Author Topic: No Perfect Act of Contrition is Possible (Read 9527 times)

andysloan · « **Reply #75 on:** March 18, 2014, 08:03:17 PM »

Ladislaus says:

"Again, lest the BoDers apply the usual subterfuge, I am not talking about BoD for catechumens, i.e. for someone who has accepted the Catholic Faith."

Someone who has a desire of baptism (included catechumens), has accepted the Catholic Faith in their heart. Else the following words of St Paul are erroneous:

Romans 6:17

But thanks be to God, that you were the servants of sin, but have obeyed from the heart, unto that form of doctrine, into which you have been delivered.

That the mystery of God's providence does not provide water baptism for some, does not deny the bestowal of the sacramental effect.

Just think of the millions and millions of people in the last 2000 years who have never heard of Christ. Reason instructs that at least some of these must have attained to salvation without water baptism.

JoeZ · « **Reply #76 on:** March 18, 2014, 08:03:46 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: JoeZ
If I may,

Quote from: SJB

This is really a perfect example of your inability to understand simple English.

How much more simple can English get then " If anyone saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

I'm with Ladislaus on this with one exception; it isn't the Faith I'll give up when proven wrong, I'm going to quit speaking English...I guess.

Thank you for your time.

Joe,

No one is disputing this canon. Baptism of Desire and Blood are not Baptism, so this canon is irrelevant to the discussion.

Please,
if they are not baptism, they can not remove original sin. "I confess one Baptism for the remission of sin" One cannot hold that original sin has any other remedy.

Thank you.

JoeZ · « **Reply #77 on:** March 18, 2014, 08:09:00 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: JoeZ
I'm with Ladislaus on this with one exception; it isn't the Faith I'll give up when proven wrong, I'm going to quit speaking English...I guess.

Well, I never said I would give up the Faith, just Traditional Catholicism. I would become more of an FSSP type.

I stand corrected. My remark was hasty and not quite accurate and I'm sorry.

God bless
JoeZ

Ladislaus · « **Reply #78 on:** March 18, 2014, 08:09:18 PM »

On another thread, Ambrose falsely declared that sanctifying grace alone saves, which is of course a circular argument assuming that sanctifying grace can be had without Baptism. What he really means is "nitheness".

And of course, something was evidently missing from St. Joseph and St. John the Baptism so that they could not enter the Kingdom of God, despite their "friendship with God" as Ambrose called it. Hmmm. I guess it was unmerciful of God to keep them out of heaven?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #79 on:** March 18, 2014, 08:11:09 PM »

Quote from: JoeZ

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: JoeZ
I'm with Ladislaus on this with one exception; it isn't the Faith I'll give up when proven wrong, I'm going to quit speaking English...I guess.

Well, I never said I would give up the Faith, just Traditional Catholicism. I would become more of an FSSP type.

I stand corrected. My remark was hasty and not quite accurate and I'm sorry.

God bless
JoeZ

Pssst. No harm done, and I'm not the least bit offended. I just wanted to clarify what I meant. I've got a thick skin and get called "idiot" several times a day by SJB. Doesn't bother me.

SJB · « **Reply #80 on:** March 18, 2014, 08:26:53 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

I have provided the source countless times now. The source is the Infallible Magisterium in which there is no room for ambiguity or contradiction. Ambiguity is Satan's tricks in modern minds. There are dogmatic infallible statements which are not to be ignored, altered, or changed in any form because they belong to the Divine Deposit of Faith. Examples are:

Pope Innocent III, Non ut Apponeres (1206):
In Baptism, two things are always and necessarily required, namely the words and the element (water)...You ought not to doubt that they do not have true Baptism in which one of them is missing.

Another good example about this is my signature below:

Council of Trent,
"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema".

Not even the Holy Mother Church Herself has the power to innovate anything regarding the substance of the Sacraments, let alone contradict or change in any way what Our Lord Christ said and taught in John 3:5 when He walked among us, as we see in the following infallible statement:

Pope ST Pius X: "
It is well known that the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching the substance of the Sacraments". Thus even the Church Herself has no power or authority to alter the words or matter in the form of the Sacrament of Baptism".

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

This is simply your reading of things nobody disputes. That's why I said you have no source who has ever even remotely read things the way you do. If our "errors" are so common, why didn't anybody ever notice them?

I do feel very sorry for you. You've been deceived and duped by the SBC propaganda.

andysloan · « **Reply #81 on:** March 18, 2014, 09:59:37 PM »

..and the dictation of Christ to St Catherine of Siena still cannot penetrate the hearts of these proud and lost souls; ...oh that is just private revelation!

It is frankly incredible and nothing but an inner defiance against Christ!

"In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: ’Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?’ And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking." ~The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena

Matthew 8:11-12

"And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Cantarella · « **Reply #82 on:** March 18, 2014, 11:10:05 PM »

Sorry but there is no way for "interpreting" or reading a "certain way" Catholic dogma. A defined dogma is what it is regardless of personal interpretation. If dogmas are to be doubted, then maybe Our Blessed Mother is not really "Immaculate"? Maybe only partially "Immaculate"?. You would not dare to say that!

There is only one way to believe dogma: as Holy Mother Church has declared it:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess.3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, Ex-Cathedra Dogma >>>: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."

This doctrine made in First Vatican Council is vitally important for dogmatic purity, because the primary way that Satan attempts to corrupt Christ’s doctrines is by getting men to move away from the Church’s dogmas as they were once declared. There is no meaning of a dogma other than what the words themselves state and declare, so the Devil tries to get men to “understand” and “interpret” these words in a way that is different from how the Church has declared them.

Outside the Church There is No Salvation There is no need to add anything to it or "understand” the dogmas in a different way than what the words themselves state and declare.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:

“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:

“The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned

Dogmas of the faith, like Outside the Church There is No Salvation, are truths fallen from heaven which cannot be contradicted and must be believed by all faithful.

Any one who says that we must interpret or understand the meaning of a dogmatic definition, in a way which contradicts its actual wording, is denying the whole point of Infallibility and dogmatic definitions. Also, those who insist that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by non-infallible statements (e.g., from theologians, catechisms, etc.) are denying the whole purpose of the Chair of Peter. They are subordinating the Heavenly dogmatic teaching to the re-evaluation of fallible humans thereby inverting their authority.

There should not be interpretation of Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as the liberal heretics like to emphasize; there is only what the Church has once declared.

Luker · « **Reply #83 on:** March 18, 2014, 11:56:17 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Luker
Hi Ladislaus, I have most of the Fr Laux set of books here at home, do you know specifically where he talks about this vatican II style ecclesiology? I would like to check it out for myself if I can.

Luke

bowler, could you find these again and quote them for Luke? I can't locate them in the threads.

See the CI thread "CI BODer Manifesto". The page from Laux is in there along with other similar 20th century catechism quotes.

Ok thanks guys, I will try and look it up.

Luke

bowler · « **Reply #84 on:** March 19, 2014, 03:18:22 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Stubborn
Well, you are free to disagree - but if you want to depend on a contrition which "sometimes happens" as assurance that your sins are forgiven, and then call that a COD - and Trent an imbecile or a deceiver, then feel free. I admit it could sometimes happen - but a "COD"? Never.

We cannot depend on any such thing. In fact, depending on perfect contrition would in fact ironically undermine the desire to receive the Sacrament and render it incapable of restoring one to a state of grace (as Father Feeney famously said about the desire for Baptism).

Quote from: Stubborn
The fact is Trent does not teach of anything even remotely called a COD for a reason - because there is no such a thing - I say that whoever constantly preaches that there is such a thing as a BOD or even a COD should expect God to give them the opportunity to practice what they preach when their last hour nears - they certainly won't be needing the last sacrament after they've been preaching that an infidel can be rewarded salvation without any sacrament at all.

You make an interesting point. Confession of Desire should be considered a term completely repugnant to Catholics. Yet why is Baptism of Desire any different? Only because people coined the term and kept repeating it. The minute you would start talking about Confession of Desire as such, you would start undermining the Sacrament itself ... just as the term BoD does for Baptism. So I understand your visceral repugnance to the notion. In fact, if anyone started talking about CoD, I would immediately want to slap them down.

Another interesting point to consider is that Trent teaches there's no such thing as the Sacrament of Confession for those who have not been Baptized. So for any unbaptized person who would fall from a state of grace (allowing only for the sake of argument that they could be in a state of grace to begin with), there would be absolutely no remedy.

Quote from: Trent
Moreover, neither before the coming of Christ was penance a sacrament nor is it such since His coming to anyone before baptism

Notice, there is NO SACRAMENT OF PENANCE to the unbaptized. So how then could the unbaptized be restored to a state of grace by a desire for the Sacrament of Penance? They are incapable of receiving the Sacrament of Penance.

That's yet another argument against salvation by so-called BoD.

BoDers claim that perfect charity alone (without the Sacrament of Penance) can restore to a state of grace. That's condemned by Trent. Trent teaches that the fruits of the Sacrament are applied via the desire for it and that perfect contrition alone does not suffice. But how can the fruits of the Sacrament be applied to a soul who is not capable of receiving it (the unbaptized)?

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ladislaus
What's interesting, however, is the addition of the intention / will to receive the Sacrament of Confession. We cannot say that the intention / will to receive the Sacrament of Confession is implicit in "perfect contrition" because then mentioning the intention / will to receive the Sacrament of Confession would have been entirely superfluous, and Pope Hadrian's intervention unnecessary. Otherwise, you could say that in an act of PERFECT contrition, this always involves at least implicitly the will to do whatever God wants (including to receive the Sacrament of Confession).

So the conclusion from this is that Protestants who do not have the desire to go to the Sacrament of Confession (nay, rather, they despise the Sacrament) can never be restored to a state of justification.

This completely undercuts the notion of "implicit desire" for Baptism in wanting to be a good guy.

SJB · « **Reply #85 on:** March 19, 2014, 05:28:14 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Sorry but there is no way for "interpreting" or reading a "certain way" Catholic dogma.

But you claim we read it wrong and the catechisms and theologians and all other teachers authorized by the teaching apostolate have interpreted it contrary to its true meaning. Then you have no answer to the question "who ever noticed this widespread defection?"

NOBODY noticed it because it isn't there. THEY didn't misunderstand, YOU misunderstand.

Your position really is the height of arrogance, typical of heretics.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #86 on:** March 19, 2014, 08:11:10 AM »

Quote from: linr05

So, given that the only Tridentine Mass is a five-hour round trip, and my used, old car is going downhill quickly, and I am only able to work PT/4-days-week: Is NOT attending Mass EVERY SUNDAY a mortal or a venial sin? I'm not wanting to presume Grace here, but I'm 60-yrs.-old and driving takes its toll on me too.

For now, I'm inclined to go whenever the car is working and I have a dollar for gas...when does scrupulosity become sinful?

Opinions?

Of course it's not a mortal sin (or even venial sin) to miss Mass under those conditions; the Church only requires a reasonable effort. Underlying divine law is to keep Sunday holy, so one should always do something to sanctify the Sunday whenever one cannot assist at Holy Mass. So, for instance, you could read the Mass from your missal, make a spiritual communion, and pray the Holy Rosary ... in addition of course to refraining from menial labor.

Now, I would have no problem attending an Eastern Rite liturgy if I didn't have access to a Tridentine Latin Mass. Others might protest. Perhaps there might be one closer to you. I could look into it if you wanted to let me know whereabouts you live. Although I would personally stay away from the Maronites, I consider the Ukrainian Catholic churches a good choice and consider most Ruthenian (Byzantine) implementations at least tolerable.

Cantarella · « **Reply #87 on:** March 19, 2014, 11:33:16 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Cantarella
Sorry but there is no way for "interpreting" or reading a "certain way" Catholic dogma.

But you claim we read it wrong and the catechisms and theologians and all other teachers authorized by the teaching apostolate have interpreted it contrary to its true meaning. Then you have no answer to the question "who ever noticed this widespread defection?"

NOBODY noticed it because it isn't there. THEY didn't misunderstand, YOU misunderstand.

Your position really is the height of arrogance, typical of heretics.

Catechisms, theologians, and teachers are fallible and cannot supersede or contradict Church dogmatic statements. When you insist that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by non-infallible statements you deny the whole purpose of infallibility. You invert their authority by subordinating the Heavenly dogmatic teaching to the re-evaluation of fallible humans.

Again, there is no meaning of a dogma other than what the words themselves state and declare in these Divine guided Church statements.

SJB · « **Reply #88 on:** March 19, 2014, 02:43:38 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Cantarella
Sorry but there is no way for "interpreting" or reading a "certain way" Catholic dogma.

But you claim we read it wrong and the catechisms and theologians and all other teachers authorized by the teaching apostolate have interpreted it contrary to its true meaning. Then you have no answer to the question "who ever noticed this widespread defection?"

NOBODY noticed it because it isn't there. THEY didn't misunderstand, YOU misunderstand.

Your position really is the height of arrogance, typical of heretics.

Catechisms, theologians, and teachers are fallible and cannot supersede or contradict Church dogmatic statements. When you insist that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by non-infallible statements you deny the whole purpose of infallibility. You invert their authority by subordinating the Heavenly dogmatic teaching to the re-evaluation of fallible humans.

Again, there is no meaning of a dogma other than what the words themselves state and declare in these Divine guided Church statements.

And you are not an infallible reader of dogmatic statements. The point is that NOBODY understands things the way Br. Andre of SBC, who you've been quoting, does.

While authorized teachers are not individually infallible, they are infinitely more authoritative than you.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #89 on:** March 20, 2014, 12:46:40 PM »

Quote from: linr05

So, given that the only Tridentine Mass is a five-hour round trip...

My understanding was that if Mass is more than an hour away, the obligation to attend Mass is reduced; All the while, the effort you make to attend Mass as frequently as possible is well worth any cost.