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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13

Author Topic: The Necessity of the Sacraments  (Read 59592 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #45 on: February 26, 2024, 07:09:02 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on February 25, 2024, 12:15:50 PM
That's a total lie/fabrication that perfect contrition is a "substitute" for the Sacrament of Confession, and is directly contradicted from the citation from Trent.  One must intend to go to Confession at the next opportunity.  There's no such thing as a "perfect contrition" that restores to a state of justification without the intention to go to Confession.  Now, Trent adds the phrase about opportunity because it's not necessary to rouse a priest at 3AM to confession immediately after said "perfect contrition", but, say, the next time there are confessions scheduled.  But Trent clearly teaches that there is no justification due to perfect contrition alone with the Sacrament of Confession being required, saltem voto, at least in intention.  Here's a simple case.  Someone makes a perfect act of contrition, with true sorrow for one's sins because they offend God and out of love for God, but then decides he doesn't want to go to Confession, for whatever reason ... too much trouble, embarrassment, etc.

And the claim of an analogy between that and the Sacrament of Baptism is completely false, as Trent explicitly states that there are significant differences between the Sacraments.  First and foremost, the Sacrament of Baptism imparts a character and makes someone a member of the Church, whereas the Sacrament of Confession applies only to those who already have the Baptismal character.

Who is this Matheson bozo ... who clearly demonstrates a lack of even the basic distinctions involved here?

The claim of an analogy regarding sacramental necessity between baptism and penance is made by the Council of Trent, the Catechism, the Holy Office Letter of 1949, etc. 
How is this difference between the sacraments different in regard to necessity? How are them similar with regard to necessity? The Council links them as having similarity, or do you also reject the Council and Catechism of Trent on the similarity of these sacraments in terms of necessity as you also reject BoD?

 
Quote
Luke 8

4 And when a very great multitude was gathered together, and hastened out of the cities unto him, he spoke by a similitude.  5 The sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.


6 And other some fell upon a rock: and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it had no moisture.  7 And other some fell among thorns, and the thorns growing up with it, choked it.  8 And other some fell upon good ground; and being sprung up, yielded fruit a hundredfold. Saying these things, he cried out: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.  9 And his disciples asked him what this parable might be.  10 To whom he said: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to the rest in parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing may not understand.

11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.  12 And they by the way side are they that hear; then the devil cometh, and taketh the word out of their heart, lest believing they should be saved.  13 Now they upon the rock, are they who when they hear, receive the word with joy: and these have no roots; for they believe for a while, and in time of temptation, they fall away.  14 And that which fell among thorns, are they who have heard, and going their way, are choked with the cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and yield no fruit.  15 But that on the good ground, are they who in a good and perfect heart, hearing the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit in patience.

The hearts and souls of men are not soil, dirt. There are some major differences between the two. Yet Our Lord's analogy holds for His purposes, and is just and valid. 

The Council of Trent said that baptism and penance, though different sacraments with differences, are none the less analogous and worthy of comparison with regard to their necessity.

If the Council is wrong, if the "bozo" who draws the conclusion from the Trentian analogy is wrong, why don't you show us?

Good grief, everyone knows that baptism and penance are different, as we all know that a man's heart and soul is different from soil. 

Give us something of substance to chew on, would you?

Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #46 on: February 26, 2024, 07:19:05 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on February 26, 2024, 07:09:02 AM
The claim of an analogy regarding sacramental necessity between baptism and penance is made by the Council of Trent, the Catechism, the Holy Office Letter of 1949, etc.

No it's not (except maybe in the spurious 1949 letter ... haven't looked at it much in years).  Trent explicitly teaches that the Sacrament of Confession, although similar to Baptism in that it results in a soul entering the state of justification, is very different from the Sacrament of Baptism.  Your allegation that the Catechism teaches BoD does not mean that there's an equivalence being made, as there's no reference whatsoever in the Catechism to Confession whatsoever in those passages.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #47 on: February 26, 2024, 07:20:22 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on February 26, 2024, 07:09:02 AM

If the Council is wrong, if the "bozo" who draws the conclusion from the Trentian analogy is wrong, why don't you show us?

He proves himself a bozo in claiming that Trent says that perfect contrition is a "substitute" for the Sacrament of Confession.  That's utterly absurd.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #48 on: February 26, 2024, 07:20:59 AM »
Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on February 25, 2024, 01:23:01 PM
:sleep:


Yeah, well . . . are your posts here in the same vein of Cornelius a Lapide not saying that St. Dismas went to heaven before our Lord here:


Quote
Lapide:

Ver. 43.—And Jesus said unto him. Verily I say unto thee, This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise. That is, in a place of pleasure where thou mayest be in the beatitude and beatific vision of God, i.e. To-day I will make thee for ever happy; I will make thee a king reigning in the kingdom of glory with me this day. So S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechet. Lect. c. 13); S. Chrysostom (Hom. ii. de Cruce et Latrone); S. Gregory of Nyssa (Serm. on the Resurrection); S. Augustine (Tract. 111 on John). He explains paradise by heaven, that is celestial beatitude. It is certain that Christ on the day on which He died, did not go up to heaven with the thief, but went down into the Limbus Patrum (S. Augustine Lib. ii. de Genese ad litt. chap. 34; and Maldonatus by paradise here understand Abraham’s bosom), and imparted to them the vision of His Godhead and thus made them blest, changing the order of things; for He then made limbus to be paradise, and the lower parts the upper, so that hell should be heaven. For where Christ is, there is paradise; where, the vision and beatitude of God, there, heaven. For, as to what Euthymius and other Greeks say, denying that the souls of the saints see God before the judgment and are happy: by paradise they understand an earthly place; that to which Enoch was carried. But it cannot be so—for it is of the faith that Christ, shortly after His death went down in infernum—that is, the limbus of the Fathers, but He did not go into any earthly paradise. It is, moreover, uncertain whether, after the Deluge, there be any earthly paradise remaining. But grant that there be such, it is the happy and joyful habitation, not of souls, but of bodies only. Hence it is plain from this passage, against the Greeks, Calvin, and the other innovators, that the souls of the saints, when thoroughly purged from sin, do not sleep till the day of judgment, but there behold God, and are beatified by a vision of Him.

Marulus:

The bolded could be understood to mean, as you seem to understand it, that the thief went alone to heaven, but it could also be understood rightly, in context, to mean that neither Christ nor the thief went immediately to heaven. That is why the sentence continues to immediately explain how the thief experienced paradise in the Limbus Patrum.


Your reading comprehension is lacking, Lapide agrees with us and the Dimonds.

It's one thing to say you reject BoD, against the doctors, theologians, catechisms, etc. since at least Trent. But the arrogance, the snooze emoticons, the claims of heresy that certain anti-BoDers exhibit . . . I for one find it insufferable.

I don't want to be hard on you Marulus; we can respectfully disagree, and you of course can make whatever rational argument  you want. But the arrogance, sarcasm . . .


:sleep:

Maybe you should get a good alarm clock.



Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #49 on: February 26, 2024, 09:06:53 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on February 26, 2024, 07:20:59 AM

It's one thing to say you reject BoD, against the doctors, theologians, catechisms, etc. since at least Trent. But the arrogance, the snooze emoticons, the claims of heresy that certain anti-BoDers exhibit . . . I for one find it insufferable.

So it's more offensive to use emoticons against you than to (allegedly) deny the teaching of "doctors, theologians, and catechisms"?

:laugh1:
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13
« previous next »