Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again  (Read 4052 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gemmarose

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 205
  • Reputation: +54/-224
  • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!4
  • https://twitter.com/1Friarminor/status/1624888904221396993?s=20

    Please remember Friarminor is not associated or support any group out there.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46524
    • Reputation: +27408/-5061
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again
    « Reply #1 on: March 14, 2023, 10:33:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Interesting connection.  There's another meaning, of course, but this is interesting nonetheless.


    Offline CatholicInAmerica

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 356
    • Reputation: +149/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again
    « Reply #2 on: March 14, 2023, 10:48:03 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • https://twitter.com/1Friarminor/status/1624888904221396993?s=20

    Please remember Friarminor is not associated or support any group out there.
    Erroneous interpretation. This guys tweeting style has Dimond bros written all over it. When John says But of God, he means that no man is saved but through Gods grace. No man can merit heaven, rather it is through Gods grace that man can reach heaven. 
    Pope St. Pius X pray for us

    Offline CatholicInAmerica

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 356
    • Reputation: +149/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again
    « Reply #3 on: March 14, 2023, 10:59:13 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • "However, the first exposition, which is taken as explaining what preceded, is better.
    160 Then when he says, who are born not from blood, he shows the way in which so great a fruit is conferred on men. For since he had said that the fruit of the light’s coming is the power given to men to become the sons of God, then to forestall the supposition that they are born through a material generation he says, not from blood. And although the word “blood” (sanguis) has no plural in Latin, but does in Greek, the translator [from Greek into Latin] ignored a rule of grammar in order to teach the truth more perfectly. So he does not say, “from blood,” in the Latin manner, but “from bloods” (ex sanguinibus)This indicates whatever is generated from blood, serving as the matter in carnal generation. According to the Philosopher [On the Generation of Animals, 1, c 18, 726a26-8], “semen is a residue derived from useful nourishment in its final form.” So “blood” indicates either the seed of the male or the menses of the female.
    The cause moving to the carnal act is the will of those coming together, the man and the woman. For although the act of the generative power as such is not subject to the will, the preliminaries to it are subject to the will. So he says, nor from the desires of the flesh, referring to the woman; nor from man’s willing it, as from an efficient cause; but from God. It is as though he were saying: They became sons of God, not carnally, but spiritually.
    According to Augustine, “flesh” is taken here for the woman, because as the flesh obeys the spirit, so woman should obey man. Adam (Gn 2:23) said of the woman, “This, at last, is bone of my bones.” And note, according to Augustine, that just as the possessions of a household are wasted away if the woman rules and the man is subject, so a man is wasted away when the flesh rules the spirit. For this reason the Apostle says, “We are not debtors to the flesh, so that we should live according to the flesh” (Rom 8:12). Concerning the manner of this carnal generation, we read, “In the womb of my mother I was molded into flesh” (Wis 7:1).
    161 Or, we might say that the moving force to carnal generation is twofold: the intellectual appetite on the one hand, that is, the will; and on the other hand, the sense appetite, which is concupiscence. So, to indicate the material cause he says, not from blood. To indicate the efficient cause, in respect to concupiscence, he says, nor from the desires of the flesh [ex voluntate carnis, literally, “from the will of the flesh”], even though the concupiscence of the flesh is improperly called a “will” in the sense of Galatians (5:17), “The flesh lusts against the spirit.” Finally, to indicate the intellectual appetite he says, nor from man’s willing it. So, the generation of the sons of God is not carnal but spiritual, because they were born from God. “Every one who is born from God conquers the world” (1 Jn 5:4).
    162 Note, however, that this preposition de (“of,” or “from”), always signifies a material cause as well as an efficient and even a consubstantial cause. Thus we say a blacksmith makes a knife de ferro (“from” iron), and a father generates his son de seipso (“from” himself), because something of his concurs somehow in begetting. But the preposition (“by”) always signifies a moving cause. The preposition ex (“from,” or “by”)—[in the sense of “out of” or “by reason of”]—is taken as something common, since it implies an efficient as well as a material cause, although not a consubstantial cause.
    Consequently, since only the Son of God, who is the Word, is “of (de) the substance of the Father and indeed is one substance with the Father, while the saints, who are adopted sons, are not of his substance, the Evangelist uses the preposition ex, saying of others that they are born from God (ex Deo)but of the natural Son, he says that he is born of the Father (de Patre).
    163 Note also that in the light of our last exposition of carnal generation, we can discern the difference between carnal and spiritual generation. For since the former is from blood, it is carnal; but the latter, because it is not from blood, is spiritual. “What is born from flesh is itself flesh; and what is born from Spirit is itself spirit” (below 3:6). Again, because material generation is from the desires of the flesh, i.e., from concupiscence, it is unclean and begets children who are sinners: “We were by nature children of wrath” as it says in Ephesians (2:3). Again, because the former is from man’s willing it, that is, from man, it makes children of men; but the latter, because it is from God, makes children of God.
    164 But if he intends to refer his statement, he gave them power, to baptism, in virtue of which we are reborn as sons of God, we can detect in his words the order of baptism: that is, the first thing required is faith, as shown in the case of catechumens, who must first be instructed about the faith so that they may believe in his name; then through baptism they are reborn, not carnally froin blood, but spiritually from God."-
    Excerpt from Aquinas commentary on the Gospel of John (This is from his commentary on John 1:13 "Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God  qui non ex sanguinibus, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt."
    Pope St. Pius X pray for us

    Offline CatholicInAmerica

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 356
    • Reputation: +149/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again
    « Reply #4 on: March 14, 2023, 11:05:12 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • "444 It is clear that the Holy Spirit is God, since he says, unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit (ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto). For above (1:13) he says: “who are born not from blood, nor from the desires of the flesh, nor from man’s willing it, but from God (ex Deo).” From this we can form the following argument: He from whom men are spiritually reborn is God; but men are spiritually reborn through the Holy Spirit, as it is stated here; therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.
    445 Two questions arise here. First, if no one enters the kingdom of God unless he is born again of water, and if the fathers of old were not born again of water (for they were not baptized), then they have not entered the kingdom of God. Secondly, since baptism is of three kinds, that is, of water, of desire, and of blood, and many have been baptized in the latter two ways (who we say have entered the kingdom of God immediately, even though they were not born again of water), it does not seem to be true to say that unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
    The answer to the first is that rebirth or regeneration from water and the Holy Spirit takes place in two ways: in truth and in symbol. Now the fathers of old, although they were not reborn with a true rebirth, were nevertheless reborn with a symbolic rebirth, because they always had a sense perceptible sign in which true rebirth was prefigured. So according to this, thus reborn, they did enter the kingdom of God, after the ransom was paid.
    The answer to the second is that those who are reborn by a baptism of blood and fire, although they do not have regeneration in deed, they do have it in desire. Otherwise neither would the baptism of blood mean anything nor could there be a baptism of the Spirit. Consequently, in order that man may enter the kingdom of heaven, it is necessary that there be a baptism of water in deed, as in the case of all baptized persons, or in desire, as in the case of the martyrs and catechumens, who are prevented by death from fulfilling their desire, or in symbol, as in the case of the fathers of old.
    446 It might be remarked that it was from this statement, unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, that the Pelagians derived their error that children are baptized not in order to be cleansed from sin, since they have none, but in order to be able to enter the kingdom of God. But this is false, because as Augustine says in his book, The Baptism of Children, it is not fitting for an image of God, namely, man, to be excluded from the kingdom of God except for some obstacle, which can be nothing but sin. Therefore, there must be some sin, namely, original sin, in children who are excluded from the kingdom.
    447 Then when he says, What is born of flesh is itself flesh, he proves by reason that it is necessary to be born of water and the Holy Spirit. And the reasoning is this: No one can reach the kingdom unless he is made spiritual; but no one is made spiritual except by the Holy Spirit; therefore, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born again of the Holy Spirit.
    So he says, what is born of flesh (ex carne) is itself flesh, i.e., birth according to the flesh makes one be born into the life of the flesh: “The first man was from the earth, earthly” (1 Cor 15:47); and what is born of Spirit (ex Spiritu) , i.e., from the power of the Holy Spirit, is itself spirit, i.e., spiritual."
    Taken from Aquinas' commentary on John 3, excerpt from part on John 3:5 "5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Respondit Jesus : Amen, amen dico tibi, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua, et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei."
    (Red color added by myself to emphasize)



    Pope St. Pius X pray for us


    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1515
    • Reputation: +1246/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again
    « Reply #5 on: March 15, 2023, 02:05:50 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://twitter.com/1Friarminor/status/1624888904221396993?s=20

    Please remember Friarminor is not associated or support any group out there.
    You are a perfect Protestant, wresting the Scriptures to your own destruction.
    Friarminor is associated with any group but the Church.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11402
    • Reputation: +6374/-1119
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again
    « Reply #6 on: March 15, 2023, 08:08:02 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I always took the Last Gospel to mean that we cannot save ourselves.  That we must have the gift of Faith which only comes from God....not from our will or another's will and not from our lineage. 

    Offline gemmarose

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 205
    • Reputation: +54/-224
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again
    « Reply #7 on: March 15, 2023, 03:41:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "However, the first exposition, which is taken as explaining what preceded, is better.
    160 Then when he says, who are born not from blood, he shows the way in which so great a fruit is conferred on men. For since he had said that the fruit of the light’s coming is the power given to men to become the sons of God, then to forestall the supposition that they are born through a material generation he says, not from blood. And although the word “blood” (sanguis) has no plural in Latin, but does in Greek, the translator [from Greek into Latin] ignored a rule of grammar in order to teach the truth more perfectly. So he does not say, “from blood,” in the Latin manner, but “from bloods” (ex sanguinibus). This indicates whatever is generated from blood, serving as the matter in carnal generation. According to the Philosopher [On the Generation of Animals, 1, c 18, 726a26-8], “semen is a residue derived from useful nourishment in its final form.” So “blood” indicates either the seed of the male or the menses of the female.
    The cause moving to the carnal act is the will of those coming together, the man and the woman. For although the act of the generative power as such is not subject to the will, the preliminaries to it are subject to the will. So he says, nor from the desires of the flesh, referring to the woman; nor from man’s willing it, as from an efficient cause; but from God. It is as though he were saying: They became sons of God, not carnally, but spiritually.
    According to Augustine, “flesh” is taken here for the woman, because as the flesh obeys the spirit, so woman should obey man. Adam (Gn 2:23) said of the woman, “This, at last, is bone of my bones.” And note, according to Augustine, that just as the possessions of a household are wasted away if the woman rules and the man is subject, so a man is wasted away when the flesh rules the spirit. For this reason the Apostle says, “We are not debtors to the flesh, so that we should live according to the flesh” (Rom 8:12). Concerning the manner of this carnal generation, we read, “In the womb of my mother I was molded into flesh” (Wis 7:1).
    161 Or, we might say that the moving force to carnal generation is twofold: the intellectual appetite on the one hand, that is, the will; and on the other hand, the sense appetite, which is concupiscence. So, to indicate the material cause he says, not from blood. To indicate the efficient cause, in respect to concupiscence, he says, nor from the desires of the flesh [ex voluntate carnis, literally, “from the will of the flesh”], even though the concupiscence of the flesh is improperly called a “will” in the sense of Galatians (5:17), “The flesh lusts against the spirit.” Finally, to indicate the intellectual appetite he says, nor from man’s willing it. So, the generation of the sons of God is not carnal but spiritual, because they were born from God. “Every one who is born from God conquers the world” (1 Jn 5:4).
    162 Note, however, that this preposition de (“of,” or “from”), always signifies a material cause as well as an efficient and even a consubstantial cause. Thus we say a blacksmith makes a knife de ferro (“from” iron), and a father generates his son de seipso (“from” himself), because something of his concurs somehow in begetting. But the preposition a (“by”) always signifies a moving cause. The preposition ex (“from,” or “by”)—[in the sense of “out of” or “by reason of”]—is taken as something common, since it implies an efficient as well as a material cause, although not a consubstantial cause.
    Consequently, since only the Son of God, who is the Word, is “of” (de) the substance of the Father and indeed is one substance with the Father, while the saints, who are adopted sons, are not of his substance, the Evangelist uses the preposition ex, saying of others that they are born from God (ex Deo), but of the natural Son, he says that he is born of the Father (de Patre).
    163 Note also that in the light of our last exposition of carnal generation, we can discern the difference between carnal and spiritual generation. For since the former is from blood, it is carnal; but the latter, because it is not from blood, is spiritual. “What is born from flesh is itself flesh; and what is born from Spirit is itself spirit” (below 3:6). Again, because material generation is from the desires of the flesh, i.e., from concupiscence, it is unclean and begets children who are sinners: “We were by nature children of wrath” as it says in Ephesians (2:3). Again, because the former is from man’s willing it, that is, from man, it makes children of men; but the latter, because it is from God, makes children of God.
    164 But if he intends to refer his statement, he gave them power, to baptism, in virtue of which we are reborn as sons of God, we can detect in his words the order of baptism: that is, the first thing required is faith, as shown in the case of catechumens, who must first be instructed about the faith so that they may believe in his name; then through baptism they are reborn, not carnally froin blood, but spiritually from God."-
    Excerpt from Aquinas commentary on the Gospel of John (This is from his commentary on John 1:13 "Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God qui non ex sanguinibus, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt."
    @1Friarminor is definitely not a dimondite! Read how most in that group hate him. Sanguinibus, according to Friar, historically meant bƖσσdshɛd. If you know Latin better than him please show that it never meant that. Thanks! 


    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46524
    • Reputation: +27408/-5061
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again
    « Reply #8 on: March 15, 2023, 03:57:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Erroneous interpretation. This guys tweeting style has Dimond bros written all over it. When John says But of God, he means that no man is saved but through Gods grace. No man can merit heaven, rather it is through Gods grace that man can reach heaven.

    It's not even close to the Dimonds' "style".  He has similar beliefs about there not being BoD, but that's the only similarity I see there to this point.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46524
    • Reputation: +27408/-5061
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again
    « Reply #9 on: March 15, 2023, 03:58:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You are a perfect Protestant, wresting the Scriptures to your own destruction.
    Friarminor is associated with any group but the Church.

    Coming from someone who holds that the Catholic Church has become corrupt and departed from its former purity of doctrine ... :laugh1:

    Of course, just in 1962.  Anyone who disputes something prior to that time, they're Protestant, but if you dispute something universally taught after some magical morning in 1962, then you're Catholic.  :facepalm:

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46524
    • Reputation: +27408/-5061
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again
    « Reply #10 on: March 15, 2023, 04:02:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I always took the Last Gospel to mean that we cannot save ourselves.  That we must have the gift of Faith which only comes from God....not from our will or another's will and not from our lineage.

    Well, I think that the primary meaning is the same as the famous "born again" passages, where there are two types of birth, a natural birth and a supernatural, and this passage distinguishes between the two.  But I do find the references to not by blood, not by the will to be very suggestive.  These words were written by the Holy Ghost and likely have several layers of depth and meaning.


    Offline gemmarose

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 205
    • Reputation: +54/-224
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again
    « Reply #11 on: March 15, 2023, 04:24:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's not even close to the Dimonds' "style".  He has similar beliefs about there not being BoD, but that's the only similarity I see there to this point.
    Thanks. You are correct he's not a Dimond follower. I believe he was against BOD years before mhfm came on the scene. My understanding is he believes BOD is at the root of our problems today, considering BOD really means salvation in false religions. Finally, mhfm never mentioned any of the things of his I posted yesterday, and I found their followers go out of their way to say the catechism of Trent teaches BOD. 




    Offline CatholicInAmerica

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 356
    • Reputation: +149/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again
    « Reply #12 on: March 15, 2023, 05:31:35 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lol only on Cathinfo can you cite the Catholic interpretation of the last Gospel by Aquinas and get downvoted :fryingpan:
    Pope St. Pius X pray for us

    Offline CatholicInAmerica

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 356
    • Reputation: +149/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again
    « Reply #13 on: March 15, 2023, 05:41:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's not even close to the Dimonds' "style".  He has similar beliefs about there not being BoD, but that's the only similarity I see there to this point.
    By Dimond style I meant picking a scriptural quote and assigning an erroneous interpretation. Which they do constantly. 
    Pope St. Pius X pray for us

    Offline CatholicInAmerica

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 356
    • Reputation: +149/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Last Gospel of the Mass declares no one can be born again
    « Reply #14 on: March 15, 2023, 05:42:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • @1Friarminor is definitely not a dimondite! Read how most in that group hate him. Sanguinibus, according to Friar, historically meant bƖσσdshɛd. If you know Latin better than him please show that it never meant that. Thanks!
    This is from Aquinas, I’ll trust Aquinas Latin over a Twitter feenyite who erroneously interprets scripture. 
    Pope St. Pius X pray for us