Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on September 11, 2009, 01:07:24 PM
-
-
-
Bad news Catholic Martyr.
Even ST. AUGUSTINE teaches baptism of desire. So now tell me it's an "Americanist" heresy.
On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, Chapter 22:
That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise." Luke 23:43 On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:10 But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment.
Oh, and lookie here, he even mentions the Good Thief, which I've been mocked for time and time again as if it were insignificant.
We've all been wrong but the test of a man is when he can admit it. You can go against St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Pius X all you want, but it will be a lonely battle. One I will no longer even bother to listen to. Your mind is twisted, and you are seeing black and white and white as black. FORCE yourself to health. Learn from your betters -- not me, but the men I've cited.
-
-
We've all been wrong but the test of a man is when he can admit it. You can go against St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Pius X all you want, but it will be a lonely battle.
I have noticed that you do not acknowledged my responses to your objections when I give them to you.
I have already explained to you that the catechism of Pius X was in fact not written by him, yet you keep mentioning it as though it is an ex cathedra decree by him. It clearly is not.
For starters, he gave it's approval and stated it would be obligatory in the Diocese of Rome, and merely encouraged it to be used throughout the rest of Italy. Hardly something he intended to bind on all the faithful.
Furthermore, you do not know if it was later altered, and considering the assault from Pius X on Modernism, I highly doubt that baptism of desire was contained in the draft that he approved.
Will you refuse to acknowledge these responses? The fact is that the dogmatic decrees are abundantly clear and unambiguous, not to mention binding, and irreformable of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church. This means that they are absolute truths fallen from heaven.
The definitions themselves are absolutely true.
-
BOD is not an americanist thing. It is as old as 5th century.
-
CM is unfortunately the only person who ever fully understood dogmas 'as they were once declared'
We are all very blessed that he was given this insight, which is in contradiction to the constant tradition of the church, to show us how we are truly to understand what the church has taught.
-
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.
-
BoD is not as old as the 5th century, it is as old as the Good Thief. Dogmas do not change.
If St. Gregory nαzιanzus was against it, it is St. Gregory who was wrong, not St. Augustine. Just as St. Thomas was wrong when he doubted Immaculate Conception of Mary.
St. Gregory says "I cannot see it." You bolded this. He is giving his personal opinion. He doesn't say "The Church doesn't teach it."
He personally cannot comprehend BoD and that is because he gets himself tangled in a specious argument, comparing someone who has the will to baptism with someone who has the will to murder. The difference is that in the former case, the baptism is conferred by GOD, while in the latter case, that of the potential murderer, he cannot be a murderer until HE HIMSELF carries out that crime. These are two totally opposed kinds of potentialities -- as opposed as the divine and the human.
Murder is not a sacrament of the Church and God is not its author. Those who misuse their free will are the only authors of murder. However, God IS the author of the sacrament of baptism, and if He wants He can be free with it. He can save someone who desires to be baptized just as He can make the apostles walk on water, change water into wine, turn stones into bread, pull sheep out of the ditch on Sunday, etc.
That is, He has the power to bend his own laws if He so chooses, as "With God, all things are possible." He gave the example of the Good Thief to us as a clear confirmation of this, and I cannot even fathom the contumacy or obstinacy of those who deny it to the point where they won't even go to CHURCH with those who believe in BoD. Do you think St. Gregory would have refused to go to Church with St. Augustine?
That being said, we are past the point where some believe and others don't. It is now a defined dogma. Catholic Martyr refuses to go to a priest, take communion, or confess, and the devil I believe has gripped his mind. He interprets various papal sayings about the necessity of baptism as denying baptism of desire, but they do not -- that is his literal-minded misreading. I am done with this Sisyphean debate; the quote from St. Augustine sealed it.
I will tell you, there have been moments where I flirted with Feeneyism because of him, because one area that he is right about is that the Church has been steadily infiltrated with liberals. But BoD is not one of their heresies nor do I believe that any heresy was taught prior to Vatican II.
Now I have to study "invincible ignorance" which still bothers me, because I don't yet understand it.
-
The denial of the ordinary infallible teaching of the Church on BOB/D is an over-reaction to to false ecuмenism. . .at least in some instances in my opinion.
-
-
So, Father Feeney blew it! If he would have condemned implicit desire, Father Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christian," he would been a great traditionalist, no?
-
-
May I put two questions to those who deny BOD, BOB and Limbo:
A good, devout Catholic couple conceive a child, but the woman suffers a miscarriage after three or four weeks (as can happen) and does not realize that she had been pregnant. The child clearly could not be baptised, although the parents would have had every intent of baptising their children under normal circuмstances. Does that little soul go to Hell, a place of punishment and fire, for all eternity?
Another scenario (true): St. Margaret Clitherow, a Catholic martyr during the Reformation, was executed through being crushed to death, even though she was carrying an unborn child. Impossible as it was for her to deny Christ in order to save her baby's life, are we to believe that her child, the child of a heroic Catholic martyr, went to Hell to be punished for all eternity because his or her mother died for the Faith?
-
Very good questions, Adesto, and thank you.
I have never heard of St. Margaret Clitherow and her unborn baby before today.
-
In the first of your examples, Adesto, the Church would say that the child goes to limbo and has a natural happiness, but cannot go to heaven. With no act of the will towards the Catholic Church on the part of the embryo or its mother, who didn't know it existed, how could it possibly be saved?
In the second, it is possible that the desire of the MOTHER to have the baby baptized will suffice. I'm sure that in the last moments of her life that is exactly what she would have been thinking about. St. Augustine talks about this, but I'll have to do a search to find the exact passage.
-
That's what I would say, Raoul. The first is an unbaptised soul free of actual sin, so goes to Limbo (as per babies who are aborted) and the second I think the baby could go to heaven because of BOD.
I would take issue with those who say that Limbo does not exist and that unbaptised infants go to Hell proper though. We know that God gives sufficient grace to all men to allow them to be saved and it is up to them to correspond to that grace. It does not seem in keeping with God's mercy or justice to punish with Hellfire for all eternity those infants who are denied baptism simply because God ordained that they die in the womb etc.
-
In the second, it is possible that the desire of the MOTHER to have the baby baptized will suffice. I'm sure that in the last moments of her life that is exactly what she would have been thinking about. St. Augustine talks about this, but I'll have to do a search to find the exact passage.
This used to be my position as well, however, it is not an allowable opinion. Cajetan held to this opinion and Pope St Pius V removed it from his works as not agreeable with the Church's belief.
-
In the second, it is possible that the desire of the MOTHER to have the baby baptized will suffice. I'm sure that in the last moments of her life that is exactly what she would have been thinking about. St. Augustine talks about this, but I'll have to do a search to find the exact passage.
This used to be my position as well, however, it is not an allowable opinion. Cajetan held to this opinion and Pope St Pius V removed it from his works as not agreeable with the Church's belief.
You're on to something there. The Pope said no. Hmmm...
-
The rest of the article from the initial post on this blog:
Keenly aware that the Council of Trent and its Catechism are plainly not at all supportive of his denials of BOB and BOD, the next recourse is to assail the infallible status of the Council itself. Two separate recourses have been taken to try to weaken the true sense of what the Council of Trent says. One of them is to point out what the Council Fathers meant could be one thing, but what they actually wrote and promulgated is another, and that only the latter is protected by the Holy Ghost. While this point is (more or less) basically true, the fact remains that what the Fathers DID say is nevertheless damaging enough to the claims made in the Treatise. Of course what they didn't say or promulgate from the Council itself is even more damaging, but admittedly of a lesser tier of authority (though in many ways still often containing much that is also infallible). For the contents of the Council are the Supreme and Extraordinary Magisterium (ex Cathedra), but the further and more detailed beliefs of all the Council Fathers, though not of this category, are nevertheless expressions of the Ordinary Magisterium and can often therefore also entail a certain infallibility.
The other attempt made in the Treatise to impeach the evidence of the Council of Trent is something far more serious. At this point the Treatise expounds a heresy even more serious than the mere denials of BOB and BOD. When attempting to address the rhetorical question as to why Trent isn't more clearly supportive of his doctrine (the real answer to which is because it is all too supportive to the contrary), the Treatise recounts the events at and following the Council of Constantinople in 381, in which the Council Fathers, in crafting their creed, neglected to mention that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, and how that eventually led to the falling away of practically the whole Eastern Church. So why did this happen? Here is the explanation as given by the Treatise:
So, did the Council of Constantinople err? Of course not. But could Constantinople have been more clear by adding that little phrase which would have eliminated a controversy? Absolutely. So why did God allow this controversy to occur, when He could have prevented it by simply inspiring the council fathers at Constantinople in 381 to include that tiny phrase? The answer is that there must be heresies. 1 Cor. 11:19: "For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you." God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires. God never allows His councils, such as Constantinople and Trent, to teach any error, but He can allow the truth to be stated in ways that give people the opportunity to twist and pervert the meaning of the words used if they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern Schismatics did in regard to Constantinople's omission of the phrase: and the Son.
In other words, it's all God's fault that there are heresies; God willed there to be heresies! God deliberately kept His Church from being too clear just so people could be confused and fall into heresy by the hundreds of millions! If so blatantly impious a thought could actually be the truth, then all those teeming hundreds of millions so misled through God's deliberate design could not in justice be damned, or if damned, they would therefore be damned unjustly. As with all heresies, one heresy leads to another, and then to another, and so on until the whole of Christian Revelation comes to be denied. The fact of taking such a shocking step can only be recognized as an admission of defeat on the part of the author of the Treatise. "God strews all these misleading clues about all Creation just so as to test us," is the last refuge of someone whose claims have just been proven false by the facts.
-
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?
-
In the first of your examples, Adesto, the Church would say that the child goes to limbo and has a natural happiness, but cannot go to heaven. With no act of the will towards the Catholic Church on the part of the embryo or its mother, who didn't know it existed, how could it possibly be saved?
In the second, it is possible that the desire of the MOTHER to have the baby baptized will suffice. I'm sure that in the last moments of her life that is exactly what she would have been thinking about. St. Augustine talks about this, but I'll have to do a search to find the exact passage.
The Council of Constance would seem to teach that all infants who die without baptism will not go to Heaven:
Condemned Proposition: 6. Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм16.htm
-
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.
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.
-
The Council of Constance would seem to teach that all infants who die without baptism will not go to Heaven.
Very good.
-
CM is unfortunately the only person who ever fully understood dogmas 'as they were once declared'
We are all very blessed that he was given this insight, which is in contradiction to the constant tradition of the church, to show us how we are truly to understand what the church has taught.
He is a Pope unto himself.....everyone else is:
-decieved
-heretic
-AMericanist
-going to Hell
-all sin is sin, none more or less.
-
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.....
-
May I put two questions to those who deny BOD, BOB and Limbo:
A good, devout Catholic couple conceive a child, but the woman suffers a miscarriage after three or four weeks (as can happen) and does not realize that she had been pregnant. The child clearly could not be baptised, although the parents would have had every intent of baptising their children under normal circuмstances. Does that little soul go to Hell, a place of punishment and fire, for all eternity?
Another scenario (true): St. Margaret Clitherow, a Catholic martyr during the Reformation, was executed through being crushed to death, even though she was carrying an unborn child. Impossible as it was for her to deny Christ in order to save her baby's life, are we to believe that her child, the child of a heroic Catholic martyr, went to Hell to be punished for all eternity because his or her mother died for the Faith?
Aquinas would place children in Limbo, Augustine a place in hell, though not the same punishements of the damned mortal sinners....On the questionof what Heaven is like, I go w/Augustine, but on this, w/Aquinas....CM seems to palce everyone that is not a baptized by water practicing RCC in fires of excruciating Hell, misreading and failing to apply things as many do (akin to the Prot slapping the bible and saying-thats what it says, thats what it meanss w/o dicernment..if it says "cats and dogs fell from sky", said Prot would literally interpret that mammals fell splat from sky to earth)......God hence confined to his own sacrements and lessened.....
-
May I put two questions to those who deny BOD, BOB and Limbo:
A good, devout Catholic couple conceive a child, but the woman suffers a miscarriage after three or four weeks (as can happen) and does not realize that she had been pregnant. The child clearly could not be baptised, although the parents would have had every intent of baptising their children under normal circuмstances. Does that little soul go to Hell, a place of punishment and fire, for all eternity?
Another scenario (true): St. Margaret Clitherow, a Catholic martyr during the Reformation, was executed through being crushed to death, even though she was carrying an unborn child. Impossible as it was for her to deny Christ in order to save her baby's life, are we to believe that her child, the child of a heroic Catholic martyr, went to Hell to be punished for all eternity because his or her mother died for the Faith?
CM would consign said children to Hell-so ad, to bad his response (since there is no BOB, child is not a blood martyr like say Peter.....tough s$&% in plain lingo on the child, per CM!)
-
In the first of your examples, Adesto, the Church would say that the child goes to limbo and has a natural happiness, but cannot go to heaven. With no act of the will towards the Catholic Church on the part of the embryo or its mother, who didn't know it existed, how could it possibly be saved?
In the second, it is possible that the desire of the MOTHER to have the baby baptized will suffice. I'm sure that in the last moments of her life that is exactly what she would have been thinking about. St. Augustine talks about this, but I'll have to do a search to find the exact passage.
The Council of Constance would seem to teach that all infants who die without baptism will not go to Heaven:
Condemned Proposition: 6. Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм16.htm
Not saved, but not in Hell etiher....hence, Limbo!!!!
-
Either one missing, no justification. No justification, no heaven. No heaven=hellfire.
So, in your mind it is a either/or proposition, like Prot thinking...no room for Limbo at all, just painful torturous fire???
Like I said your position was, sorry baby, go burn baby!!
-
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.
-
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.
That does it, that means we have had no Pope since Gregory XVI (he says LOL, tongue in cheeck :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh2:)
Leo XIII is his last few yrs it is said allowed the reigns to become a little slack too, his age and exhaustionl likley....it was up to fresher leaders like Piuz X to stirke hard....
-
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.
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?
-
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.
That does it, that means we have had no Pope since Gregory XVI (he says LOL, tongue in cheeck :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh2:)
Leo XIII is his last few yrs it is said allowed the reigns to become a little slack too, his age and exhaustionl likley....it was up to fresher leaders like Piuz X to stirke hard....
That's not my position, although, I do not think that Pius IX's successors, who were all Popes, the true successors to Peter, agreed with his teaching on the invincibly ignorant.
-
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....
-
Belloc said
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....
Everyone goes to either heaven or hell, have you invented a new region of the afterlife?
Those who go to purgatory expiate their venial sins there and are purified for heaven, so if that's where you think he's going, he's still been chosen for heaven.
-
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
-
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 Jews 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.
I have thoroughly studied both sides of the issue.[/quote]
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.
-
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 Jews 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.
-
The Holy Catholic Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews 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;
Note what the Floretine Fathers said, though, "before the end of their lives..." The Fathers understood that repentance could happen right up until the moment of death. For some Protestants and other heretics, schismatics, perhaps even Jews, Muslims, etc., there may be salutatory repentance, that is, repentance at the moment of death. With God, nothing is impossible, right?
-
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.
-
I have no problem at all saying that with God nothing is impossible, but there are some things HE JUST WON'T DO.
And everybody here knows that this statement is true, and does not take away from God's omnipotence and Divinity..
-
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.
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.
-
BROKEN RECORD TIME!!!
"The thief was saved BEFORE Christ's resurrection, and it was not until AFTER His resurrection that the Old Law was abrogated and the New Testament, including the Law of Baptism went into effect!"
All Christian writers agree on this!
-
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.
-
BROKEN RECORD TIME!!!
"The thief was saved BEFORE Christ's resurrection, and it was not until AFTER His resurrection that the Old Law was abrogated and the New Testament, including the Law of Baptism went into effect!"
All Christian writers agree on this!
Was that Eastern time or Jerusalem time? Yes, I agree, Baptism or at least the explicit vow to receive it. I honestly do not see why Father Feeney felt that the Sacrament of Baptism was absolutely necessary. Are you suggesting that Pope Innocent III was a heretic:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens.html
-
What on earth are you talking about Don?
Why would Pope Innocent III be a heretic? State your case rather than asking me to read the heretic Matt1618's article. I don't have the time or inclination.
-
-
First, he was stating his personal theological opinion, and this was a private letter, not a public one, and hence fallible. Also Matt is wrong, the letter was written in 1206, not 1208.
Second of all, this was fully 9 years before the Fourth Lateran Council, whereby he made it a dogma that one must be of the Faithful to be saved.
Third, it had not at that time been defined that such a "baptism" was invalid.
Pope Innocent III was not a heretic, and this does nothing to prove baptism of desire, which is eliminated by more decrees than just those Matt1618 has attempted to dissect.
Building a belief in doctrines, based on fallible sources is like building a house upon the sand. No. You build your house on the ROCK of St. Peter, and what has been infallibly revealed by means of the same rock, if you expect to withstand the wind and the rain.
-
First, he was stating his personal theological opinion, and this was a private letter, not a public one, and hence fallible. Also Matt is wrong, the letter was written in 1206, not 1208.
He never stated, "Hey, this is my opinion, blah, blah, blah...if you have a different opinion, that's okay...." Just consider Pope John XXII who was expressing his "opinion" about the Beatific Vision and whether such occurs immediately after death. The Medieval Church was on him like "flies on poop" about his "opinion." If Pope Innocent III had an "opinion" that individuals could be saved through the explicit desire for the Sacrament of Baptism even though they were unable to receive the Sacrament, it's good enough for me. A number of other Fathers, Saints, Doctors, and Popes also shared that opinion. I understand your opinion on the issue. Does it really matter?
-
Don't you get it?
It was after Pope Innocent III expressed this opinion that it was eliminated as a possibility by the INFALLIBLE Magisterium.
Nothing should be "good enough" for you that contradicts the Solemn Magisterium.
Denying a dogma makes one a heretic, do you understand that?
-
My "opinion" is not my own in this matter. It is exactly in line with the dogmas of the Council of Lateran the Fourth, Vienne, Florence, Trent, Vatican.
There is not a single one of these decrees I have to deny to hold my "opinion".
There are several that you have to deny to hold yours.
-
My "opinion" is not my own in this matter. It is exactly in line with the dogmas of the Council of Lateran the Fourth, Vienne, Florence, Trent, Vatican.
There is not a single one of these decrees I have to deny to hold my "opinion".
There are several that you have to deny to hold yours.
He doesn't have to deny any. He understands them as the church has always taught them.
-
Don't you get it?
It was after Pope Innocent III expressed this opinion that it was eliminated as a possibility by the INFALLIBLE Magisterium.
Nothing should be "good enough" for you that contradicts the Solemn Magisterium.
Denying a dogma makes one a heretic, do you understand that?
So, are you saying that Pope Innocent III changed his opinion after the Fourth Lateran Council? If so, what evidence do you have for that?
-
He doesn't need to have changed his opinion. He simply needs to have kept it to himself. If he did not publicly repeat it, he cannot be charged with contradicting any dogmas.
-
He doesn't need to have changed his opinion. He simply needs to have kept it to himself. If he did not publicly repeat it, he cannot be charged with contradicting any dogmas.
Yeah, and he was a sitting Pope, right? And, you think that he would have just "kept it to himself," saying "Oops, I made this Little Goof early on in my Pontificate, and if I just don't tell anyone..." No, sorry, this is fundamental, Catholic Theology 101. I don' think that Innocent made a mistake at the Fourth Lateran Council, and I don't think that he made a mistake six or seven years earlier when he penned that "private" letter.
-
Whatever you say. At the time of his letter, it had not been defined that baptism was the only way to enter the Church, and it had not been defined that it was necessary for salvation to be of the faithful. He never publicly taught that a person can be saved outside of the faithful, or without baptism.
As a matter of fact, LoT posted an interesting article by the baptism of desire heretic Griff Ruby, wherein he has us draw four quadrants on a page of paper, representing the pope's intention and profession. From what I can tell, he is spot on in that regard and I suggest you read it over again.
Don, you can choose to believe in a proposition that is contrary to the explicit words of the infallible Magisterium if you want to, it is your choice. You don't have the right to do it, however.
Nobody has the right to believe in anything contrary to something that is de fide divina et catholica.
Anybody who consciously believes such a thing is a heretic and outside of the Church, and we all know where that leads.
-
Whatever you say. At the time of his letter, it had not been defined that baptism was the only way to enter the Church, and it had not been defined that it was necessary for salvation to be of the faithful. He never publicly taught that a person can be saved outside of the faithful, or without baptism.
As a matter of fact, LoT posted an interesting article by the baptism of desire heretic Griff Ruby, wherein he has us draw four quadrants on a page of paper, representing the pope's intention and profession. From what I can tell, he is spot on in that regard and I suggest you read it over again.
Don, you can choose to believe in a proposition that is contrary to the explicit words of the infallible Magisterium if you want to, it is your choice. You don't have the right to do it, however.
Nobody has the right to believe in anything contrary to something that is de fide divina et catholica.
Anybody who consciously believes such a thing is a heretic and outside of the Church, and we all know where that leads.
Well, if canonizations are infallible, then St. Thomas is in Heaven right now, correct? And, he taught Baptism of Desire, right? Besides, why would he be elevated to the status of a Doctor of the Church if he held to heretical ideas??
-
Canonizations are not infallible. Read the Vatican Councils definition of infallibility.
-
Canonizations are not infallible. Read the Vatican Councils definition of infallibility.
We will need to start a new thread on this one! Everything that I have read suggest that canonizations are, in fact, infallible.
-
Here you go (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=8744)
-
Well, if canonizations are infallible, then St. Thomas is in Heaven right now, correct? And, he taught Baptism of Desire, right? Besides, why would he be elevated to the status of a Doctor of the Church if he held to heretical ideas??
St. Thomas Aquinas taught more than one false doctrine. See for yourself (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/09/st-thomas-aquinas-errors.html).
-
Well, if canonizations are infallible, then St. Thomas is in Heaven right now, correct? And, he taught Baptism of Desire, right? Besides, why would he be elevated to the status of a Doctor of the Church if he held to heretical ideas??
St. Thomas Aquinas taught more than one false doctrine. See for yourself (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/09/st-thomas-aquinas-errors.html).
Of course! And, he is still in Heaven, right? So if BoD/BoB are false, then we err in good faith, just as you do if both doctrines turn out to be true.
-
Of course!
Very good, you recognizae that Aquinas was fallible.
And, he is still in Heaven, right?
Well, as I said before, canonizations are not infallible. As imprudent (and censurable) as it is to say he is damned (I make no such assertion), it is entirely possible that this could be the case, and it is not heretical to say so. just ask Benedict XIV (14), who explicitly states that asserting a pope had erred in this or that canonization may not be heresy (indicating he didn't really know if they were infallible or not). If he were aware of the decree of the Vatican Council, he would have simply said, "even though not a heretic," rather than "if not a heretic,".
So if BoD/BoB are false, then we err in good faith, just as you do if both doctrines turn out to be true.
No. That is not a valid excuse. A person is bound to judge externals, the objective facts. We cannot look into hearts, though we can be given a good indication of the disposition of someone by their external acts, eve moral certainty, we can never know with absolute certainty.
Now that being said, the externals we must judge are that the pope saw fit to canonize St. Thomas. This means the he did not find any heresies, or that he did not recognize any heresies in his writings.
Even if there had been heresies in the works of a particular person who was canonized, the canonization itself is not a promulgation of such works, and it is also entirely possible that these works were not know until a later period.
And you could not argue that this made the pope a heretic, because he never taught or publicly expressed the heretical opinion. You would be jumping to schismatic conclusions, by implicating a pope for a heresy he never expressly acknowledged, or taught.
Furthermore, something is only heretical if it contradicts something that is already a dogma of the Faith.
Many Thomistic proposition, which are not heretical, were not in his day and were allowable, however erroneous, opinions.
To say that he may have "erred in good faith" is nowhere near as far fetched as to say that "you have erred in good faith".
Why?
Because now, we have the definitions of the Vatican Council telling us exactly how we are to understand infallible decrees (exactly as they are declared, and with no recession from the meaning of such a declaration).
Besides, because, unlike Aquinas, or anybody who lived during the first six thousand years of the world's existence, we can instantly access ANY and EVERY (almost anyway) Church docuмent, papal writing, etc.
You have seen the decrees of the Vatican stating we must believe and hold the meaning that was declared in the definition itself, and is irreformable, and the teaching Pope Leo XIII, stating that to recede even slightly from any point of doctrine proposed by the authoritative Magisterium causes one to be not a Catholic, and the teaching of Pope Pius X, which states that the dogmas are truths which have fallen from heaven (absolute, objective, transcendental truths, not wishy-washy semi-truths, or half truths).
If you still refuse assent to the very obvious and objective sense of a dogmatic decree, you are not doing so in good will. You are disobeying three clear commands by the Pontiffs, whereby the tell you exactly what you must believe FOR SALVATION and how you must believe it.
-
Many Thomistic proposition, which are not heretical, were now in his day and were allowable, however erroneous, opinions.
-
OH NUTS!!!
Many Thomistic proposition, which are NOW heretical, were not in his day and were allowable, however erroneous, opinions.
:smash-pc: