Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Why so many Feeneyites on Cathinfo?  (Read 9035 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DZ PLEASE

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2929
  • Reputation: +736/-775
  • Gender: Male
  • "Lord, have mercy."
Re: Why so many Feeneyites on Cathinfo?
« Reply #180 on: November 13, 2017, 09:02:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1


  • Saying that on can recieve Baptism in voto, denies this Canon of Trent below. Baptism in voto, is Baptism without true and natural water, according to your definition.

    >> I don't think that's what he's saying man, not exactly.

    I think you missed this from earlier in the thread. Also, are you of the opinion that an error or heresy must be specifically addressed to the letter, in order for it to be heresy or error?

    >> If so, which seems all but metaphysically certain, then that seems by far to be the vast majority postion, at least "here"; they'll say "no" in one line, then proceed to contradict themselves the next, then shuck and jive by saying you've failed to make a distinction, or invoke "context" or some like rubbish.

    >> Sound familiar
    ? It should, for it is the standard weasel word maneuverings of heretics. Save yourself further headaches, and knock the dust off; you're wasting your time. We aren't required to engage in Chinese gymnastics in avoiding rashness; that's the one of the signs that you're dealing with the bad willed again.
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2929
    • Reputation: +736/-775
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Why so many Feeneyites on Cathinfo?
    « Reply #181 on: November 13, 2017, 09:45:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • >> I don't think that's what he's saying man, not exactly.

    How is Baptism in voto not contrary to that Canon?
    I didn't say that.

    What I think is being said by him is not common but not unheard of; it comes in a couple to a few forms but it boils down to the sacrament having some kind of durable entity/existence. Remember that email I sent you?

    Basically this is saying that the effects of the sacrament are "somehow" (very rough statement. unless you want a handful of Tylenol, skip the specs) received via the sacrament (i.e. it "somehow" has durable entity) even though the individual isn't actually administered the sacrament. 

    "Oh what a tangled web..." You hittin' the liquid yet?

    Remember also what I was asking about how does a dumb-as-dirt, Forrest Gump, parishioner possibly not only practice, but preach, and profess this kind of, "4 isn't 4 in the world of imaginary numbers".... "faith"?

    Yeah, this kind of thing is what I was thinking of.

    It's just more Yeshiva think poison man. It's straight up Jew. 

    Stand by for people attempting to apply hindsight for those in the past...

    I'm just doing this because you're not one of the walking dead.

    I don't care what else the Lads of the world have to say, at least if it's the same old shit that I could site scrub and read yet again as my head is poised over the puke bucket.
    "Lord, have mercy".


    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2929
    • Reputation: +736/-775
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Why so many Feeneyites on Cathinfo?
    « Reply #182 on: November 13, 2017, 10:19:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I get what you're saying but Lad explains it a bit differently. He says that in order for BOD to not be heretical, one has to say the actual Sacrament is received in voto. This is the idea that not only are the effects received, but also the actual Sacrament itself in voto. He says this is how the necessity of the Sacrament is NOT denied.  The problem is that in order to receive the effects and the Sacrament itself, water is necessary as per the Canon of Trent. Therefore, even though the Sacrament is not denied, it is saying that water is not necessary for Baptism. This is explicitly contrary to the Canon. This is why I'm asking him this question. Am I missing something? Is not saying that the Sacrament can be received in voto, i.e. without water, twisting the words of the Lord in Scripture and contrary to the Canon?
    I guess man; that's the problem with stories, for "the tale grows in the telling" and the specifics shift. In other words, inconsistency is to be expected. 

    Maybe he said it; I don't care any more. If someone would like to give a compelling REASON to, then send it.

    Otherwise, I'm tired, clock's ticking, and the votive's blazing.

    "I'm dyin' here!", as "you" are there.
    "Lord, have mercy".

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16