggest he ban all who repeatedly promote error on the topic.
If you took your own suggestion about how all trads who came from the Novus Ordo should take a vow of silence and refrain from all writing - you'd be banning yourself.
Do you even realize that?
-
The promoters of this heresy have been clever enough to mask it as though it is Catholic truth. Their sophistries are convincing to those who lack a philosophical and theological background, or those who have not learned their Faith from approved books.
Every heresy of every age pretends that they are the orthodox authentic true Faith. This one does the same, and it is just as dangerous to Catholics as the Lutherans, the Anabaptists, the Mennonites, etc.
All of these heresies among so many others began with Catholics allowing themselves to be duped by sophistry, the same as is being used here.
This heresy would have been an isolated sect in the tiny town of Still River, Massachusetts, if not for the chaos of Vatican II and the internet age which has allowed it to spread.
Ambrose who does not believe what the Church teaches proposes to accuse others of heresy - funny.
-
Amdro,
You might as well post a 0, for you never contribute anything.
Has anyone ever called St. Augustine, St. Ambrose and St. John Chrysostom (and all the other Fathers who believed John 3:15 as it is written) heretics like you do?
Answer my question, which is more dangerous your Heroin BOD or believing John 3:15 as it is written?
I stand against heresy, that is my contribution.
-
:dancing-banana:
BOTH are wrong. Which is more fatal, death by firing squad or death by guillotine? You ask an illogical question.
:fryingpan:Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no!
-
The problem here is in the intellect of bowler, stubborn, matto, cantrella, etc.
Regardless of the possible reasons behind this defect in the intellect, it is there nonetheless. I suggest Matthew ban all discussion of BOB/BOD.
I suggest he ban all who repeatedly promote error on the topic.
If you took your own suggestion about how all trads who came from the Novus Ordo should take a vow of silence and refrain from all writing - you'd be banning yourself.
Do you even realize that?
You prove once again your inability to make any type of distinction. I said nothing that could even be implied as suggesting a "vow of silence."
-
:dancing-banana:
BOTH are wrong. Which is more fatal, death by firing squad or death by guillotine? You ask an illogical question.
:fryingpan:Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no!
Frances,
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that what I have been saying is wrong? I believe exactly what the catechisms teach. I do not believe in salvation in false religions. Do not listen to Bowler's calumny of me.
If you open up your Catechism of Trent or your Baltimore Catechism, that is what I believe. These people reject Baptism of Desire and some lie about us saying that we accept salvation outside the Church or through false religions.
-
I haven't posted here in a while, but for the record, I believe in the necessity of explicit faith in the Most Holy Trinity and in the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.
-
:dancing-banana:As best I understand it, the Catholic Church is the sole means of salvation. There are extremes of interpretation on either side. Some say that a Catechuman who has been instructed, and dies 10 minutes before he can be baptised is eternally damned to the full extent of Hell because he has acquired the prerequisite knowledge of the Faith. The other extreme says anyone with a remote sense of natural good is saved in whatever religion, or no religion he finds himself when he dies. These are both wrong.
But my point is that it is not for us to determine the judgement of God in every case. To spend all one's energies arguing for one or the other is itself, a ploy of the devil to sidetrack many an intelligent soul into neglecting his spiritual duties. Some information is simply not for us on this earth. The only thing we can know for certain is that God's Judgements are fully just. Each will get what he deserves.
-
:dancing-banana:As best I understand it, the Catholic Church is the sole means of salvation. There are extremes of interpretation on either side. Some say that a Catechuman who has been instructed, and dies 10 minutes before he can be baptised is eternally damned to the full extent of Hell because he has acquired the prerequisite knowledge of the Faith. The other extreme says anyone with a remote sense of natural good is saved in whatever religion, or no religion he finds himself when he dies. These are both wrong.
But my point is that it is not for us to determine the judgement of God in every case. To spend all one's energies arguing for one or the other is itself, a ploy of the devil to sidetrack many an intelligent soul into neglecting his spiritual duties. Some information is simply not for us on this earth. The only thing we can know for certain is that God's Judgements are fully just. Each will get what he deserves.
Frances, you are right, there are different interpretations. This debate is strictly with those who believe in Baptism of Desire against those who reject it.
You appear to me to be an educated Catholic, you must know that Baptism of Desire is taught by the Church.
There are three sects, those led by the SBC, the Dimond brothers, and Richard Inranyi that are attempting and in many cases succeeding in influencing Catholics to deny this truth of our Faith and join them in heresy.
I know you think well of the resistance priests, talk to them about this, and I am certain they will counsel you to avoid this heresy. The SSPX and CMRI have been combatting it for years, but the heretics influence is growing, and more Catholics are being ensnared.
-
:dancing-banana:No Worries! Frances, the :dancing-banana: has nothing to do with the Dimond brothers, SBC or Ibryani! Hasn't the last mentioned declared himself pope? Trust in God, not in man. Stay close to Our Lady. Fulfill your duty of state. Pray the Rosary, 15 decades. Steer clear of unlearned arguments.
-
From the Testimony of Gloria Polo;
I open a parenthesis: you must all know that the priest, even though remaining a man, is a consecrated one of the Lord, recognized by the Eternal Father, so that in a piece of bread happens a miracle, a transubstantiation: by the hands of the priest, it becomes the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ… And these hands, the devil hates them intensely, terribly. The devil detests us Catholics due to the Eucharist, because the Eucharist is an open door for Heaven, and it is the only door! Without the Eucharist, no one enters into Heaven. When a person is agonizing, God comes beside this person, independent of the religion that he belongs to or his beliefs; the Lord reveals himself and says to him affectionately, with Love and Mercy: “I am your Lord!” And if the person asks for pardon and accepts this Lord, something happens that is difficult to explain: Jesus immediately brings this soul to where the Mass is being celebrated in that moment, and the person receives Viaticuм, which is a mystical communion. Because only the one who receives the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, can enter into Heaven. It is something mystical, it is an immense grace that we have in the Catholic Church, a grace that God has given to our Church; and many people speak badly about this Church, and yet by way of Her they receive salvation and go to Purgatory, and there they continue to benefit by the grace of the Eucharist. They save themselves. They go to Purgatory, but they are saved! Because of this the devil hates very much the priests: because where there is a priest, there are the hands that consecrate the bread and the wine, making them to become for us the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ. Thus we must pray very much for the priests, because the devil attacks them constantly.
http://testimony-polo.blogspot.com/
-
.
So they won't answer the question, therefore they must be intent on hiding the truth.
The theological speculation of BoD remains just that, a theological speculation, for it has no definition.
It has no proscription (and is therefore open to discussion), either, except that the error into which it leads (which this thread asks to clarify) has been condemned. It's noteworthy that the same Council that condemns it (Trent) is the Council that the heroin BoD-ers claim supports their error. But it does not.
How do they do that?
Heroin BoD-ers selectively ignore canons and decrees of Trent that are inconvenient for their illogical agenda, and they deliberately misinterpret a couple of the canons so as to promote their downward slide into error. But this choosing of one canon (wrongly understood) and ignoring others (which are too clear to be misunderstood) is in itself literally, heresy. The word 'heresy' comes from 'a choosing' and can be seen as selectively disregarding some doctrines which are defined and non-negotiable.
BoD is not defined, so it is not non-negotiable. It is open for discussion, which is why there is discussion on CI about it, even though heroin BoD-ers wish there wasn't any. They want to be left alone in their confusion where they seem to be happily miserable.
But the necessity of Baptism and the necessity of water in Baptism IS defined, and it IS non-negotiable.
.
-
So they won't answer the question, therefore they must be intent on hiding the truth.
We won't answer which question?
We keep answering you and those like you. But you do not want to hear.
Baptism of desire is de fide. It was taught by Trent. If you do not believe it, then you reject the teaching of Trent.
-
BOTH are wrong.
Which is more fatal, death by firing squad or death by guillotine?
You ask an illogical question.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no!
Frances, you're not making any sense. How are "both wrong?"
]The horrifying heresy of Feeneyism which turns God into an arbitrary tyrant and damns the innocent to an eternity of torments scared many good willed Catholics into embracing the opposite heresy of everyone is saved.
It was actually Lover of Truth who made that quoted comment. Of course, he will not touch the question posed on this thread.
The question posted, regarding which Frances claims, "BOTH are wrong," is as follows:
Which teaching do you think is dangerous #1 or #2:
1) to believe that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if the have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity. (=Heroin BOD of Amdro, Lover of Truth, SJB)
2) St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
So, Frances, are you saying that St. John Chrysostom is "wrong" here?
.
-
.
Ambrose, you are not forbidden to claim that Trent taught BoD, but you can't prove it. It remains a theological speculation and it is not "de fide."
You have proved nothing. But what you do is misinterpret Church doctrine so as to promote your false teaching, which is actually heretical.
Maybe you find some kind of pleasure in your error, but you cannot insist that others are required to join you in your twisted misery, in which you deny Church doctrine.
To top it off, even if we WERE to have this defined, you would reject the definition because you don't think that the pope is the pope or the bishops are the bishops or the priests are the priests, and you would say that, Of course they're getting this wrong because they're not in the Church.
.
-
.
I didn't notice a technical glitch here...........
BOTH are wrong.
Which is more fatal, death by firing squad or death by guillotine?
You ask an illogical question.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no!
Frances, you're not making any sense. How are "both wrong?"
The horrifying heresy of Feeneyism, which turns God into an arbitrary tyrant and damns the innocent to an eternity of torments, scared many good-willed Catholics into embracing the opposite heresy of, 'everyone is saved'.
Curiously, it is not explained how believing that "everyone is saved" can make someone a "good-willed Catholic." :confused1:
It was actually Lover of Truth who made that quoted comment. Of course, he will not touch the question posed on this thread.
The question posted, regarding which Frances claims, "BOTH are wrong," is as follows:
Which teaching do you think is dangerous #1 or #2:
1) to believe that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if the have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity. (=Heroin BOD of Amdro, Lover of Truth, SJB)
2) St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
So, Frances, are you saying that St. John Chrysostom is "wrong" here?
.
..................we just had an earthquake in Southern California. It seems to me that it was possibly significant, perhaps 50 miles from the I-5 and I-14 freeways, occurring at 1:36 am, and magnitude of 5, duration total about 15 seconds, in two waves, beginning with a short burst (like the Northridge quake of 1994, which was also in the middle of January), then a pause of 2 or 3 seconds, followed by a rolling wave of about 10 seconds..............
-
So they won't answer the question, therefore they must be intent on hiding the truth.
We won't answer which question?
We keep answering you and those like you. But you do not want to hear.
Baptism of desire is de fide. It was taught by Trent. If you do not believe it, then you reject the teaching of Trent.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Yes, a BOD is taught by Trent in that Trent condemns it. See above where it sates: if anyone says that man can obtain the grace of justification through faith alone (aka a BOD) is anathema.
You seem proud to keep anathematizing yourself. I'd stop doing that immediately if I were you.
-
So they won't answer the question, therefore they must be intent on hiding the truth.
We won't answer which question?
We keep answering you and those like you. But you do not want to hear.
Baptism of desire is de fide. It was taught by Trent. If you do not believe it, then you reject the teaching of Trent.
Heroin BODers are obscurist, they never speak straight, they use language to confuse rather than communicate and above is a perfect example.
Amdro says baptism of desire is de fide. However, don't forget that we are talking about Heroin BOD, therefore, Amdro is a liar hiding like a coward behind St. Alphonsus's comment that explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen is defide.
Let me translate Amdro's lie, he is saying that "Heroin BOD, is defide (Infallible), that the belief that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholic, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity, he says is defied . All of which is a perfect example of an obscurist, who never speaks straight, and uses language to confuse rather than communicate
-
Amdro,
You might as well post a 0, for you never contribute anything.
Has anyone ever called St. Augustine, St. Ambrose and St. John Chrysostom (and all the other Fathers who believed John 3:15 as it is written) heretics like you do?
Answer my question, which is more dangerous your Heroin BOD or believing John 3:15 as it is written?
I stand against heresy, that is my contribution.
Your contribution is to never answer a question directly. Here is yet another example. You didn't answer the question.
"You might as well post a 0, for you never contribute anything.
Has anyone ever called St. Augustine, St. Ambrose and St. John Chrysostom (and all the other Fathers who believed John 3:15 as it is written) heretics like you do?
Answer my question, which is more dangerous your Heroin BOD or believing John 3:15 as it is written?"
-
Amdro,
You might as well post a 0, for you never contribute anything.
Has anyone ever called St. Augustine, St. Ambrose and St. John Chrysostom (and all the other Fathers who believed John 3:15 as it is written) heretics like you do?
Answer my question, which is more dangerous your Heroin BOD or believing John 3:15 as it is written?
:dancing-banana:
BOTH are wrong. Which is more fatal, death by firing squad or death by guillotine? You ask an illogical question.
:fryingpan:Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no!
......To spend all one's energies arguing for one or the other is itself, a ploy of the devil to sidetrack many an intelligent soul into neglecting his spiritual duties. Some information is simply not for us on this earth. The only thing we can know for certain is that God's Judgements are fully just. Each will get what he deserves.
Your analysis smacks of lukewarmness, sticking ones head in the sand. Remember, our Lord said:
"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth". (Apoc 3:16)
I have said many times that the theory of baptism of desire of the catechumen, and Baptisms of Blood are relatively harmless theories, a relatively "harmless drug", however, that it always leads to Heroin BOD, which is foundational to the Vatican II revolution. Without Heroin BOD there would be no VatII declarations concerning ecuмenism or religious liberty and everything related to them. That is the heart of VatII.
I've said many times that I have nothing against those that believe in explicit baptism of desire of the catechemen or Baptism of Blood, and would not waste any time on it and that Fr. Feeney would have never said anything had that been what was being taught. Moreover, this thread is quite clear that we are talking only of Heroin BOD. That is nothing to be lukewarm about!
-
By the way Francis, here's an example of my attitude as described above, I just answered this in another thread to someone who appears to limit his belief (I think for now) to baptism of blood and maybe explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen
Bowler said:
I'm not going to waste my time talking about baptism of blood. I have not heard any case of BOB since like 1700 years ago. The only reason why people today discuss BOB is to open the door to salvation for anyone in any false religion.
...
If you want to believe in explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of Blood, so be it. I've never known any catechumen or anyone that knew a catechumen or heard of someone who knew a catechumen who died before he could be baptized. It is a relatively harmless theory affecting (numerically speaking) no one. Meanwhile there are thousands of Catholic stories of people brought back from the dead just to be baptized, then they die. There are millions of examples of people miraculously clinging to life, just to die one second after being baptized.
-
:dancing-banana:As best I understand it, the Catholic Church is the sole means of salvation. There are extremes of interpretation on either side. Some say that a Catechuman who has been instructed, and dies 10 minutes before he can be baptised is eternally damned to the full extent of Hell because he has acquired the prerequisite knowledge of the Faith. The other extreme says anyone with a remote sense of natural good is saved in whatever religion, or no religion he finds himself when he dies. These are both wrong.
But my point is that it is not for us to determine the judgement of God in every case. To spend all one's energies arguing for one or the other is itself, a ploy of the devil to sidetrack many an intelligent soul into neglecting his spiritual duties. Some information is simply not for us on this earth. The only thing we can know for certain is that God's Judgements are fully just. Each will get what he deserves.
Frances, you are right, there are different interpretations. This debate is strictly with those who believe in Baptism of Desire against those who reject it.
You appear to me to be an educated Catholic, you must know that Baptism of Desire is taught by the Church.
There are three sects, those led by the SBC, the Dimond brothers, and Richard Inranyi that are attempting and in many cases succeeding in influencing Catholics to deny this truth of our Faith and join them in heresy.
I know you think well of the resistance priests, talk to them about this, and I am certain they will counsel you to avoid this heresy. The SSPX and CMRI have been combatting it for years, but the heretics influence is growing, and more Catholics are being ensnared.
Well stated Ambrose.
-
0
-
BoD is not defined, so it is not non-negotiable. It is open for discussion, which is why there is discussion on CI about it, even though heroin BoD-ers wish there wasn't any.
On the contrary,
Denz. 1683 While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.
1684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.
The Church's theologians, both before and after Trent, have taught baptism of desire to be at least theologically certain. I think I once posted the twelve or thirteen Doctors of the Church who've taught BoD here before, most notably the post-Tridentine Doctors, Ss. Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori. There's also the testimony of the Roman Catechism, Pope St. Pius V's Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus (nn. 31ff., 70f.), the Roman Rituale, the Roman Martyrology (which includes the veneration of non-baptized saints) and the 1917 CIC.
-
BoD is not defined, so it is not non-negotiable. It is open for discussion, which is why there is discussion on CI about it, even though heroin BoD-ers wish there wasn't any.
On the contrary,
Denz. 1683 While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.
1684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.
The Church's theologians, both before and after Trent, have taught baptism of desire to be at least theologically certain. I think I once posted the twelve or thirteen Doctors of the Church who've taught BoD here before, most notably the post-Tridentine Doctors, Ss. Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori. There's also the testimony of the Roman Catechism, Pope St. Pius V's Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus (nn. 31ff., 70f.), the Roman Rituale, the Roman Martyrology (which includes the veneration of non-baptized saints) and the 1917 CIC.
Nice! :applause:
-
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (magisterium).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach there is also contained that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in the sense in which the Church itself understands it. For Our Saviour gave the things that are contained in the deposit of faith to be explained by the ecclesiastical magisterium and not by private judgments.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches us that in this matter we are dealing with a most strict precept of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly ordered His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded.
Now, not the least important among the commandments of Christ is that one by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself governs the Church on earth in a visible manner.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
The Saviour not only gave the precept that all nations should enter the Church, but He also established the Church as a means of salvation, without which no one may be able to enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed towards man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when these helps are used only in intention or desire (ubi voto solummodo vel desiderio adhibeantur). This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both with reference to the sacrament of regeneration and with reference to the sacrament of penance.
In its own way, the same thing must be said about the Church, insofar as the Church itself is a general help to salvation. Therefore, in order that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is required that at least he be united to it by intention and desire.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but, when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit intention (votum) which is so called because it is included in that good disposition of the soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, “On the Mystical body of Jesus Christ.” For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are really (in re) incorporated into the Church as members and those who are joined to it only in intention (in voto).
Discussing the members of whom the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same August Pontiff says: “Only those who have received the laver of regeneration, who profess the true faith, who have not miserably separated themselves from the fabric of the Body or been expelled by legitimate authority by reason of very serious offences, are actually to be counted as members of the Church.”
Towards the end of the same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church (qui ad Ecclesiae Catholicae compagem non pertinent), he mentions those who are “ordered to the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but, on the contrary, asserts that they are in a condition in which “they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation,” since “they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps to salvation that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.”
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all those united to the Church only by implicit desire and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally (aequaliter) in every religion.
Nor must we think that any kind of intention of entering the Church is sufficient in order that one may be saved. It is requisite that the intention by which one is ordered to the Church should be informed by perfect charity; and no explicit intention can produce its effect unless the man have supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” The Council of Trent declares: “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children.” - SUPREMA HAEC SACRA
The above is a HELLO? post.
-
BoD is not defined, so it is not non-negotiable. It is open for discussion, which is why there is discussion on CI about it, even though heroin BoD-ers wish there wasn't any.
On the contrary,
Denz. 1683 While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.
1684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.
The Church's theologians, both before and after Trent, have taught baptism of desire to be at least theologically certain. I think I once posted the twelve or thirteen Doctors of the Church who've taught BoD here before, most notably the post-Tridentine Doctors, Ss. Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori. There's also the testimony of the Roman Catechism, Pope St. Pius V's Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus (nn. 31ff., 70f.), the Roman Rituale, the Roman Martyrology (which includes the veneration of non-baptized saints) and the 1917 CIC.
(WARNING : We are not discussing here baptism of desire of the catechumen, nor baptism of blood, nor any BOD which requires a desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. Be forewarned anyone that posts here in favor of BOD is talking strictly about Heroin BOD.)
Southpaw, are you defending Heroin BOD?
-
The above is a HELLO? post.
No, it is another obscurist posting of yours. We are talking here about your Heroin BOD belief, and you are attempting to divert the discussion away from your belief.
-
For Neil Obstat,
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=14039&min=225&num=5
Thank you kindly, Lover of Truth. AMDG.
bowler,
Obviously not, as in my first post I affirmed the necessity of explicit faith. In my second post, I objected to another poster who claimed that BoD is a negotiable, up-for-debate teaching.
-
(WARNING : We are not discussing here baptism of desire of the catechumen, nor baptism of blood, nor any BOD which requires a desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. Be forewarned anyone that posts here in favor of BOD is talking strictly about Heroin BOD.)
There is no such thing as Heroin BOD. :fryingpan:
-
(WARNING : We are not discussing here baptism of desire of the catechumen, nor baptism of blood, nor any BOD which requires a desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. Be forewarned anyone that posts here in favor of BOD is talking strictly about Heroin BOD.)
Southpaw, are you defending Heroin BOD?
We are talking about the error of the Feeneyits = No Salvation Outside of Water
Versus the Church's understanding of her necessity in regards to salvation.
Non-members, with supernatural faith and perfect charity can be saved within the Church if they die in a state of sanctifying grace.
We are pitting the Catholic Church (Jerome, Augustine, Bernard, Ambrose, Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine, Ligori, Pius IX, Pius XII)
Verses:
Feeney, the Dimond brothers and their followers.
Any Feeneyite that wants to step forward and admit that you believe the above mentioned theologians, Saints, Fathers, Doctors and Popes are right when they teach it is possible for non-members to be saved within the Church please feel free to do so. But don't act like this is a theological debate on when BOD is possible and when it is not when you do not accept BOD at all as such could be considered intellectually dishonest. And that is a no no for true Catholics. No?
-
(WARNING : We are not discussing here baptism of desire of the catechumen, nor baptism of blood, nor any BOD which requires a desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. Be forewarned anyone that posts here in favor of BOD is talking strictly about Heroin BOD.)
Southpaw, are you defending Heroin BOD?
We are talking about the error of the Feeneyits = No Salvation Outside of Water
Versus the Church's understanding of her necessity in regards to salvation.
Non-members, with supernatural faith and perfect charity can be saved within the Church if they die in a state of sanctifying grace.
We are pitting the Catholic Church (Jerome, Augustine, Bernard, Ambrose, Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine, Ligori, Pius IX, Pius XII)
Verses:
Feeney, the Dimond brothers and their followers.
Any Feeneyite that wants to step forward and admit that you believe the above mentioned theologians, Saints, Fathers, Doctors and Popes are right when they teach it is possible for non-members to be saved within the Church please feel free to do so. But don't act like this is a theological debate on when BOD is possible and when it is not when you do not accept BOD at all as such could be considered intellectually dishonest. And that is a no no for true Catholics. No?
I'd rather stand with popes and saints and flee anyone telling me they were wrong.
-
For Neil Obstat,
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=14039&min=225&num=5
Thank you kindly, Lover of Truth. AMDG.
bowler,
Obviously not, as in my first post I affirmed the necessity of explicit faith. In my second post, I objected to another poster who claimed that BoD is a negotiable, up-for-debate teaching.
You are quite welcome. But more importantly, thank YOU! AMDG for sure!!! He is not an arbitrary tyrant that damns the innocent to eternal torture.
-
(WARNING : We are not discussing here baptism of desire of the catechumen, nor baptism of blood, nor any BOD which requires a desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. Be forewarned anyone that posts here in favor of BOD is talking strictly about Heroin BOD.)
There is no such thing as Heroin BOD. :fryingpan:
You got that right at least. However, Heroin BOD is what you believe.
-
For bowler,
Obviously not, as in my first post I affirmed the necessity of explicit faith. In my second post, I objected to another poster who claimed that BoD is a negotiable, up-for-debate teaching.
Then I'll ask you:
Which teaching do you think is dangerous #1 or #2?
1) to believe that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if the have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity. (=Heroin BOD of Amdro, Lover of Truth, SJB)
2) St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
-
(WARNING : We are not discussing here baptism of desire of the catechumen, nor baptism of blood, nor any BOD which requires a desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. Be forewarned anyone that posts here in favor of BOD is talking strictly about Heroin BOD.)
There is no such thing as Heroin BOD. :fryingpan:
You got that right at least. However, Heroin BOD is what you believe.
I believe what the Church teaches and only what the Church teaches. I reject nothing, not one iota.
It seems to me that you and your friends on here accept 99%, but that is not good enough. Many heretics also accepted 99%, but fell short by rejecting only one doctrine.
Why not just accept the Faith, whole and entire? It's easy, it's just one act of the will.
-
For Neil Obstat,
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=14039&min=225&num=5
Huh?
You want to refer to a thread that started and ended 3 years ago? And that would be for what?
.
-
.
It's really funny how Amdro and his buddies deny the pope, and the bishops and the priests and claim that Vat.II is of the devil and they hate the Newmass.
But they agree in principle with the basis of everything Newchurch when they agree with heroin BoD.
They are a living self-contradiction.......... Kind of schizophrenic, actually.
(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4712924691236737&pid=15.1&H=223&W=160)
Maybe we should pity them, if they're unwell. Pope Francis would have pity on them.
.
-
I dont see why Christ would institute a sacrament and tell his apostles to baptize all nations IF it was not necessary for salvation.
People need to get away from this notion that you have "rights" before God.
You have no rights.
You are a slug who contaminates everything with your slime.
You have no rights.
So IF you think that living a "good" life gets you to heaven, without the sacraments of baptism or confession, then you are wrong.
These sacraments would not exist if they did not fulfill some purpose to save you.
If you believe in sacramental effect by desire, you rob the church of its power to bind and loose - because the church doesnt actually do anything to save you.
ITS ALL MESSED UP. :stare:
-
For bowler,
Obviously not, as in my first post I affirmed the necessity of explicit faith. In my second post, I objected to another poster who claimed that BoD is a negotiable, up-for-debate teaching.
Then I'll ask you:
Which teaching do you think is dangerous #1 or #2?
1) to believe that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if the have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity. (=Heroin BOD of Amdro, Lover of Truth, SJB)
2) St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
Number 1 is false and therefore dangerous; my only objection, however, is that I think there can be such a thing as an implicit desire (cf. Suprema Haec Sacra), but even this must be accompanied by divine faith (including explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and in the Incarnation) and perfect charity. It is not possible to be saved in any religion whatsoever, but only in the Catholic religion.
Number 2 is perfectly true.
-
For bowler,
Obviously not, as in my first post I affirmed the necessity of explicit faith. In my second post, I objected to another poster who claimed that BoD is a negotiable, up-for-debate teaching.
Then I'll ask you:
Which teaching do you think is dangerous #1 or #2?
1) to believe that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if the have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity. (=Heroin BOD of Amdro, Lover of Truth, SJB)
2) St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
Number 1 is false and therefore dangerous; my only objection, however, is that I think there can be such a thing as an implicit desire (cf. Suprema Haec Sacra), but even this must be accompanied by divine faith (including explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and in the Incarnation) and perfect charity. It is not possible to be saved in any religion whatsoever, but only in the Catholic religion.
Number 2 is perfectly true.
Basically you are saying that you limit your belief in BOD to baptism of explicit desire to be baptized with explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity
and also
BOD of implicit desire to be baptized, implied by the explicit desire to be a Catholic with explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity (the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri?)
Personally, I don't believe there has ever been a person saved by BOB or BOD, (read by signature quotes below.) Is my belief a heresy or have the Fathers that taught it, and the saints that believed it been declared heretics? Is my belief in a "strict EENS", a literal belief in John 3:5, harmful like Heroin BOD to potential converts, or hasn't it always been beneficial?
-
I dont see why Christ would institute a sacrament and tell his apostles to baptize all nations IF it was not necessary for salvation.
From CI thread:"Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"
the Heroin BODer, as a determinist, believes that the Holy Ghost would make all the clear dogmatic decrees on EENS and the Sacrament of Baptism, and NEVER ONCE teaching any form of baptism of desire infallibly, while at the same time EVERY SINGLE clear dogmatic decree does not mean what they say. In other words, they believe that God from before he created the world, thought of this "system" of teaching infallible something which does not mean what it says. AFTERALL, the Heroin BODer believes that someone can be saved who has no belief in Christ and the Trinity, nor has any explicit desire to be baptized, or to be a Catholic. Only a determinist could come up with such a "god", a god who has no control over the events of life, a god who's grace is useless.