Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: spouse of Jesus

BOD is not an americanist thing. It is as old as 5th century.

Agreed.  The modern heresy is that of implicit faith.  No one taught that prior to Saint Pope Pius IX, who, let's face it, allowed the heresy to spread.  He should have condemned it, but he did not.  The Syllabus of Errors was a good attempt, but it was still weak.  He should have defined it, once and for all.

Dont give CM any ideas, elsewise, Pius IX will enter the ever expanding list of anti-popes.....

I think that he was a good Pope.  I am not a historian, but I do know that there was a lot going on in Italy at the time, and Pius IX ended-up on his knees (literally).  I think that he wanted compromise and unity, so he made some concessions to the liberal theologians of his day and thought that he could erect a "theological wall" around their modernist ideas.  However, what the modernists of our day quote is not from the Syllabus but from Quanto Conficiamur.  His concession was, IMHO, the "hole in the dike" that allowed the waters of modernism (driven by atheistic materialism -- please reply to my other OP!!!) to flow into Catholicism.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I'm not sure if Catholic Martyr has admitted that Father Feeney properly interpreted the Council of Trent as teaching that the mere desire for baptism can justify a man and therefore had to invent his teaching that a man who dies justified is not necessarily saved, definitely not saved if he was baptized by water.  Can you respond again here?

I'm not all too surprised that you post all this text, only to ignore the responses.  I answered that question on the previous page of this thread.

Quote from: I

Feeney was wrong.  Trent teaches that a person cannot be justified without the laver of regeneration.  Trent teaches that a person cannot be justified without the desire for the laver of regeneration.

Either one missing, no justification.  No justification, no heaven.  No heaven=hellfire.

Hello Catholic Martyr,

I cannot dilly daly too long on this site at work so I briefly skim through.

Do you admit that Father Feeney understood the Latin of Trent and understanding it well interprated correctly.  You will say he interpreted it incorrectly but would you grant he understood Latin better than those who say we misinterpret Trent because of the Latin?

I was of course kidding about Pius IX, etc....one cannot be tortured for what does not know..may or may not keep one from Heaven....but not Hell which is punishment for willful sinners....

Catholic Martyr,

Don't get the wrong impressing I do try to check all your responses when I can and they have all seemed very familiar.  I have thoroughly studied both sides of the issue.  

God bless, Mary keep,
John

Pardon me.

would you grant he understood Latin better than those who say we misinterpret Trent because of the Latin?

Did he understand Latin better than me? I don't doubt it. Do I say you misinterpret it because of the Latin, per se? No. I don't know why you misinterpret it (my guess is emotionalism), but you clearly do, and you destroy any tangible semblance of infallibility in the process.

Everyone goes to either heaven or hell, have you invented a new region of the afterlife?

Hmmm...

....but not Hell which is punishment for willful sinners....

Which universally binding, infallible authoritative teaching did you get that from Belloc?

I learned exactly the opposite from the following universally binding, infallible authoritative teaching:

The Holy Catholic Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives;

I have thoroughly studied both sides of the issue.

Apparently, but you are believing that God the Holy Ghost, when He makes an infallible definition of dogma through the Pontiff can be either sloppy, or obscure, insomuch as to mean something other than what He clearly said.

In other words, you have chosen to believe the wrong arguments, when you should be believing the original objective sense of the declarations of Holy Mother Church.

With God nothing is impossible.

However, we know He will not eternally reward sin.  Is it possible for Him to do so?  It is utterly repugnant to even answer this in any other way than NO!  I will not ever say it is possible for God to reward sin, because this is a travesty against His justice, which is perfect.

Now, to suggest that He would act in a manner contrary to His justice in any other manner is equally repugnant.  Christ Himself said that certain types of people cannot enter heaven: The unbaptized.  Those are the clear words out of His own mouth.

The Holy Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ is given the "promise of the Father", that "power from on high", by which She might "religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles," the promise who is none other than "the Spirit of truth", who is come to "teach you all truth", has wielded this very great power on not few occasions, whereby She infallibly proclaims the absolute and true meaning of the words of Jesus Christ in St. John 3:5.

One such definition is this:

Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven.

The sacrament of water baptism is described as the means of entering the Church, and is directly referenced as the meaning of being born again of water and the Spirit, and it is then further asserted that indeed as the Truth Himself says, we cannot, enter the kingdom of heaven unless we partake in this being born again of water and the spirit - and there is not an exception given.   It is impossible, insomuch as God said HE wouldn't allow it, regardless of His omnipotence.  His omnipotence does not mean that we can speculate that He will transgress His JUSTICE, for the sake of a person who "dies before their time" as though God's providence somehow could not foresee it, or as though He did not have the ability to prevent such a death, or to reverse it for the sake of getting his elect the baptism, without which, according to His own words, one is damned.

That was indeed God the Holy Ghost who spoke through Pope Eugene, giving testimony of and confirming the Truth of the Lord Jesus Christ's words. And you have seen enough times that the Vatican Council and Pope Pius X, who you all claim to obey, both teach that the meaning is to be held that was once declared by Holy Mother Church, and Pope Leo XIII, who you all claim to obey, stated that if anyone recedes in the LEAST from even ONE point of doctrine proposed by the Church's authoritative Magisterium (such as that of Pope Eugene), he is NOT A CATHOLIC.

With God nothing is impossible.

However, we know He will not eternally reward sin.  Is it possible for Him to do so?  It is utterly repugnant to even answer this in any other way than NO!  I will not ever say it is possible for God to reward sin, because this is a travesty against His justice, which is perfect.

Now, to suggest that He would act in a manner contrary to His justice in any other manner is equally repugnant.  Christ Himself said that certain types of people cannot enter heaven: The unbaptized.  Those are the clear words out of His own mouth.

The Holy Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ is given the "promise of the Father", that "power from on high", by which She might "religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles," the promise who is none other than "the Spirit of truth", who is come to "teach you all truth", has wielded this very great power on not few occasions, whereby She infallibly proclaims the absolute and true meaning of the words of Jesus Christ in St. John 3:5.

One such definition is this:

Quote from: Pope Eugene IV, at the Council of Florence,

Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven.

The sacrament of water baptism is described as the means of entering the Church, and is directly referenced as the meaning of being born again of water and the Spirit, and it is then further asserted that indeed as the Truth Himself says, we cannot, enter the kingdom of heaven unless we partake in this being born again of water and the spirit - and there is not an exception given.   It is impossible, insomuch as God said HE wouldn't allow it, regardless of His omnipotence.  His omnipotence does not mean that we can speculate that He will transgress His JUSTICE, for the sake of a person who "dies before their time" as though God's providence somehow could not foresee it, or as though He did not have the ability to prevent such a death, or to reverse it for the sake of getting his elect the baptism, without which, according to His own words, one is damned.

That was indeed God the Holy Ghost who spoke through Pope Eugene, giving testimony of and confirming the Truth of the Lord Jesus Christ's words. And you have seen enough times that the Vatican Council and Pope Pius X, who you all claim to obey, both teach that the meaning is to be held that was once declared by Holy Mother Church, and Pope Leo XIII, who you all claim to obey, stated that if anyone recedes in the LEAST from even ONE point of doctrine proposed by the Church's authoritative Magisterium (such as that of Pope Eugene), he is NOT A CATHOLIC.

The Thief on the Cross, right?  That example has been cited before.  He was not baptized (as far as we know, but could have been baptized while on the cross), but certainly, he had the desire to be baptized, so he was saved.  It was his faith that saved him.

Please understand Don, I wasn't trying to be rude, but I have heard and answered this objection all to many times now.  It is not a valid objection in the least, partly because , as you admit, we don't really know if the Good Thief was baptized or not, and more so because, as I have said, he died before the Law of Baptism was put in force.

I have never heard an objection that gives any logical reason for accepting baptism of desire.  Not a single one.