Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Last Tradhican on August 21, 2017, 05:30:30 PM
-
A pagan of good faith can overcome all sorts of obstacles to obtain that good faith and chose for God rather than reject Him. Will to do the will of God. Do good and avoid evil for love of God. Seek God's will at all times. Die in a state of sanctifying grace because of his supernatural faith and perfect charity. God does not abandon such a soul but enables it to reach the destination to which it was headed.
The above is copy and posted from an old thread, it is Lover of Truth's direct quote with nothing added.
Lover of Truth has been THE #1 incessant poster of quotes about baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of blood, and yet he denies the need for explicit desire to be a baptized Catholic and belief in Christ and the Trinity. So what is his game, why does he constantly bring up the subject of baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of blood? Is he nuts or just an instrument of the devil?
-
Are the two given options mutually exclusive? If insanity is a privation of reason, and reason faith's handmaid, then how can it be otherwise than being of the Adversary not necessitate at least some degree of madness?
If it is a matter of being able to discern right from wrong, then by secular "standards" contra God's most are evidently insane.
What does He say though? It is written on all hearts.
The above is copy and posted from an old thread, it is Lover of Truth's direct quote with nothing added.
Lover of Truth has been THE #1 incessant poster of quotes about baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of blood, and yet he denies the need for explicit desire to be a baptized Catholic and belief in Christ and the Trinity. So what is his game? Is he nuts or just an instrument of the devil?
-
A pagan of good faith can overcome all sorts of obstacles to obtain that good faith and chose for God rather than reject Him. Will to do the will of God. Do good and avoid evil for love of God. Seek God's will at all times. Die in a state of sanctifying grace because of his supernatural faith and perfect charity. God does not abandon such a soul but enables it to reach the destination to which it was headed.
In other words, no need for baptism of desire of the catechumen, no need for baptism of blood, no need for belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity, no need to be a Catholic, or be baptized....... this pagan can obtain "sanctifying grace because of his supernatural faith", a supernatural faith which does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity!
-
What about just basic Logic, like people of good faith obtain it by having it already? Real "gem" there. Nvm what is meant by "faith" here, one thing at a time…
No need for baptism of desire of the catechumen, no need for baptism of blood, no need for belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity, no need to be a Catholic, or be baptized....... this pagan can obtain "sanctifying grace because of his supernatural faith", a supernatural faith which does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity!
-
"What do you ask of the Church?"
"Guess I'll have a Coke®©™ then…"
In other words, no need for baptism of desire of the catechumen, no need for baptism of blood, no need for belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity, no need to be a Catholic, or be baptized....... this pagan can obtain "sanctifying grace because of his supernatural faith", a supernatural faith which does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity!
-
The above is copy and posted from an old thread, it is Lover of Truth's direct quote with nothing added.
Lover of Truth has been THE #1 incessant poster of quotes about baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of blood, and yet he denies the need for explicit desire to be a baptized Catholic and belief in Christ and the Trinity. So what is his game, why does he constantly bring up the subject of baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of blood? Is he nuts or just an instrument of the devil?
This is good it is an exact quote. The link should be provided so it can be taken context. I post the truth on BOD in response to the Feeneyite error which runs rampant in this forum. Please show where one who dies with a supernatural faith and perfect charity will not be saved or state what is wrong with the quote with an authoritative source which explicitly condemns BOD. I will hold you to the level the Feeneyites hold others and not accept anything from the catechisms, theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors or Popes that are not as you say infallible apart from an ex Cathedra statement.
Actually I'm Catholic and accept all the above so any approved source from before V2 will do. The excludes Feeney because he was not a theologian (ex-Communicated by a valid pope and embraced by the worst anti-pope in history), Wathan and the hateful Dimond lay-boys. But again I accept all the authorities you reject above so have at it. I'll be waiting, but not holding my breath. :cheers:
-
This is good it is an exact quote.
In other words, to the poster of the quote there is no no need for baptism of desire of the catechumen, no need for baptism of blood, no need for belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity, no need to be a Catholic, or be baptized....... this pagan can obtain "sanctifying grace because of his supernatural faith", a supernatural faith which does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity!
-
In other words, to the poster of the quote there is no no need for baptism of desire of the catechumen, no need for baptism of blood, no need for belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity, no need to be a Catholic, or be baptized....... this pagan can obtain "sanctifying grace because of his supernatural faith", a supernatural faith which does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity!
Can you show where I insist that it is absolutely certain that explicit Faith is not needed in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity for one to be saved? People make this claim about me as if it is an obvious given whereas if one were to search for me to have made the above claim they would search in vain.
This is why tend not to have respect for many feeneyites and their sympathizers, not only because they are malicious, but they are liars. But at least it is on record for all to see. They reject the esteemed authorities, lie, calumniate and detract, take quotes out of context and anything else to avoid the fact that one can be justified and saved apart from water.
-
BTW - I am aware of where the Feeneyites are coming from. I have been good friends with two (now one :) ). Both have always been civil to me though discussions rather animated it was never made personal with rancor and maliciousness. That is why I am somewhat disheartened with my encounters here. Additionally, Mike Cain of Daily Catholic had Feeneyite leanings and is still a big fan of Father Wathen. I get it. I almost was taken in. People are not saved because they are nice. People who, knowing the existence of the Catholic Church, who avoid looking into her claims because they do not want to change their lifestyles especially pertaining to the procreative act cannot be saved. How many people know of the Catholic Church and avoid even looking to her claims for fear of the answer? How can any of them be saved no matter how nice and "good" they appear?
-
Can you show where I insist that it is absolutely certain that explicit Faith is not needed in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity for one to be saved? People make this claim about me as if it is an obvious given whereas if one were to search for me to have made the above claim they would search in vain.
This is the language of a modernist, the modernist never spells out his beliefs he just gives bits and pieces here and there. Notice here that he does not spell out anything and leaves it to the listener to fill in the voids on his own. This person has close to 8000 postings and in all those postings where has he spelled out his belief? The answer is nowhere has he spelled it out. He only gives bits and pieces when he is finally cornered, but even those bits and pieces do not spell out anything specific.
There was a BODer poster here named Nishant, as he went debating with those that disagreed with his position he, in a relatively short time came to a final complete conclusion and spelling out of what he believed. Everyone here knows what Nishant believes concerning BOD. THAT is an example of the opposite of the devil speak used by the person who is the subject this thread.
-
This is the language of a modernist, the modernist never spells out his beliefs he just gives bits and pieces here and there. Notice here that he does not spell out anything and leaves it to the listener to fill in the voids on his own. This person has close to 8000 postings and in all those postings where has he spelled out his belief? The answer is nowhere has he spelled it out. He only gives bits and pieces when he is finally cornered, but even those bits and pieces do not spell out anything specific.
There was a BODer poster here named Nishant, as he went debating with those that disagreed with his position he, in a relatively short time came to a final complete conclusion and spelling out of what he believed. Everyone here knows what Nishant believes concerning BOD. THAT is an example of the opposite of the devil speak used by the person who is the subject this thread.
I have spilled out my beliefs exactly. Let me do them again. They are based strictly on pre-V2 sources sources that true Catholics accept.
-
LoT, if you fancy yourself a teacher then I, the uninstructed, must tell you that you are wrong. You are not easily understood.
I think, rather, that you post these quotes to try desperately to convince yourself that you are right and that Pax Vobis, for instance, cannnot possibly be so.
But I don't want to malign you. I do think, though, that you should avoid trying to instruct the ignorant until you yourself are clear about what you believe, why, and can present it properly.
This spells it out perfectly. Though knowing the devil speaker longer than this newbie poster ryanaugustine, I have to conclude that the subterfuge in communication is purposeful.
-
Ryanaugustine said:
LoT, if you fancy yourself a teacher then I, the uninstructed, must tell you that you are wrong. You are not easily understood. You post endless quotes and do not plug them into any context. You do not explain anything in plain english. You don't weave your quotes into any sort of whole cloth of understanding.
I think, rather, that you post these quotes to try desperately to convince yourself that you are right and that Pax Vobis, for instance, cannnot possibly be so.
But I don't want to malign you. I do think, though, that you should avoid trying to instruct the ignorant until you yourself are clear about what you believe, why, and can present it properly.
This spells it out perfectly. Though knowing the devil speaker longer than this newbie poster ryanaugustine, I have to conclude that the subterfuge in communication is purposeful.
-
We all agree that explicit Faith i.e. a supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation. This Faith also must be based upon God revealing.
Also most people say above fourteen or so can make basic distinctions once they are explained to them so long as they are objective and unbiased.
I have mentioned before that there are different types of necessities.
1. A necessity of precept.
2. A necessity of means which are of the two types below
a. of relative necessity
b. of absolute or intrinsic necessity.
We agree that a supernatural faith based upon God revealing is absolutely necessary for salvation to be possible. There is no such thing as faith by desire.
We would all agree that all Catholics must believe in God and that He rewards and punishes and in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity and that anyone who rejects any of this teachings cannot be saved.
I have said this before and it has been conveniently ignored in regards whether belief in at least two or all four are absolutely necessary for all people in all circuмstances in order to have a supernatural faith that I accept whatever the Church teaches on the issue.
I have not seen where it has been defined what the minimal necessary qualifications of belief are in order to have a supernatural faith.
What I have learned, and this right up until V2 as late as I'm willing to look is that the issue had not been settled yet. This was stated by Monsignor Fenton in 1958 after having researched all that was taught on the issue in their original languages. This was implied in the authoritative Suprema haec letter with infallible teachings which is the clearest teaching on BOD to date.
I sit at the feet of the masters and accept what they teach. I don't stand over them and call them erroneous. I do not define that which has not been defined. I do not put into heaven those who do not belong nor keep out those who do belong.
Some theologians teach that two truths must be believed with a necessity of means and others teach that four must be believed. Still others teach that four are only required in places where the Gospel has been preached but only two are required in other places. It all depends on how God willed it. He could have willed to require explicit faith in all four truths or only in two, but in either case He will infallibly grant to each soul the opportunity to arrive at explicit faith in these 2 or 4 truths as the case may be. In the Old Testament, clearly explicit faith in the Trinity was not required.
As far as I know intrinsic necessity applies to whatever truths were so basic that faith would be impossible without them. For example, one clearly cannot have any virtue of faith whatsoever if he did not even believe that God exists, since faith is a firm assent of the intellect to the truths revealed by God. How could one accept a truth revealed by a God whom he denies exists?
The necessity of believing all 4 truths may still be by necessity of means even though not through intrinsic necessity. Baptism is a necessary means of salvation, but it is a relative necessity, i.e. it is a necessary means because God has willed it to be so; it is a means -- not merely a precept -- but a means because willed by God as a means. However, it is not intrinsically necessary so that God could never grant salvation without it. He can make exceptions to His own plan of salvation, i.e. to the ordinary means: Baptism. Similarly, Mary is necessary for our salvation as a necessary means of obtaining grace, but this is a relative necessity, i.e. she is a necessary means of getting to heaven because God has willed it to be so. Her intercession is not intrinsically or absolutely necessary as St. Louis de Montfort explains in True Devotion. However, God makes no exception to the need for Mary's intercession to get to Heaven; He does make exception to the need for Baptism, and possibly He makes exception to the need to know the Incarnation and Trinity (if we follow the opinion of some theologians).
Remember if the issue is not settled I do not pretend to settle it myself. I do not insist on what has not been defined or even authoritatively clarified. I would accept the more probable opinion if it was authoritatively stated that there was a more probable opinion. I accept all the Church teaches and reject nothing she teaches. There is no personal preference with me or bias as there is with those who basically spit on the authorized teachers of the faith when what they teach goes against their preconceived notions and what they have been brainwashed to believe in their reaction to the heresy of universal salvation.
The Church in teaching BOD keeps God's Justice and Mercy intact. He does not damn that person that is justified by desire and dies guilty of no mortal sin. He does not save the member of the Catholic Church who dies in a state of mortal sin. This is elementary. It is elementary that a supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation. I don't pretend to define the minimal qualifications necessary for supernatural Faith. I accept whatever the Church teaches. The feeneyites who side with the excommunicated and the angry lay boys will condemn me for this. But I am in most excellent company and I hope the Sainted Fathers, Doctors and any theologian or pope who taught me what I believe on the issue is praying for me in heaven right now. I do not rely on myself to settle thorny issues. It takes a humongous pride to declare all the above mentioned authorities to be in error on the issue of BOD.
The closest the Church has ever come to answering whether all four beliefs were necessary was in the reply of a Roman Congregation that said one cannot baptize even a dying person without first instructing them in all four truths. However, theologians agree that this reply was not a definitive answer to the debate but only a norm for practice.
Obviously it is intrinsically or absolutely necessary to die within the Church for salvation to be possible.
Further in order to respond to the Feeneyites objection that we can ignore a letter from the holy office because it is not infallible, to reiterate once again that the minimum amount of articles necessary for one to have the supernatural Faith necessary for salvation to be possible, and whether Jєωs, Muslims and pagans can be saved I answer as follows:
The "authority" who accepts Suprema Haec Sacra included everyone in the Catholic Church at the time except for Fr. Feeney and his followers - Fenton, for example, certainly accepted it, and why shouldn't he? It was a letter from the Holy Office, whose head is the Pope, and Pius XII himself approved the explanation given. All Catholics are obliged to accept authoritative docuмents, which the letter certainly is, with an interior ascent. To refuse to believe it would be a mortal sin. Further the entire letter is laced with infallible teachings from beginning begging to end in its doctrinal section. For instance the letter teaches that their is no salvation outside the Church. Would the Feeneyites have us reject this teaching because it is "not infallible"?
The question is whether it is possible for Jєωs, Muslims, and pagans to possess the virtue of Faith. I do not see how it is possible, but from what I recall Bishop Sanborn saying, this was something that was still being disputed among theologians, at least as far as the details. Please read Fr. Riccardo Lombardi, "The Salvation of the Unbeliever" (1956) and Fr. Maurice Emynian, "The Theology of Salvation" (1960), for a deeper understanding of this issue. Oftentimes these questions are quite thorny and not so easily resolved. There is a reason why the Church commissions specially trained theologians and not just anyone to tackle such questions.
The Suprema Haec Sacra does not say that Jєωs, Muslims, or pagans can be saved. On the contrary, it suggests that they cannot, inasmuch as it says that supernatural Faith is required for an implicit desire for baptism.
There is NO question that the virtue of Faith is necessary by an absolute i.e. intrinsic necessity of means. That is indisputable.
Lay people are quite welcome to study the distinctions but should not come to definitive conclusions and "authoritatively" bind on others their personal conclusion on issues that have not been settled by the Church such as whether there are two or four minimal beliefs we must have in order to have supernatural Faith.
I tend to believe all four beliefs are necessary but I do not insist others believe what has not been definitively settled in an authoritative way.
To summarize, I accept whatever the Church teaches on the issue. I believe a supernatural Faith and perfect charity are intrinsically necessary for salvation to be possible. I do not pretend to settle what the approved theologians did not settle. For this the Feeneyites will condemn and claim "I" teach that anyone can be saved apart from supernatural faith or that "I" "insist" that one only has to believe two basic revelations in order to have a supernatural faith (when in fact I'm inclined more to go with the four). They will call me all sorts of names and thumb me down for this. I eat this merit like candy because the constant insults, calumny an detractions are a great boon to my soul and it is not "me" insisting on anything. The Feeneyites get mad when I quote the theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes on the issue because it puts their heresy in the true light. It is them that are forced to either redefine Justification or insist on the "no salvation apart from water error" or claim Trent teaches the opposite of what it teaches. It is they who claim to interpret the Bible and the Councils better than the theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes did. It is these holy scholars that they disparage as I am repeatedly on record stating that I accept what they teach on the issue. If I am condemned for that it speaks more to those who do the condemning than the ones condemned. I very much want to be condemned in their company.
-
The poster has really not pinpointed what he believes, other than to say that he believes "whatever" the Church teaches about salvation of non-Catholics, from salvation of the catemumen by desire to be baptized all the way to salvation for Jєωs who do not believe in Christ and the Trinity and have no desire whatsoever to be baptized, and indeed consider the Church to be of Satan.
His belief is enshrined in Vatican II, indeed his mentor Fr. Fenton praised Vatican II, and so one would have to ask, specifically what does he reject in the docuмents Vatican II, since he is a sedevacantes? What is the difference between what he believes and what any Novus Ordo priest or bishop believes? But, I will not do that because he will draw that out for years too.
-
The poster has really not pinpointed what he believes, other than to say that he believes "whatever" the Church teaches about salvation of non-Catholics, from salvation of the catemumen by desire to be baptized all the way to salvation for Jєωs who do not believe in Christ and the Trinity and have no desire whatsoever to be baptized, and indeed consider the Church to be of Satan.
His belief is enshrined in Vatican II, indeed his mentor Fr. Fenton praised Vatican II, and so one would have to ask, specifically what does he reject in the docuмents Vatican II, since he is a sedevacantes? What is the difference between what he believes and what any Novus Ordo priest or bishop believes? But, I will not do that because he will draw that out for years too.
Any objection, dispassionate reader who reads the post will know what I believe. They will also see your extreme intellectual dishonesty above. This is why I just post quotes. It is virtually impossible to get into a civil and rational conversation with most feeneyites here. Though that does not come with the heresy as I have gotten into both civil and rational discussions on the issue with feeneyites before.
-
Any objection, dispassionate reader who reads the post will know what I believe.
That on the subject of salvation of non-Catholics you believe the same as any Vatican II bishop or priest.
-
That on the subject of salvation of non-Catholics you believe the same as any Vatican II bishop or priest.
You would be correct if you stated the opposite.
-
You would be correct if you stated the opposite.
If the Vatican II bishops and priest would have believed as I do and say St. Francis Xavier or St. John Chrysostom believed, there would be no Vatican II. (by the way, this is also Church teaching which the poster rejects and vehemently teaches against)
From: Henry James Coleridge, ed., The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier, 2d Ed., 2 Vols., (London: Burns & Oates, 1890), Vol. II, pp. 331-350; reprinted in William H. McNeil and Mitsuko Iriye, eds., Modern Asia and Africa, Readings in World History Vol. 9, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 20-30.
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jєω mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3:
“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily III. On Phil. 1:1-20:
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”
.
St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXV: “Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful is the sentence. ‘It is not possible,’ He [Christ] saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”
-
If the Vatican II bishops and priest would have believed as I do and say St. Francis Xavier or St. John Chrysostom believed, there would be no Vatican II. (by the way, this is also Church teaching which the poster rejects and vehemently teaching against)
From: Henry James Coleridge, ed., The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier, 2d Ed., 2 Vols., (London: Burns & Oates, 1890), Vol. II, pp. 331-350; reprinted in William H. McNeil and Mitsuko Iriye, eds., Modern Asia and Africa, Readings in World History Vol. 9, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 20-30.
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jєω mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3:
“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily III. On Phil. 1:1-20:
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”
.
St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXV: “Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful is the sentence. ‘It is not possible,’ He [Christ] saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”
I grant that Universal Salvationism stemmed from the clergy of the 20th century and many before that since masonry became prevalent and that Father Feeney was rightly concerned with that. I deny that his reaction to it was the Catholic reaction.
I'm sorry. BOD was not invented at V2. V2 was not because of BOD. BOD was approved by the worst human being in the history of the world. I oppose the approver of V2 and he successors and all that resulted therefrom with every fiber of my being. This is not an exaggeration.
If you want to get in a discussion with me do not associate me or BOD with V2.
-
I grant that Universal Salvationism stemmed from the clergy of the 20th century and many before that since masonry became prevalent and that Father Feeney was rightly concerned with that.
I'm sorry. BOD was not invented at V2. V2 was not because of BOD.
If you want to get in a discussion with me do not associate me or BOD with V2.
The poster is splitting hairs if he is rejecting universal salvation and while accepting his belief that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc. can be saved by their belief in a creator rewarded god. Vatican two taught his belief. It did not teach universal salvation. The Vatican II church at least has rejected the teaching of universal salvation. Therefore, there is no difference between the poster and the Vatican II church on the subject of salvation of non-Catholics.
Additionally, the teaching that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc. can be saved by their belief in a creator rewarded god, is NOT BOD, it has nothing to do with baptism of desire or blood.
-
The poster is splitting hairs if he is rejecting universal salvation and his belief that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc. can be saved by their belief in a creator rewarded god. Vatican two taught his belief. It did not teach universal salvation. The Vatican II church at least has rejected the teaching of universal salvation. So, there is not difference between the poster and the Vatican II church on the subject of salvation of non-Catholics.
Additionally, the teaching that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc. can be saved by their belief in a creator rewarded god, is NOT BOD, it has nothing to do with baptism of desire or blood.
You do not even speak to me but rather try to antagonize me. This is Catholic How?
So if a Jєω wanted to convert but was prevented from being baptized he would be damned? Yes?
-
The divine public revelation is composed of a certain number of truths or statements. It is quite manifest that genuine and supernatural divine faith can exist and does exist in individuals who have no clear and distinct awareness of some of these truths, but who simply accept them as they are contained or implied in other doctrines. But, in order that faith may exist, there certainly must be some minimum of teachings which are grasped distinctly by the believer and within which the rest of the revealed message is implied or implicit. Catholic theology holds that it is possible to have genuine divine faith when two, or, according to some writers, four, of these revealed truths are believed distinctly or explicitly. There can be real divine faith when a man believes explicitly, on the authority of God revealing, the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order, the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil, and the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation.
Fenton, who was a great theologian revered by his peers, who taught theology to theologians, studied the issue from all the sources in their original language is the source of the above quote.
:cheers:
-
The "Pity Stick", as if on cue…
You do not even speak to me but rather try to antagonize me. This is Catholic How?
So if a Jєω wanted to convert but was prevented from being baptized he would be damned? Yes?
-
So if a Jєω wanted to convert but was prevented from being baptized he would be damned? Yes?
The poster now switches the subject, he makes a speculative question about a Jєω (Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc...) that explicitly desires to be baptized into the Catholic Church.
That has nothing to do with what is under discussion here, his belief and teaching that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc. can be saved by their belief in a creator rewarded god, which is not NOT BOD, it has nothing to do with baptism of desire or blood.
-
The "Pity Stick", as if on cue…
Very well-stated.
-
The poster now switches the subject, he makes a speculative question about a Jєω (Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc...) that explicitly desires to be baptized into the Catholic Church.
That has nothing to do with what is under discussion here, his belief and teaching that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc. can be saved by their belief in a creator rewarded god, which is not NOT BOD, it has nothing to do with baptism of desire or blood.
I have made myself very clear. You falsely accuse me again because that is all you have to offer on the topic.
You answer the question in the way that is satisfactory to you.
Can a Jєω die with a supernatural faith and perfect charity?
-
Fenton, who was a great theologian revered by his peers, who taught theology to theologians, studied the issue from all the sources in their original language is the source of the above quote.
Yes, the same Fr. Fenton who would call Vatican II ecclesiology on EENS an improvement, for it taught the same as he did. He was really complimenting himself, like the saying "You are a very smart person, you think just like me.
-
Yes, the same Fr. Fenton who would call Vatican II ecclesiology on EENS an improvement, for it taught the same as he did. He was really complimenting himself, like the saying "You are a very smart person, you think just like me.
What orifice are you pulling this out of. The Feeneyites seemingly have nothing but rancor to defend their heresy with.
-
How much better off are we Christians! Our Blessed Saviour has freed us from the Mosaic ordinances and ceremonies, and has given us a law which with his grace we can easily fulfil. This will become quite evident by making a brief comparison between ourselves and the Jєωs. The Jєωs had circuмcision, which was very painful; we Christians have Baptism in its stead, which is easy to receive and confers so many graces. The Jєωs had only one temple in all their country, the temple at Jerusalem, and many of them were obliged to travel several days in order to visit it according to the law; we have churches everywhere, and many have only a few steps to go in order to perform their devotional exercises. The Jєωs were not allowed to eat the flesh of unclean animals, to which class belonged all those quadrupeds which had not cloven feet, and did not chew the cud; the use of blood was also prohibited. We Christians have permission to eat of all animals. The Jєωs could in many cases become unclean, for instance by touching an unclean animal, or a corpse, by the eating of forbidden food, by going to a place which according to the law was held as unclean; and they were obliged to observe various ceremonies in order to be cleansed again. We Christians have nothing that contaminates us but sin. From this you see how many advantages we have over the Jєωs and how much more easily we can serve God. For this reason Jesus calls his holy law, a sweet yoke and a light burden. How guilty we render ourselves before God, when we do not fulfil the easy ordinances of our holy religion! Truly, the Jєωs may rise up against us on the day of judgment and condemn us.
They will condemn certainly the Feeneyites and all of us who are mean-spirited and combative in a destructive way.
-
Can a Jєω die with a supernatural faith and perfect charity?
The poster answered the question himself in his long drawnout explanation of what he believes when he did not reject the teaching that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc. can be saved by their belief in a creator rewarded god (which is not NOT BOD, it has nothing to do with baptism of desire or blood) .
If the poster was sincere he would have phrased the question as he believes it: "Can a Jєω die with supernatural faith and perfect charity while he remains a Jєω, not believing in the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation, nor having any desire whatsoever to be a Catholic or baptized?
The answer is in the dogmatic Athanasian Creed:
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
-
The poster answered the question himself in his long drawnout explanation of what he believes when he did not reject the teaching that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc. can be saved by their belief in a creator rewarded god (which is not NOT BOD, it has nothing to do with baptism of desire or blood) .
If the poster was sincere he would have phrased the question as he believes it: "Can a Jєω die with supernatural faith and perfect charity while he remains a Jєω, not believing in the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation, nor having any desire whatsoever to be a Catholic or baptized?
The answer is in the dogmatic Athanasian Creed:
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
SUPREMA HAEC SACRA - Nor must we think that any kind of intention of entering the Church is sufficient in order that one may be saved. It is requisite that the intention by which one is ordered to the Church should be informed by perfect charity; and no explicit intention can produce its effect unless the man have supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him." The Council of Trent declares: "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children."
Why didn't Pius XII consult one of the Feeneyites before "forgetting to add" the certain indisputable intrinsic necessity for one to believe in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation for salvation to be possible? How careless. This letter that articulates the infallible teaching of BOD more clearly than any other just didn't get it right according to insubordinate Feeneyites.
They need your prayers.
-
Can a Jєω die with a supernatural faith and perfect charity?
According to you, yes. According to me (and St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus and St. EVERYBODY before the year 1600), no.
-
According to you, yes. According to me (and St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus and St. EVERYBODY before the year 1600), no.
False accusation, yes. Supporting evidence. No.
-
False accusation, yes. Supporting evidence. No.
You asked, "CAN" a Jєω have supernatural faith? You have repeatedly stated that you believe that Rewarder God theory is possible. So therefore you would say that it CAN be the case that a Jєω has supernatural faith.
-
Notice how the poster denies the clear dogmatic Athansasian Creed and replaces it with a fallible docuмent from 1950's. The same docuмent used in Vatican II in support of his belief that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc... can be saved by their belief in a creator rewarder god.
-
Just more running with scissors, licking outlets and juggling chainsaws.
All fun and games till somebody loses a soul.
But lighten up guy, its not like we have to BELIEVE a CREED or anything.
If it were such a big deal then they would have put a lot of prayerful work into it, maybe at a meeting and, if they're really serious, have us professs it before God like before an altar maybe. Even then, seeijng as how it's all technical, contextual, nuanced and stuff, how could a mere mortal answer God honestly when we dont undertandd what the words we're saying to God even mean?Isn't that like lying to God n'stuff?
No, you need to ease up guy and render unto "Loverr" due docility and obedience.
Shame… :p Notice how the poster denies the clear dogmatic Athansasian Creed and replaces it with a fallible docuмent from 1950's. The same docuмent used in Vatican II in support of his belief that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc... can be saved by their belief in a creator rewarder god.
-
Why didn't Pius XII consult one of the Feeneyites before "forgetting to add" the certain indisputable intrinsic necessity for one to believe in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation for salvation to be possible? How careless. This letter that articulates the infallible teaching of BOD more clearly than any other just didn't get it right according to insubordinate Feeneyites.
They need your prayers.
:sleep:
-
To recap this thread, a lot of complaining from the false BOder who is the subject of this thread, but if one mines all his verbiage we come to see that he really does believe that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist etc (all non-Catholics) can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, that they can be saved without a desire to be a Catholic, without a desire to be baptized, without belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, without the sacraments:
Lover of Truth said: A pagan of good faith can overcome all sorts of obstacles to obtain that good faith and chose for God rather than reject Him. Will to do the will of God. Do good and avoid evil for love of God. Seek God's will at all times. Die in a state of sanctifying grace because of his supernatural faith and perfect charity. God does not abandon such a soul but enables it to reach the destination to which it was headed.
Last Tradhican - In other words, no need for baptism of desire of the catechumen, no need for baptism of blood, no need for belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity, no need to be a Catholic, or be baptized....... this pagan can obtain "sanctifying grace because of his supernatural faith", a supernatural faith which does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity!
Lover of Truth said: Can you show where I insist that it is absolutely certain that explicit Faith is not needed in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity for one to be saved? People make this claim about me as if it is an obvious given whereas if one were to search for me to have made the above claim they would search in vain.
Last Tradhican - This is the language of a modernist, the modernist never spells out his beliefs he just gives bits and pieces here and there. Notice here that he does not spell out anything and leaves it to the listener to fill in the voids on his own. This person has close to 8000 postings and in all those postings where has he spelled out his belief? The answer is nowhere has he spelled it out. He only gives bits and pieces when he is finally cornered, but even those bits and pieces do not spell out anything specific. There was a BODer poster here named Nishant, as he went debating with those that disagreed with his position he, in a relatively short time came to a final complete conclusion and spelling out of what he believed. Everyone here knows what Nishant believes concerning BOD. THAT is an example of the opposite of the devil speak used by the person who is the subject this thread.
Lover of Truth said - Some theologians teach that two truths must be believed with a necessity of means and others teach that four must be believed. Still others teach that four are only required in places where the Gospel has been preached but only two are required in other places. It all depends on how God willed it. He could have willed to require explicit faith in all four truths or only in two, but in either case He will infallibly grant to each soul the opportunity to arrive at explicit faith in these 2 or 4 truths as the case may be. In the Old Testament, clearly explicit faith in the Trinity was not required.
Final Conclusion:
We all know that some obscure modern (after the 1600’s) theologians began to teach that only two truths must be believed, by Lover of Truth saying just that, does not in any way deny the claim that he teaches that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist etc…(etc=and all other false religions) can be saved by their belief in a god (with a small g) that rewards. It is clear that he teaches exactly that. It is devil speak, Vatican II speak, and indeed what he teaches is the teaching of the Vatican II church theologians.
In the end, the OP is exactly accurate.
-
You asked, "CAN" a Jєω have supernatural faith? You have repeatedly stated that you believe that Rewarder God theory is possible. So therefore you would say that it CAN be the case that a Jєω has supernatural faith.
I say I do not know, and base this on the theologians having not settled this issue. You make up your own theology based upon you gigantically prideful wit.
Please show an authoritative source addressing the issue of BOD where it says the is a moral unanimity among theologians that all four beliefs are necessary with an intrinsic necessity in each and every circuмstance.
Of course I'm extending you a benefit that you would not extend me as you would ask for an ex Cathedra statement addressing the BOD issue that makes this claim as you not only do not accept authoritative docuмents from valid popes you do not even accept the infallible teaching of the OUM.
-
Saint Thomas Aquinas speaks of the need for belief in the Incarnation (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article7) and the Holy Trinity (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article8):
But when dealing with Baptism of [desire] the Spirit he speaks thusly:
In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.
BAM!!!
Why did he leave out the need to believe in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity? Because he didn't consult with Ladislaus first.
Again the Feeneyite has to ignore the greatest Doctor of the Church. Dismiss it as not being infallible. :barf:
-
Here is a thread where LOT was forced to reveal what really believes.
-
Here is a thread where LOT was forced to reveal what really believes.
What do I believe that is contrary to what the Church teaches. Show a quote from me and show a teaching of the Church teaching the contrary.
-
"The truths which must be believed by all who have the use of reason, as an essential condition for salvation, are at least two. The two necessary articles of faith are that God exists and that He rewards them that seek Him... It is probable that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God is necessary under the New Dispensation, but whether the opinion is true or not, it would, in practice, be grievously wrong to baptize or absolve an adult, not in immediate danger of death, who did not explicitly believe in these two mysteries...." (Henry Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. I).
-
Lover of Heresy continues to pertinaciously reject the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas (and the Athanasian Creed) ... after having derided St. Thomas as an ignorant fool who does not understand Scripture.
-
Lover of Heresy continues to pertinaciously reject the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas (and the Athanasian Creed) ... after having derided St. Thomas as an ignorant fool who does not understand Scripture.
The hateful heretic liar strikes again.
-
Two wrongs don't make a right. Everyone has been thoroughly denounced, repeatedly.
What good is coming of this now? Knock the dust off. Let it go. Everyone is hull down and dug in. This accomplishes nothing good.
-
Two wrongs don't make a right. Everyone has been thoroughly denounced, repeatedly.
What good is coming of this now? Knock the dust off. Let it go. Everyone is hull down and dug in. This accomplishes nothing good.
Agreed. Thanks for saying something civil and decent. We scare potential Catholics off with all the apparent hate. Can't be good they say.
-
Agreed. Thanks for saying something civil and decent. We scare potential Catholics off with all the apparent hate. Can't be good they say.
Big of you, seriously. If nothing else, unchecked passions are ineffective and inefficient. Even an Atheist could see that.
"Love thine enemy..." ... then shoot him. :furtive:
-
Big of you, seriously. If nothing else, unchecked passions are ineffective and inefficient. Even an Atheist could see that.
"Love thine enemy..." ... then shoot him. :furtive:
I think most of us can be good if we try. It takes one or two to sink the ship and make it yuck. There is a civil way of discussing things. This can be seen on Bellarmine Forums, Trad Forum, Faithful Catholics Forum. No offense to this one in regards to the owner, but yuck sometimes. I'm not the only one that things this.
I try to be civil. Sometimes stay civil even after someone draws first blood, sometimes not.
-
Lover of Heresy continues to pertinaciously reject the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas (and the Athanasian Creed) ... after having derided St. Thomas as an ignorant fool who does not understand Scripture.
-
I think most of us can be good if we try. It takes one or two to sink the ship and make it yuck. There is a civil way of discussing things. This can be seen on Bellarmine Forums, Trad Forum, Faithful Catholics Forum. No offense to this one in regards to the owner, but yuck sometimes. I'm not the only one that things this.
I try to be civil. Sometimes stay civil even after someone draws first blood, sometimes not.
1. To be fair, this site tends to be a bit more open. It's sort of like "Catholic Gab" that way, though it predates gab. That openness to "dialog" also means you've allsorts here more than the other sites. That means more fights.
2. I've been to at least some of those sites and I guess we just had vastly different experiences.
1. Bellarmine? Snobs and bullies.
2. "Faithful Catholics" Booted not because I was saying anything, but because I was asked a question by the BoD police. It's BoD or else over there. I could go on, but there is assessment, and then there is talking behind another's back.
3. I'll leave you at the civil bit, because we're just not gonna get along there either.
The irony, esp. of getting booted for being (Sede, "Feeney" etc.) is that I come to places like this to possibly find something that I missed, to be proven wrong. I absolutely despise being a Sede, but God hates lies.
Which segues into people getting frustrated because you ask for reason, for evidence, for argument, for something substantial and sound and then you, 9/10 get a bunch of irrelevant rubbish.
Case in point: an individual recently stated that there was explicit condemnation of Sedevacantism. Okay, great then. IF that is so, then it is so, and Catholics say "roger" and drive on.
But, you'd think such a potentially great work of mercy wouldn't even need to be asked for, let alone begged for, but of course it was just a bs tease as always. IN short, you look for reason and find a liar.
Anyway, I'm quitting this whilst hopefully ahead and to be square, straight, and clear, we aren't on the same page either, but as stated before, no need to get ridiculous even with an enemy. Matter of fact that is much more likely to be fatal than a to be a fool amongst friends.
out.
-
Yuck again and more yuck.
-
Yuck again and more yuck.
Ah well.
Take care.
-
Sorry. Ladislaus say something nice. Didn't read. Will have to read and say something nice back.
-
You're enemies man. Heck, we're enemies. There's just no need to keep saying the same crap all the time.
We're in a war man. You and he aren't pals. YOu and I aren't pals. It's a war. There are limit limits in war, else it's just a giant riot, mass murder on crack. No need to be cruel. Feed the hungry, even if you're just going to have to snap his neck later when he's ambulatory.
Maybe look up, for example, "I know you as the first born of Hell." or the time when "Santa Claus" booger hooked a dude.
It's not a game man. It's a war. Same war that always was from the beginning.
-
1. To be fair, this site tends to be a bit more open. It's sort of like "Catholic Gab" that way, though it predates gab. That openness to "dialog" also means you've allsorts here more than the other sites. That means more fights.
2. I've been to at least some of those sites and I guess we just had vastly different experiences.
1. Bellarmine? Snobs and bullies.
2. "Faithful Catholics" Booted not because I was saying anything, but because I was asked a question by the BoD police. It's BoD or else over there. I could go on, but there is assessment, and then there is talking behind another's back.
3. I'll leave you at the civil bit, because we're just not gonna get along there either.
The irony, esp. of getting booted for being (Sede, "Feeney" etc.) is that I come to places like this to possibly find something that I missed, to be proven wrong. I absolutely despise being a Sede, but God hates lies.
Which segues into people getting frustrated because you ask for reason, for evidence, for argument, for something substantial and sound and then you, 9/10 get a bunch of irrelevant rubbish.
Case in point: an individual recently stated that there was explicit condemnation of Sedevacantism. Okay, great then. IF that is so, then it is so, and Catholics say "roger" and drive on.
But, you'd think such a potentially great work of mercy wouldn't even need to be asked for, let alone begged for, but of course it was just a bs tease as always. IN short, you look for reason and find a liar.
Anyway, I'm quitting this whilst hopefully ahead and to be square, straight, and clear, we aren't on the same page either, but as stated before, no need to get ridiculous even with an enemy. Matter of fact that is much more likely to be fatal than a to be a fool amongst friends.
out.
I thought the above was from Ladislaus. Sorry. This site is indeed more open. But the fights could be more civil. The name-calling and yuck. Other things. Also out-right lies, repeated over and over again. Underhanded tactics. Did I mention lies? Can't respect people like that. At all. Always gets personal. YOU heretic. YOU modernist. Always. More yuck.
For me Bellarmine, snobs, not sure what word is best, bullies, didn't see that. Civil. Yes. On topic? Yes. Mean and petty? No. Didn't see it.
Faithful Catholics. Not much experience. But the experience I have is good. We could get along if we talk like this. I'm in defense mode here because people (particular person) are yucky. Don't read much. Just post so people see what Fathers, Saints, Doctors, Pope taught. Often not civilly refuted. Just John 3:5 as if that undermines everything. Help. Nothing worthwhile said. Posturing, grandstanding. And always personal YOU bad. YOU no good.
No offense to anyone but this is the last place you will get good theology. Bellarmine forums is best for that. Tons of stuff from bona-fide theologians. Sound theologians. Catholics like that.
Irrelevant rubbish. Yes. Much. That is why I close eyes and punch. Want to leave people with Fathers, Saints Doctors, Popes rather than mean YOU heretic rubbish. YOU teach ignorance saves. I do not. YOU teach desire is sacrament. I do not. Lies, lies and more lies. Underhanded. Stupid.
I enjoyed your post. We can talk. Proof is necessary. There is tons of proof for SV, EENS, BOD. All on same side, all Catholic, not pitted one against another.
-
1. To be fair, this site tends to be a bit more open. It's sort of like "Catholic Gab" that way, though it predates gab. That openness to "dialog" also means you've allsorts here more than the other sites. That means more fights.
2. I've been to at least some of those sites and I guess we just had vastly different experiences.
1. Bellarmine? Snobs and bullies.
2. "Faithful Catholics" Booted not because I was saying anything, but because I was asked a question by the BoD police. It's BoD or else over there. I could go on, but there is assessment, and then there is talking behind another's back.
3. I'll leave you at the civil bit, because we're just not gonna get along there either.
The irony, esp. of getting booted for being (Sede, "Feeney" etc.) is that I come to places like this to possibly find something that I missed, to be proven wrong. I absolutely despise being a Sede, but God hates lies.
Which segues into people getting frustrated because you ask for reason, for evidence, for argument, for something substantial and sound and then you, 9/10 get a bunch of irrelevant rubbish.
Case in point: an individual recently stated that there was explicit condemnation of Sedevacantism. Okay, great then. IF that is so, then it is so, and Catholics say "roger" and drive on.
But, you'd think such a potentially great work of mercy wouldn't even need to be asked for, let alone begged for, but of course it was just a bs tease as always. IN short, you look for reason and find a liar.
Anyway, I'm quitting this whilst hopefully ahead and to be square, straight, and clear, we aren't on the same page either, but as stated before, no need to get ridiculous even with an enemy. Matter of fact that is much more likely to be fatal than a to be a fool amongst friends.
out.
Thumbs up to you.
-
I thought the above was from Ladislaus. Sorry. This site is indeed more open. But the fights could be more civil. The name-calling and yuck. Other things. Also out-right lies, repeated over and over again. Underhanded tactics. Did I mention lies? Can't respect people like that. At all. Always gets personal. YOU heretic. YOU modernist. Always. More yuck.
For me Bellarmine, snobs, not sure what word is best, bullies, didn't see that. Civil. Yes. On topic? Yes. Mean and petty? No. Didn't see it.
Faithful Catholics. Not much experience. But the experience I have is good. We could get along if we talk like this. I'm in defense mode here because people (particular person) are yucky. Don't read much. Just post so people see what Fathers, Saints, Doctors, Pope taught. Often not civilly refuted. Just John 3:5 as if that undermines everything. Help. Nothing worthwhile said. Posturing, grandstanding. And always personal YOU bad. YOU no good.
No offense to anyone but this is the last place you will get good theology. Bellarmine forums is best for that. Tons of stuff from bona-fide theologians. Sound theologians. Catholics like that.
Irrelevant rubbish. Yes. Much. That is why I close eyes and punch. Want to leave people with Fathers, Saints Doctors, Popes rather than mean YOU heretic rubbish. YOU teach ignorance saves. I do not. YOU teach desire is sacrament. I do not. Lies, lies and more lies. Underhanded. Stupid.
I enjoyed your post. We can talk. Proof is necessary. There is tons of proof for SV, EENS, BOD. All on same side, all Catholic, not pitted one against another.
Yeah I don't want to hurt your feelings more but this is another example of why we can't really communicate. We're not just from different planets, we're from different dimensions.
At least understand, not 'accept' mind you, but understand that there are not a few who see that which you just described as you.
"Capische"?
"Mi CAVA la leche! MAma MIA! BaFA Napoli! Fugatz!"
-
They see inaccurately. Nothing to understand. They cannot provide proof. But will see that I have said things such as "Desire is not a sacrament" and "ignorance, in and of itself, neither saves or damns a man."
But no see. Why? Lies. Ladislaus says over and over again. Must be true. He defends BOD too much must undermine. How? Lies.
I have nothing against you. Feel free to talk anytime.
-
They see inaccurately. Nothing to understand. They cannot provide proof. But will see that I have said things such as "Desire is not a sacrament" and "ignorance, in and of itself, neither saves or damns a man."
But no see. Why? Lies. Ladislaus says over and over again. Must be true. He defends BOD too much must undermine. How? Lies.
I have nothing against you. Feel free to talk anytime.
Are you drunk or on drugs or something? That's an absolutely incoherent post.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/68/68716183bbbd59631f4246205160c41dd89c120ba8a0330a81d5dfceb57eb5e0.jpg)
Statements such as "Desire is not a sacrament" (no, duh, really?) and "ignorance neither saves nor damns" (really?) are irrelevant to your heresies. Where your heresy comes in is in presenting subjective dispositions (including desire) as salvific without any need for the Sacrament of Baptism. That's heresy regarding Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation and it's also Pelagian heresy. I've explained to you several dozen times now how you can formulate your opinion so as to avoid these heresies (I've given you the out) ... and yet you refuse to affirm these non-heretical propositions. In your hubris, you insist on remaining pertinacious in your heresies.
I have no problem with Arvinger, who believes in BoD, because his views are not heretical. Yours, on the other hand, are.
-
Are you drunk or on drugs or something? That's an absolutely incoherent post.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/68/68716183bbbd59631f4246205160c41dd89c120ba8a0330a81d5dfceb57eb5e0.jpg)
Statements such as "Desire is not a sacrament" (no, duh, really?) and "ignorance neither saves nor damns" (really?) are irrelevant to your heresies. Where your heresy comes in is in presenting subjective dispositions (including desire) as salvific without any need for the Sacrament of Baptism. That's heresy regarding Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation and it's also Pelagian heresy. I've explained to you several dozen times now how you can formulate your opinion so as to avoid these heresies (I've given you the out) ... and yet you refuse to affirm these non-heretical propositions. In your hubris, you insist on remaining pertinacious in your heresies.
I have no problem with Arvinger, who believes in BoD, because his views are not heretical. Yours, on the other hand, are.
More yuck from the evil one.
-
Refreshing.
:applause:
Preesh.
-
Refreshing.
:applause:
To prove SV wrong you would have to prove that valid Popes could bind on the Church:
1. A heretical council
2. Invalid and doubtful sacraments
3. Heretical canon law
4. Damned canonized saints.
5. Be an public apostate heretic like Mr. Bergolio
6. Believe that public heretics John 23 - Bergolio were not public heretics
7. Believe John 23 - Bergolio were/are not public heretics.
As they say in the island of WhatNot, "Good luck with that."
-
To prove SV wrong you would have to prove that valid Popes could bind on the Church:
1. A heretical council
How's the Council heretical? It just teaches the same things you promote here every day on CI.
-
To prove SV wrong you would have to prove that valid Popes could bind on the Church:
OR you could disagree with Bellarmine's opinion that papa haereticus ipso facto depositus, be a sedeprivationist, or believe that the See must be vacated at least materially by the Church. There are many reasons why one would not be an SV. In fact, sedeprivationism by far makes the most sense. SVism has too many serious problems.
-
Translation por favor?
Sorry. It's "Layzeze" for "I appreciate it."
"Video killed the radio star", and "social" media is torturing literacy, and so Literature, to death.
Anyone ever notice that we don't get Dostoyevskys, Solzhenitsyns, or even Fitzgeralds any more?
For that matter, it isn't confined to the "written" word but extends to all that was art.
"Lil Wayne" show ain't no "Chopin", but he might send some Nocturnes to the digital chop shop "foe some sick beats yo!"
There's an apologetic, a polemic there somewhere.
The Devil mocks, mutates and apes.
That's what "art" is now.
The passing of art is the rout of goodness from the world.
But anyway, at least you know what "preesh" means now.
Gotta laugh.
-
OR you could disagree with Bellarmine's opinion that papa haereticus ipso facto depositus, be a sedeprivationist, or believe that the See must be vacated at least materially by the Church. There are many reasons why one would not be an SV. In fact, sedeprivationism by far makes the most sense. SVism has too many serious problems.
We disagree but based only upon opinion. I'm on the side of the Sainted Doctor and many others and the majority. The sedeprivationist theory is novel. I'm not sure what the "many" reasons would be. Sedeprivationist is SV in practice, do not offer Mass "together" with the apostate heretic, do not teach the warped theology of being to pick and chose what a valid Pope binds on the Church.
-
One could leave CI for 3 years and come back today and find this LOT posting the same things, it is a merry-go-round never ending. It's his whole life's work, to teach Catholics that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists and ALL other false religions can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards.
-
St. Bede, Doctor of the Church (8th century): An Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Book 1, Ch.7, The Passion of St. Albanus and his companions, p.24: "Then and there also that soldier was beheaded, who being before restrained by the beck of the Highest, refused to inflict the stroke on the holy confessor of God; concerning whom indeed it is manifest that, albeit he was not washed in the font of baptism, yet was he cleansed by the libation of his own blood, and made worthy to enter into the heavenly kingdom."
-
One could leave CI for 3 years and come back today and find this LOT posting the same things, it is a merry-go-round never ending. It's his whole life's work, to teach Catholics that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists and ALL other false religions can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards.
You mean the same errors, heresies etc., right?
If you think about it, the Faith was, is, and will be "the same thing" till it's over, right?
Much of these "things" aren't his, they're Catholic; they're patrimony, and this contrast is what makes seeing it generally like chewing tin-foiled batteries fresh from the litterbox.
Granted, if he would ever cede that we can just read these same things ourselves, be a bit more concise, and learn to link, cite, reference etc., it would be a bit easier to take and someone might actually read what he has to say about them instead of fleeing in "terror" from the Infodumpster, no?
I love "the same things" providing they're Catholic things. God is always the same "thing".
-
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church (12th century): Letter No.77, Letter to Hugh of St. Victor, On Baptism: “If an adult...wish and seek to be baptized, but is unable to obtain it because death intervenes, then where there is no lack of right faith, devout hope, sincere charity, may God be gracious to me, because I cannot completely despair of salvation for such a one solely on account of water, if it be lacking, and cannot believe that faith will be rendered empty, hope confounded and charity lost, provided only that he is not contemptuous of the water, but as I said merely kept from it by lack of opportunity..."
-
LOT should change his avatar from the Cure d' Ars to a picture of himself. It is really disgraceful to have the Cure d' Ars associated with a sad character like LOT.
-
Baptism of desire and blood is a modernist error.
Looking at the quotes from Church teaching on baptism of desire and blood above, the quotes span nearly the entire history of the Church. Modernism originated in the 19th century, so it is obvious that baptism of desire and blood have nothing to do with Modernism.