[Last Tradhican]

LOT is now even here confirming everything that this post is about. The guy is his own worst witness.

[Lover of Truth]

The Douay Catechism (17^th century): "Q. 610. Can a man be saved without baptism? A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ." 

[JPaul]

Beware of the modernist Vatican II theology disguised as Traditional Catholic teaching!

[Neil Obstat]

LOT is now even here confirming everything that this post [thread] is about.

The guy is his own worst witness.

.
He witnesses all he wants, proving the case against himself, and does so with impunity. 
.
The record is its own case. 
.

Quote from: MaterDominici on August 15, 2017, 12:32:41 PM

He's allowed to post for the same reason everyone here is allowed to post -- he's not breaking any rules* and he isn't annoying the moderator.**

*I'm not aware of any rules which he is breaking. I believe he was previously told not to post the exact same thing in multiple places. So, if he's doing that, I'd let Matthew know.

**This entire sub-sub-forum is of very little interest to either Matthew or myself, so those who find this topic a worthwhile use of their time hopefully by now have figured out that it is very light on moderator activity of any sort. Take it or leave it; it is what it is.

.
LoT has persistently posted "the exact same thing" (albeit with different font, bold, italics and/or underline) for the past two months. We could go back further.
.

These two posts (on top) are the same as these two posts (on the bottom):
.
top:
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/john-35/msg559741/#msg559741
.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/john-35/msg559737/#msg559737
.
bottom:
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/why-feeneyites-hate-catholic-teaching/msg560434/#msg560434
.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/warning-to-all-about-lover-of-truth-the-perpetuator-of-this-sub-forum/msg560428/#msg560428
.
They do, however, use different font types and italics, even while the words are identical.
.
.

.
Quote from: Lover of Truth on Yesterday at 11:00:04 AM

St. Bonaventure, Doctor of the Church (13^th century): In Sent. IV, d.4,P.2,a.I,q.I: “God obliges no one to do the impossible and therefore it must be admitted that the baptism of desire without the baptism of water is sufficient, provided the person in question has the will to receive the baptism of water, but is prevented from doing so before he dies." 

 Centiloquij, Tertia pars and De Sacramentorum virtute, Lib. VI: "There are three distinct forms of Baptism, namely that of fire, that of water and that of blood. Baptism of fire is that provided by repentance and the grace of the Holy Spirit, and purifies from sin. In Baptism of water we are both purified from sin and absolved of all temporal punishment due to sin. In Baptism of blood we are purified from all misery."

.
Oh -- look what LoT posted on August 2nd, just 2 weeks ago!!
.

Re: Definition of Faith for the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
« Reply #117 on: August 02, 2017, 07:30:34 AM »

St. Bonaventure, Doctor of the Church (13^th century): In Sent. IV, d.4,P.2,a.I,q.I: “God obliges no one to do the impossible and therefore it must be admitted that the baptism of desire without the baptism of water is sufficient, provided the person in question has the will to receive the baptism of water, but is prevented from doing so before he dies." 

Centiloquij, Tertia pars and De Sacramentorum virtute, Lib. VI: "There are three distinct forms of Baptism, namely that of fire, that of water and that of blood. Baptism of fire is that provided by repentance and the grace of the Holy Spirit, and purifies from sin. In Baptism of water we are both purified from sin and absolved of all temporal punishment due to sin. In Baptism of blood we are purified from all misery."

.
But they're not exactly the same, eh? 
.
No, MaterDominici, they're not exactly the same. 
.
The second version has a lot of BOLD in a Larger font, correct? That way, he can claim they're not "exactly the same." 
.
.

Quote from: Lover of Truth on Yesterday at 11:13:52 AM

Pope Innocent III (13^th century): From the letter "Debitum pastoralis officii" to Berthold, the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206: "You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jєω, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jєωs, immersed himself in water while saying: 'I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.' We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: 'Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.," the Jєω mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another...If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith."

Okay, and what do we have on that?



Re: Definition of Faith for the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
« Reply #125 on: August 02, 2017, 07:45:30 AM »

Pope Innocent III (13^th century): From the letter "Debitum pastoralis officii" to Berthold, the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206: "You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jєω, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jєωs, immersed himself in water while saying: 'I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.' We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: 'Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.," the Jєω mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another...If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith."

.
Again, as usual, some difference in bold and underline, but not the words. 
.
Are we seeing a pattern yet?
.

.

Quote from: Lover of Truth on Yesterday at 11:19:18 AM

St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century): Dialogue of St. Catherine: Baptisms: "I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of an, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin, unless he wish to do so; by falling, as he will, into the guild of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But if the soul is unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood... Thou seest then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite..."

.
It looks like we're on the two week cycle pattern. Everything LoT is posting here today he posted two weeks ago. But nobody usually pays attention to the fact, and the mods are too busy to notice. So it goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on................................
.
Baptism of Desire and Feeneyism / Re: Definition of Faith for the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
« on: August 02, 2017, 09:08:03 AM ».

Quote

St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century): Dialogue of St. Catherine: Baptisms: "I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of an, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin, unless he wish to do so; by falling, as he will, into the guild of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But if the soul is unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood... Thou seest then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite..."

.
LoT is having a LoT of fun today. But he ALWAYS has a LoT of fun.
.

.

Quote from: Lover of Truth on Yesterday at 11:29:29 AM

Catechism of the Council of Trent (16^th century): The Sacraments, Baptism: "...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

.
Same thing, different day, different thread:
.
Oh, almost forgot ------- different underline format!!
.
Baptism of Desire and Feeneyism / The Death Nole of Baptism of DesireBlood
« on: July 12, 2016, 05:03:24 AM »
.

Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century): The Sacraments, Baptism: "...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

.
The "Death Nole?" 
.
Seriously??
.

Note:

I tried to copy several posts in one place but the system keeps changing what I've pasted in, so various portions of the posts that I pasted in have been deleted and I can't get them to remain in place. It likes to crunch paragraphs together and smunch successive quotes on top of each other and in the process loses the separation between blocks which makes it unreadable. I tried to make my comments in bold red italics to set them off but they are red one minute then black the next, and I can't make them remain in red. I don't know if the problem is in my computer or in the CI platform. I tried to make it readable and simple but that's just not happening, I guess.

[Ladislaus]

I tried to copy several posts in one place but the system keeps changing what I've pasted in

If you need help understanding the copy-and-paste capabilities of this forum, I suggest that you consult with LoT by PM.  He's undisputed copy-paste master here on CI.  He may even have a bot doing this for him.

[DZ PLEASE]

If you need help understanding the copy-and-paste capabilities of this forum, I suggest that you consult with LoT by PM.  He's undisputed copy-paste master here on CI.  He may even have a bot doing this for him.

He's been rather quiet today. Hopefully something clicked and he's okay.

[Neil Obstat]

If you need help understanding the copy-and-paste capabilities of this forum, I suggest that you consult with LoT by PM.  He's undisputed copy-paste master here on CI.  He may even have a bot doing this for him.

.
45 posts yesterday in only 6 hours? I guess so -- they must be on quick-access folders, since he's using the same content over and over and over again, could have been reprimanded for that, at last. But what I was trying to do I don't see in any of LoT's posts. Perhaps I need the upgraded keyboard?  :farmer:
.
.
.
You know, if you don't bother to read the reply post that came in a minute or two ago and you just toss out another canned post you've tossed out several times this year, it's no wonder you'd be missing the fact that the posts you're not reading behind you are being found as copies of your previous posts 2 weeks ago. That would also be consistent with not bothering to read what other members post because you're too busy shelling out the same-old same-old.
.

[Neil Obstat]

He's been rather quiet today. Hopefully something clicked and he's okay.

28 hours off duty? That's a change! One thing that hasn't been clicking is his mouse. Hope he's okay!

[DZ PLEASE]

.
45 posts yesterday in only 6 hours? I guess so -- they must be on quick-access folders, since he's using the same content over and over and over again, could have been reprimanded for that, at last. But what I was trying to do I don't see in any of LoT's posts. Perhaps I need the upgraded keyboard?  :farmer:

Better step-by-step, kill one target to the dirt that try to engage a bunch at once. Part of the problem nowadays is we get impatient, get out of sorts, and don't really nail down requisites before moving to contingents.

This approach also saves time because most are unwilling to do the requisites, and theres no point in continuing if the reqs. aren't done. Can't read English if you don't know the alphabet.

[Lover of Truth]

If you are not a Feeneyite the following teaching is plain:

1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”

Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”

If you are a Feeneyite you have to reject this Catholic teaching and either pretend it does not teach what it teaches or pretend that it is possible to die justified and not obtain the Beatific Vision.  Perhaps if Feeneyites ever actually understand what this council teaches and admit the basic Catholic teaching that one who is justified is in a state of sanctifying grace they will be forced to claim that Trent was not infallible and that we do not have to accept what it taught on the issue. 

Perhaps some Feenyites are the devils agents purposely trying to confuse the issue in order to sow confusion, wreck havoc and waste people's time preventing people from learning the Truth and spending their free time in prayer. 

[Last Tradhican]

The ONLY theological speculation one can discuss concerning those two quotes is the explicit desire of the catechumen, or baptism of blood of a catechumen both of which explicitely believe in the Holy Trinity and the incarnation. The poster above does not believe that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity, or the Incarnation, or explicit desire to be baptized, or a desire to be a Catholic , or martyrdom for Christ are required for salvation. He teaches that anyone can be saved, that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists can be saved by their belief in a rewarder god.

So, why does that person talk about Trent?

[DZ PLEASE]

For the same reason politicians kiss babies and speak of virtue when signalling it isn't convenient or the form of said signals haven't been updated and weaponized for reliable mass consumption?

TLDR: "Truth challenged"

The ONLY theological speculation one can discuss concerning those two quotes is the explicit desire of the catechumen, or baptism of blood of a catechumen both of which explicitely believe in the Holy Trinity and the incarnation. The poster above does not believe that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity, or the Incarnation, or explicit desire to be baptized, or a desire to be a Catholic , or martyrdom for Christ are required for salvation. He teaches that anyone can be saved, that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists can be saved by their belief in a rewarder god.

So, why does that person talk about Trent?

[Lover of Truth]

The ONLY theological speculation one can discuss concerning those two quotes is the explicit desire of the catechumen, or baptism of blood of a catechumen both of which explicitely believe in the Holy Trinity and the incarnation. The poster above does not believe that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity, or the Incarnation, or explicit desire to be baptized, or a desire to be a Catholic , or martyrdom for Christ are required for salvation. He teaches that anyone can be saved, that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists can be saved by their belief in a rewarder god.

So, why does that person talk about Trent?

Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius IX and Pius XII get it, you don't.

[Last Tradhican]

Last Tradhican said: He teaches that anyone can be saved, that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists can be saved by their belief in a rewarder god.
 
 So, why does that person talk about Trent?

The person answers: Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius IX and Pius XII get it, you don't

There's insanity or the devil at work again. Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius IX and Pius XII never taught that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists can be saved by their belief in a rewarder god.

[Lover of Truth]

There's insanity or the devil at work again. Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius IX and Pius XII never taught that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists can be saved by their belief in a rewarder god.

Where have I taught this?