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

Author Topic: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness  (Read 13652 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
« Reply #45 on: September 18, 2017, 08:45:29 AM »
The teaching on "Soul of the Church" is a heresy.

The definition of "Soul of the Church" in the "New Catholic Dictionary" (1929) provides an explanation for the origins of this term:

Soul of the Church: "From the 16th century, the Catholic theologians expressed more definitely the theological doctrine of the distinction between the Soul and Body of the Church. . . This distinction. . . is formally expressed by Bellarmine in his study on the members of the Church. According to him, men belong to the Body of the Church by virtue of external profession of the faith, and participation in the sacraments; and to the Soul of the Church through the internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, and charity. He draws three general conclusions relative to the members of the Church. There are those: (a) Who belong always to both the Body and Soul of the Church; (b) Who belong to the Soul without belonging to the Body; (c) Who belong to the Body but not to the Soul. This teaching has generally been followed by Catholic theologians."


In our list of quotes above, we present a quote from St. Robert Bellarmine on the Soul of the Church. As we all know, St. Bellarmine was later beatified, canonized, and given Doctor of the Church honors by Pope Pius XI (processes which never would have occurred had his teaching on the subject been considered heresy). The same teaching on "Soul of the Church" was also taught by St. Pope Pius X, Baltimore Catechism, Canon Law, Catholic Encyclopedia, A Catholic Dictionary, and the Holy Office in 1949 (see above for quotes on each).

So to say the teaching on "Soul of the Church" is a heresy, we would also logically have to declare as heretical St. Robert Bellarmine for teaching it, Pope Leo XIII for approving of it in the Baltimore Catechism, St. Pope Pius X for including it in his catechism, Pope Pius XII for approving the letter from the Holy Office in 1949, and to condemn the other Catholic references mentioned as well. Yet there has not been a single condemnation of any of these sources. And let's not forget, there has been over 25 popes since St. Robert Bellarmine was alive, all of which could have condemned him if he had taught heresy, but they did not.

Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
« Reply #46 on: September 18, 2017, 09:32:31 AM »
Logic continues to elude your heresy-riddled mind.  As I mentioned, the only affirmation that Pius XII approved this comes from none other than Cushing.  It's circular evidence.  We know this letter is authentic because it says it is.
And because the questionable Bishop who requested its creation verifies it


Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
« Reply #47 on: September 18, 2017, 01:05:02 PM »
 Baptism of desire was condemned by the Church.

Incorrect. If we look back through the history of the General Councils where heresies were condemned, we can clearly see that with each condemnation, the Church has always been very specific in naming the heresy, explaining what it was about, and at the same time condemning those who taught the heresy. For example:

Council of Nicaea in 325 AD: "First of all the affair of the impiety and lawlessness of Arius and his followers was discussed in the presence of the most pious emperor Constantine. It was unanimously agreed that anathemas should be pronounced against his impious opinion and his blasphemous terms and expressions which he has blasphemously applied to the Son of God"

Council of Ephesus 431 AD: "The holy synod said: As, in addition to all else, the excellent Nestorius has declined to obey our summons and has not received the holy and God-fearing bishops we sent to him, we have of necessity started upon an investigation of his impieties. We have found him out thinking and speaking in an impious fashion, from his letters, from his writings that have been read out, and from the things that he has recently said in this metropolis which have been witnessed to by others; and as a result we have been compelled of necessity both by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow servant Celestine, bishop of the church of the Romans, to issue this sad condemnation against him..."

Council of Constantinople III in 680 AD: "To make an end of the Monothelite controversy, Emperor Constantine IV asked Pope Donus in 678 to send twelve bishops and four western Greek monastic superiors to represent the pope at an assembly of eastern and western theologians. Pope Agatho, who meanwhile had succeeded Donus, ordered consultation in the west on this important matter. Around Easter 680 a synod in Rome of 125 Italian bishops, with Pope Agatho presiding, assessed the replies of the regional synods of the west and composed a profession of faith in which Monothelitism was condemned."

Similar references can be found in the other General Councils where heresies were condemned, such that there was no confusion as to what was being condemned, and who was involved in spreading the erroneous teachings. Yet on our webpage above, we provide quotes teaching baptism of desire and/or blood from St. Pope Siricius, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, Pope Pius IX, St. Pope Pius X, Pope Pius XII, St. Cyprian, Tertullian, St. Hippolytus, John Chrystostome, St. Basil, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Victor of Braga, St. Genesius of Arles, Rufinus, St. Gregory nαzιanzen, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Augustine, St. Prosper, St. Fulgentius, St. John of Damascus, St. Bede, St. Bonaventure, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus Liguori. Nowhere in any General Councils or other docuмents throughout the history of the Church do we see a single condemnation of any of these Popes, Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, and Saints, nor do we see a condemnation of baptism of desire or blood. If there were a condemnation, it would be very specific, naming "baptism of desire" and/or "baptism of blood", and naming at least some of those who taught it. There are no such condemnations that exist 

Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
« Reply #48 on: September 19, 2017, 08:53:09 AM »
 St. Hippolytus of Rome (3rd century)Canons of Hypolytus, Can. XIX: Concerning Catechumens: "Catechumens, who by the unbelievers are arrested and killed by martyrdom, before they received baptism, are to be buried with the other martyrs, for they are baptized in their own blood." 

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Root of Lover of Truth's Illness
« Reply #49 on: September 19, 2017, 12:58:37 PM »
St. Hippolytus of Rome (3rd century): Canons of Hypolytus, Can. XIX: Concerning Catechumens: "Catechumens, who by the unbelievers are arrested and killed by martyrdom, before they received baptism, are to be buried with the other martyrs, for they are baptized in their own blood."

It's appropriate that you would spam bump a thread dedicated to your mental/spiritual illness.