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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11

Author Topic: What's with the Dimond brothers?  (Read 18190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?
« Reply #40 on: April 14, 2018, 02:54:18 PM »

Quote
Dimond brothers are setting up something that isnt De Fide to be so, condemning others who don't.


It is de fide that there is only one Baptism, but it is postulated by theologians that water Baptism, BOD, and BOD is something analogous to the Holy Trinity, three in one.

I think it's rather that the Dimonds are condemning individuals for what has yet to be condemned.



Quote
According to original 1952 'Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma' by Ludwig Ott

(. . .)

Baptism of Desire is a doctrine that is sententia fidei proxima

A crucial categorization.

Of the 26 theologians compiled by Fr. Cekada, wasn't it only 7 who listed BOD as de fide?

If it was de fide I don't think there would be a multitude of theological notes applied to the doctrine.




Quote
Pope Innocent III "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona


A perfect example of a pope teaching error in a letter, as a private individual.

This should be discussed in the  "Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?"  thread.

An example of the difference between teaching privately and bringing forth a matter of faith and morals, presented to the Universal Church for belief.


BOD started with Augustine, and it's going to end with Augustine.
Logged

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?
« Reply #41 on: April 14, 2018, 02:56:35 PM »
This thread should probably be moved to the Baptism of Desire sub-forum. I can already see the discussion turning towards that direction.
Logged

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?
« Reply #42 on: April 14, 2018, 03:02:42 PM »
Quote from: forlorn on April 13, 2018, 02:14:41 PM
I don't believe they'll be damned for it. It's speculative theology that I don't agree with. The most extreme form of BOD, the one where non-invincibly ignorant Muslims etc. can be saved, does come close to denying EENS, but I'd still regard it as material heresy at worst.

I'm with Lad, it does, despite the notion that such individuals may be united to the the soul of the Church in actuality, and the body by desire.
Not only EENS, but it wreaks havoc on the visibility of the Church.

Is BOD postulated as an at death type of grace or that such individuals are in a state of grace while publicly adhering to an entirely different religion?
Logged

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?
« Reply #43 on: April 14, 2018, 03:54:42 PM »
All sides would submit if we had recourse to the Church; to a pope.

That 1953 letter ain't cutting it.

The reason why priests deny communion to those who do not believe in BOD is because of the theological note applied by a number of theologians to BOD. That rejection of such a class of doctrine is a mortal sin against the faith.

But, do these same priests hold as St. Alphonsus does that all who die as non-Catholics are damned?

No.

These are strange times we live in.

I don't think there is any obligation to believe in BOD. Recourse is had to St. Augustine. He started it. He ended it.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15083.htm

Chapter 13


Quote
If you wish to be a catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that "they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined." There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief. Now these are your words: "We say that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ." Is it then really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing admonition.

Go back further and you'll find BOB with St. Cyprian, but not BOD. Sts. Augustine and Ambrose are the BOD pillar.
Logged

Offline forlorn

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?
« Reply #44 on: April 14, 2018, 05:56:59 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on April 14, 2018, 12:36:50 PM
No, it doesn't come "close" to denying EENS.  It's a clear rejection of EENS.  What do you mean material heresy at worst?  Are you using the term as being synonymous with being a "minor" heresy?  Material/Formal depends upon the will of the person adhering to it, and any heresy can be "at worst" formal.
I mean that people who believe it believe that the Church teaches it, and indeed many clergy and even Popes have believed in BOD.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11
« previous next »