There is No Such Thing as 'Feeneyism'... :fryingpan:Obviously, it’s the common name used to identify those who deny what I stated in the OP.
Does anyone know why there is such an explosion of Feeneyism not only on Cathinfo, but in the traditional world in general? Most Catholics understand the unorthodox nature of this position, however I suspect that many people new to tradition are gullible and susceptible to being scammed. I wonder how many of these people may have fallen for a fake email Nigerian money scam?.
Everyone knows that there is only *one* sacrament of baptism and this is performed by using natural water, as the matter and saying the form; “I baptise thee, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”.
As has been taught by the Ordinary and Universe Magisterium of the Church throughout the ages and more clearly defined by the Council of Trent, the grace of the sacrament can be supplied by a desire for the sacrament combined with perfect contrition, if one were to die before he receives the actual sacrament. Obviously this an extremely rare occurrence, but it is best exemplified by the case of Saint Emerentiana who is venerated as a Catholic saint, but never received the actual sacrament of baptism.
.Did you have trouble understanding the OP?
Who told you that this "Feeneyism" to which you refer is "unorthodox?"
.
BTW can you define what you call "Feeneyism?"
.
Disingenuous, which increasingly seems characteristic of this particular OP and his lot.I don’t think you really know what disingenuous means.
Obviously, it’s the common name used to identify those who deny what I stated in the OP.It is not obvious to moi.
Did you have trouble understanding the OP?.
.What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Just to humor you, it’s the Athanasian Creed that I believe you are asking for.
For example, are you aware there are 3 Creeds of the Catholic Church? (For example, as it were, Credo I, Credo II and Credo III.)
.
Apostles' Creed (we use that with our Rosary every day -- that is, we should.)
.
Nicene Creed (from the Council of Nicaea and amended with the Filioque clause -- you don't deny the Catholicity of Filioque, do you??)
.
And finally, it's your turn to fill in the blank. And the answer is not the Creed of the Council of Trent, or of Pope Paul IV, etc.
.
BTW the Latin word Credo translated to English is "I believe," not "We believe." The latter would be Credamus.
.
I say that because if you go to a local Novus Ordo parish you'll hear them say "We believe" in many cases. Roger Cardfile Mahony started that.
.
If you're worried about it, the point is, what is necessary first of all to believe if one would attain to salvation from hell?
.
(http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/668024/2011_Nashville_July_NNS_Race_Green_Flag.jpg)GJC - you're right!! :popcorn:
.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Just to humor you, it’s the Athanasian Creed that I believe you are asking for.
Thank you. I was asking exactly for the Athanasian Creed.
.
Do you know how it answers the question I posed? What is the first thing a human being needs to avoid hell forever?
.
.
BTW it seems to me avoiding hell forever is more relevant than Chinese tea prices, but I'll leave you to speak for yourself.
.
.For a child, before they reach the age of reason, they absolutely need to be baptized. For an adult it is the Catholic Faith.
Thank you. I was asking exactly for the Athanasian Creed.
.
Do you know how it answers the question I posed? What is the first thing a human being needs to avoid hell forever?
.
.
BTW it seems to me avoiding hell forever is more relevant than Chinese tea prices, but I'll leave you to speak for yourself.
.
For a child, before they reach the age of reason, they absolutely need to be baptized. For an adult it is the Catholic Faith..
.The essential things that one must know are the Trinity, the incarnation and the redemption.
Very good. And what does an adult need to believe in order to possess the Catholic Faith?
.
.Also, one must believe everything that the Catholic Church proposes to be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith.
Very good. And what does an adult need to believe in order to possess the Catholic Faith?
.
.Not much wiggle room here for the more elastic liberal mind.
From the Sunday Breviary which traditionally all Catholic priests pray, and consequently after a few years of this all traditional Catholic priests learn to recite the Athanasian Creed in Latin by heart. Since this is only one small part of their weekly prayers, it is not really unreasonable that any Catholic man (or woman!) might like to learn this Latin prayer. BTW the fact that it has become excised from the so-called Divine Office of Newpriests in Newchurch is all the more reason we ought to recognize its importance.
.
.
.Symbolum AthanasianumQUICÚMQUE vult salvus esse, ante ómnia opus est, ut téneat cathólicam fidem:
Quam nisi quisque íntegram inviolatámque serváverit, absque dúbio in ætérnum períbit.
Fides autem cathólica hæc est: ut unum Deum in Trinitáte, et Trinitátem in unitáte venerémur.
Neque confundéntes persónas, neque substántiam separántes.
Alia est enim persóna Patris, ália Fílii, ália Spíritus Sancti:
Sed Patris, et Fílii, et Spíritus Sancti una est divínitas, æquális glória, coætérna majéstas.
Qualis Pater, talis Fílius, talis Spíritus Sanctus.
Increátus Pater, increátus Fílius, increátus Spíritus Sanctus.
Imménsus Pater, imménsus Fílius, imménsus Spíritus Sanctus.
Ætérnus Pater, ætérnus Fílius, ætérnus Spíritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres ætérni, sed unus ætérnus.
Sicut non tres increáti, nec tres imménsi, sed unus increátus, et unus imménsus.
Simíliter omnípotens Pater, omnípotens Fílius, omnípotens Spíritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres omnipoténtes, sed unus omnípotens.
Ita Deus Pater, Deus Fílius, Deus Spíritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres Dii, sed unus est Deus.
Ita Dóminus Pater, Dóminus Fílius, Dóminus Spíritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres Dómini, sed unus est Dóminus.
Quia, sicut singillátim unamquámque persónam Deum ac Dóminum confitéri christiána veritáte compéllimur: ita tres Deos aut Dóminos dícere cathólica religióne prohibémur.
Pater a nullo est factus: nec creátus, nec génitus.
Fílius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creátus, sed génitus.
Spíritus Sanctus a Patre et Fílio: non factus, nec creátus, nec génitus, sed procédens.
Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Fílius, non tres Fílii: unus Spíritus Sanctus, non tres Spíritus Sancti.
Et in hac Trinitáte nihil prius aut postérius, nihil majus aut minus: sed totæ tres persónæ coætérnæ sibi sunt et coæquáles.
Ita ut per ómnia, sicut jam supra dictum est, et únitas in Trinitáte, et Trínitas in unitáte veneránda sit.
Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitáte séntiat.
Sed necessárium est ad ætérnam salútem, ut Incarnatiónem quoque Dómini nostri Jesu Christi fidéliter credat.
Est ergo fides recta, ut credámus et confiteámur, quia Dóminus noster Jesus Christus, Dei Fílius, Deus et homo est.
Deus est ex substántia Patris ante sæcula génitus: et homo est ex substántia matris in sæculo natus.
Perféctus Deus, perféctus homo: ex ánima rationáli et humána carne subsístens.
Æquális Patri secúndum divinitátem: minor Patre secúndum humanitátem.
Qui, licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus.
Unus autem non conversióne divinitátis in carnem, sed assumptióne humanitátis in Deum.
Unus omníno, non confusióne substántiæ, sed unitáte persónæ.
Nam sicut ánima rationális et caro unus est homo: ita Deus et homo unus est Christus.
Qui passus est pro salúte nostra: descéndit ad ínferos: tértia die resurréxit a mórtuis.
Ascéndit ad cælos, sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis: inde ventúrus est judicáre vivos et mórtuos.
Ad cujus advéntum omnes hómines resúrgere habent cuм corpóribus suis: et redditúri sunt de factis própriis ratiónem.
Et qui bona egérunt, ibunt in vitam ætérnam: qui vero mala, in ignem ætérnum.
Hæc est fides cathólica, quam nisi quisque fidéliter firmitérque credíderit, salvus esse non póterit.
Glória Patri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculórum. Amen.
Ant. Allelúja, confitémini Dómino quóniam in sæculum misericórdia ejus, allelúja, allelúja.
Capit. 1 Tim. 1, 17
.
.
(English translation)
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreated, the Son Uncreated, and the Holy Ghost Uncreated. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.
God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
The essential things that one must know are the Trinity, the incarnation and the redemption..
Also, one must believe everything that the Catholic Church proposes to be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith.
.Isn’t that one of the most beautiful things ever written?
From the Sunday Breviary which traditionally all Catholic priests pray, and consequently after a few years of this all traditional Catholic priests learn to recite the Athanasian Creed in Latin by heart. Since this is only one small part of their weekly prayers, it is not really unreasonable that any Catholic man (or woman!) might like to learn this Latin prayer. BTW the fact that it has become excised from the so-called Divine Office of Newpriests in Newchurch is all the more reason we ought to recognize its importance.
.
.
.Symbolum AthanasianumQUICÚMQUE vult salvus esse, ante ómnia opus est, ut téneat cathólicam fidem:
Quam nisi quisque íntegram inviolatámque serváverit, absque dúbio in ætérnum períbit.
Fides autem cathólica hæc est: ut unum Deum in Trinitáte, et Trinitátem in unitáte venerémur.
Neque confundéntes persónas, neque substántiam separántes.
Alia est enim persóna Patris, ália Fílii, ália Spíritus Sancti:
Sed Patris, et Fílii, et Spíritus Sancti una est divínitas, æquális glória, coætérna majéstas.
Qualis Pater, talis Fílius, talis Spíritus Sanctus.
Increátus Pater, increátus Fílius, increátus Spíritus Sanctus.
Imménsus Pater, imménsus Fílius, imménsus Spíritus Sanctus.
Ætérnus Pater, ætérnus Fílius, ætérnus Spíritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres ætérni, sed unus ætérnus.
Sicut non tres increáti, nec tres imménsi, sed unus increátus, et unus imménsus.
Simíliter omnípotens Pater, omnípotens Fílius, omnípotens Spíritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres omnipoténtes, sed unus omnípotens.
Ita Deus Pater, Deus Fílius, Deus Spíritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres Dii, sed unus est Deus.
Ita Dóminus Pater, Dóminus Fílius, Dóminus Spíritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres Dómini, sed unus est Dóminus.
Quia, sicut singillátim unamquámque persónam Deum ac Dóminum confitéri christiána veritáte compéllimur: ita tres Deos aut Dóminos dícere cathólica religióne prohibémur.
Pater a nullo est factus: nec creátus, nec génitus.
Fílius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creátus, sed génitus.
Spíritus Sanctus a Patre et Fílio: non factus, nec creátus, nec génitus, sed procédens.
Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Fílius, non tres Fílii: unus Spíritus Sanctus, non tres Spíritus Sancti.
Et in hac Trinitáte nihil prius aut postérius, nihil majus aut minus: sed totæ tres persónæ coætérnæ sibi sunt et coæquáles.
Ita ut per ómnia, sicut jam supra dictum est, et únitas in Trinitáte, et Trínitas in unitáte veneránda sit.
Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitáte séntiat.
Sed necessárium est ad ætérnam salútem, ut Incarnatiónem quoque Dómini nostri Jesu Christi fidéliter credat.
Est ergo fides recta, ut credámus et confiteámur, quia Dóminus noster Jesus Christus, Dei Fílius, Deus et homo est.
Deus est ex substántia Patris ante sæcula génitus: et homo est ex substántia matris in sæculo natus.
Perféctus Deus, perféctus homo: ex ánima rationáli et humána carne subsístens.
Æquális Patri secúndum divinitátem: minor Patre secúndum humanitátem.
Qui, licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus.
Unus autem non conversióne divinitátis in carnem, sed assumptióne humanitátis in Deum.
Unus omníno, non confusióne substántiæ, sed unitáte persónæ.
Nam sicut ánima rationális et caro unus est homo: ita Deus et homo unus est Christus.
Qui passus est pro salúte nostra: descéndit ad ínferos: tértia die resurréxit a mórtuis.
Ascéndit ad cælos, sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis: inde ventúrus est judicáre vivos et mórtuos.
Ad cujus advéntum omnes hómines resúrgere habent cuм corpóribus suis: et redditúri sunt de factis própriis ratiónem.
Et qui bona egérunt, ibunt in vitam ætérnam: qui vero mala, in ignem ætérnum.
Hæc est fides cathólica, quam nisi quisque fidéliter firmitérque credíderit, salvus esse non póterit.
Glória Patri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculórum. Amen.
Ant. Allelúja, confitémini Dómino quóniam in sæculum misericórdia ejus, allelúja, allelúja.
Capit. 1 Tim. 1, 17
.
.
(English translation)
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreated, the Son Uncreated, and the Holy Ghost Uncreated. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.
God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Not much wiggle room here for the more elastic liberal mind..
Isn’t that one of the most beautiful things ever written?.
.*All* (as far as I know) popes, saints, theologians, canonists for the last 400 plus years have taught that one who has not been baptized can be saved if they have the desire for the sacrament of baptism and make and act of perfect contrition before they die. This is an act of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is infallible. The Council of Trent defined that one who has the desire for the sacrament can be justified and acording to Saint Alphonsus it is de fide. Obviously, I believe that this teaching was even taught by the Church from it’s beginning.
Sorry it took so long -- I had to go take care of some things.
.
So there's the Trinity (properly understood), the Incarnation (properly understood) and the Redemption (properly understood).
Furthermore there is everything the Church teaches as necessary for all Catholics to believe.
.
The Athanasian Creed, above clarifies the proper understanding of the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Redemption.
It also spells out we must believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
.
We have two more Creeds that fill in a few gaps, but the Athanasian Creed goes into details the others skip over.
.
Since that time there have been councils and ex-cathedra definitions which progressively clarify what all Catholics must believe.
.
Such as the Council of Trent which pronounces anathema on anyone who says the sacraments are not necessary.
.
You're all worked up over "The Feeneyites" but I really don't know what those people believe that you think is so terrible.
.
Can you explain it?
.
Where in the Athanasian Creed, the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed do these so-called Feeneyites depart from the Catholic Faith?
.
Or, is it somewhere else that you're getting what you think is so earth-shakingly important to be a Catholic?
.
.Yes, I agree!
Isn't it nice to know that we share something that's really important? We both appreciate the beauty of the Catholic Faith.
.
Would that could be the beginning and end of the discussion.
.
The Athanasian Creed has the effect of bringing Catholics together.
.
It's something we should be happy to share, and actually, we ought to be using it more frequently.
.
*All* (as far as I know) popes, saints, theologians, canonists for the last 400 plus years have taught that one who has not been baptized can be saved if they have the desire for the sacrament of baptism and make and act of perfect contrition before they die. This is an act of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is infallible. The Council of Trent defined that one who has the desire for the sacrament can be justified and acording to Saint Alphonsus it is de fide. Obviously, I believe that this teaching was even taught by the Church from it’s beginning..
Who are we to say that God cannot provide water baptism to anyone who sincerely asks for it?
.
I cannot understand why it's so important to some to go around proclaiming their faith in a theory of speculation.
.It’s not speculation when *all* of the Church’s popes, bishops, catechisms, theologians, canonists teach BOD for 400+ years (again, not saying that it was not taught from the beginning)....that is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
To say it's been supported by theologians for hundreds of years for them is all they need.
It is the OUM.
.
Never mind the same theologians have been wrong in other cases.
.
The teaching is unanimous, they can’t all be wrong and lead souls into error. This is one way a Catholic can distinguish between true and false teaching. This is why if some NO bishop insisted that there are no such things as guardian angels, you would recognize that this person was spouting heresy. No offense, but it seems to me this is why you run afoul with regard to the sedevacantist position. The Church can’t officially teach error, period.
Take St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, who denied the Immaculate Conception, based on a pagan tradition of "ensoulment."
Firstly, this was before it was defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium. Secondly, he did not deny it, he was just mistaken about ensoulment because science had not advanced to that level of understanding in the 13th century.
.
That alone could have slowed down the Definition for several hundred years.
.
But the Nicene Creed's words "I believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins" is to be understood in a different way....?
No, it is understood in only one way.
.
It doesn't say three baptisms, does it?
There is only one sacrament of baptism. BOD is just a descriptive name of how one can be justified by desiring the sacrament if he dies before actually receiving the actual sacrament, it is NOT a sacrament.
.
I heard an otherwise reliable priest say that I John 5:8 refers to this -- when the subject of that Scripture is not Baptism.
.
Then he said BoD and BoB are not sacraments, but "these three are one."
.
You can't make this stuff up.
.
Now they argue that St. Emerentiana never received Baptism.
.
Show me her Baptism of Desire Certificate.
One of the reasons she stands out in the Roman Martyrology is the fact that she *was* a catechumen. Catechumens are by definition NOT baptized.
.
Show me ANYONE'S Baptism of Desire Certificate!
See above.
.
If St. Emerentiana sincerely asked God for Baptism of water then certainly God must have provided it for her.
.
Yes he could’ve, but he didn’t.
How could He have refused her such a simple matter?
God’s ways are not your ways.
.
Just to break His own rule so the liberals could make the Exception into the New Rule?
Liberals like, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Alphonsus, Venerable Pius IX?
.
Why can't we just be concerned with the essential matters and leave the speculation for theologians?
.
It’s not speculation.
Does anyone know why there is such an explosion of Feeneyism not only on Cathinfo, but in the traditional world in general?
*All* (as far as I know) popes, saints, theologians, canonists for the last 400 plus years have taught that one who has not been baptized can be saved if they have the desire for the sacrament of baptism and make and act of perfect contrition before they die. This is an act of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is infallible.RS,
The Council of Trent defined that one who has the desire for the sacrament can be justified and acording to Saint Alphonsus it is de fide. Obviously, I believe that this teaching was even taught by the Church from it’s beginning.
Does anyone know why there is such an explosion ofLadislaus perfectly answered the question.Feeneyismstrict EENS'ers (people who believe that dogmas are the final judgement of God on a matter).
On the other side, we have what we call the BODers. The seminaries of the Novus Ordo's, the SSPX, the sedevacantes, ...Are you (^*&ing kidding me? First, people like me catch shit because, yeah, I back people like the Dimonds, who also catch shit, in no small part BECAUSE THEY STOMP ON BOD/B MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE, then people like me get batched with a bunch of (UYTtard heretics, WHO MOSTLY THINK THAT THE CONCILIAR FAKES ARE ACTUALLY POPES...
RS,Didn't know that, thanks.
Fortunately, you're wrong on this point about Trent.
Your reference is from a doctored English translation, which started appearing in the 1890's. TAN books carries on the error.
If you reference a Trent Catechism, from 1850 and before, you won't see a whiff of BOD and BOB.
I've easily found these pre 1850 references, like this one: Trent Catechism (1829) (https://archive.org/details/thecatechismofth00donouoft)
A friend on mine went as far as to purchase an antique Catechism from the 1600's and verified the same.
Father Leonard Feeney made reference to this fact in his self-defense for one Water baptism.
That is in the original Latin version of the Council of Trent, there is no BOD or BOB.
That would make these men heretics right?That would make you a heretic, right?
They are teaching a false gospel aren't they?
That would make these men heretics right?If it is not a heresy, then the SSPX and the Sedes have no reason to object to Vatican II, for it dogmatically declares their teaching to be the correct interpretation.
They are teaching a false gospel aren't they?
If it is not a heresy, then the SSPX and the Sedes have no reason to object to Vatican II, for it dogmatically declares their teaching to be the correct interpretation.Where'd you go sugar britches? We ain't done.
No it would not.Who cares? That's how it works here, right? You call me a heretic, I call you a heretic..
Calm down, when did I call you a heretic? I responded to Tradhican.Learn to read.
Calm down, when did I call you a heretic? I responded to Tradhican.To be fair, you deserve credit, unlike your nancy boy, lost of the tradhican, pal in at least stepping up instead of ducking out.
Are you (^*&ing kidding me? First, people like me catch shit because, yeah, I back people like the Dimonds, who also catch shit, in no small part BECAUSE THEY STOMP ON BOD/B MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE, then people like me get batched with a bunch of (UYTtard heretics, WHO MOSTLY THINK THAT THE CONCILIAR FAKES ARE ACTUALLY POPES...
Just choke yourself Blowhican.
Dimwit.
But it's disgusting to get lumped in with the BOD/Uni. Sal. Sedevacantists. It's "funny" how it's become so "illogical" to take a definitive stance on issues. Especially ones directly related to Dogma. "You must be a sede if you're against FE". "You must be a feeneyite if you believe in strict EENS", "you must be a Sede if you believe in BOD" etc etc... All this grouping is ridiculous, you're either for Dogma and the facts relating to them, or you're not Catholic.Thanks, but it's pointless man, and I knew that going in.
When he says, "they teach . . .," he's either talking about the teachers in the seminaries (and I think he's right about that) or BODers, not all sedevacantists.I said all the sedevacantes seminaries teach salvation by belief in a God that rewards. I also said the Novus Ordo and the SSPX seminaries teaches the same thing. A seminary is not a person. The sedesvacantes are not R&R, and the SSPXers are not sedevacantes.
Where'd you go sugar britches? We ain't done.
It's because many Traditonal Catholics come to the realization that all the Vatican II errors derive from Vatican II ecclesiology. And one cannot come to terms with these ecclesiological questions without addressing the points raised by Father Feeney. Once these Catholics wrestle with these ecclesiological issues, they come to the realization that most anti-Feeneyites have an ecclesiology that's identical to that of Vatican II and that there's no justification for them to be Traditional Catholics..
.Wow, this is getting hot. I don't understand why this topic always gets so emotionally wild?
Recusant comment. "The Council of Trent defined that one who has the desire for the sacrament can be justified and acording to Saint Alphonsus it is de fide."
.
What a rotten liar you are Recusant. The Council of Trent, Session XIV, gave the exact and full definition on Justification and nowhere is desire mentioned at all!
.
The Council of Trent, Session XIV, Sovereign Pontiff, Julius III., celebrated on the twenty-fifth of November, 1551.
.
Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance.
.
The sacred and holy, oecuмenical and general Synod of Trent, -lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legate and Nuncios of the holy Apostolic See presiding therein, --although, in the decree concerning Justification, there has been, through a certain kind of necessity, on account of the affinity of the subjects, much discourse introduced touching the sacrament of Penance; nevertheless, so great, in these our days, is the multitude of various errors relative to this sacrament, that it will be of no small public utility to have given thereof a more exact and full definition, wherein, all errors having been, under the protection of the Holy Ghost, pointed out and extirpated, Catholic truth may be made clear and resplendent; which (Catholic truth) this holy Synod now sets before all Christians to be perpetually retained.
.
CHAPTER II.
.
On the difference between the Sacrament of Penance and that of Baptism.
.
For the rest, this sacrament is clearly seen to be different from baptism in many respects: for besides that it is very widely different indeed in matter and form, which constitute the essence of a sacrament, it is beyond doubt certain that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, seeing that the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not entered therein through the gate of baptism. For, what have I, saith the apostle, to do to judge them that are without?(m) It is otherwise with those who are of the household of the faith, whom Christ our Lord has once, by the laver of baptism, made the members of His own body; for such, if they should afterwards have defiled themselves by any crime, He would no longer have them cleansed by a repetition of baptism--that being nowise lawful in the Catholic Church-but be placed as criminals before this tribunal; that, by the sentence of the priests, they might be freed, not once, but as often as, being penitent, they should, from their sins committed, flee thereunto. Furthermore, one is the fruit of baptism, and another that of penance. For, by baptism putting on Christ, (n) we are made therein entirely a new creature, obtaining a full and entire remission of all sins : unto which newness and entireness, however, we are no ways able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance, without many tears and great labours on our parts, the divine justice demanding this; so that penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism. (o) And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation ; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.
.
Look, Recusant, not one word of desire is mentioned, why is that? Because it is not taught, it is an error like Pope Julius pointed out in the paragraph heading called "Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance".
.
Saints themselves, have no power to make something ex cathedra!
.
Liars, cannot help but love lies!
.
You and Neil are perfect for each other!
.
This is what I can't stand. They (the BODers) sit there and swear up and down that the Sacrament is necessary for Salvation, then offer exceptions to the actual reception of it for Salvation, clearly making it unnecessary.I am not even familiar with the definition of a Feeneyite.
The contradiction of heretics is exhausting.
Wow, this is getting hot. I don't understand why this topic always gets so emotionally wild?.
It seems we should be able to debate it openly, keep and rank the solid evidence and throw-out unproven anecdotes.
We have proven the case that the Trent Catechism, a defining docuмent, was tampered with at the publisher's level as far back as the late 19th Century.
.
I cannot understand why it's so important to some to go around proclaiming their faith in a theory of speculation.
.It’s not speculation when *all* of the Church’s popes, bishops, catechisms, theologians, canonists teach BOD for 400+ years (again, not saying that it was not taught from the beginning)....that is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
To say it's been supported by theologians for hundreds of years for them is all they need.
It is the OUM.
.
Never mind the same theologians have been wrong in other cases.
.
The teaching is unanimous, they can’t all be wrong and lead souls into error. This is one way a Catholic can distinguish between true and false teaching. This is why if some NO bishop insisted that there are no such things as guardian angels, you would recognize that this person was spouting heresy. No offense, but it seems to me this is why you run afoul with regard to the sedevacantist position. The Church can’t officially teach error, period.
Take St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, who denied the Immaculate Conception, based on a pagan tradition of "ensoulment."
Firstly, this was before it was defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium. Secondly, he did not deny it, he was just mistaken about ensoulment because science had not advanced to that level of understanding in the 13th century.
.
That alone could have slowed down the Definition for several hundred years.
.
But the Nicene Creed's words "I believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins" is to be understood in a different way....?
No, it is understood in only one way.
.
It doesn't say three baptisms, does it?
There is only one sacrament of baptism. BOD is just a descriptive name of how one can be justified by desiring the sacrament if he dies before actually receiving the actual sacrament, it is NOT a sacrament.
.
I heard an otherwise reliable priest say that I John 5:8 refers to this -- when the subject of that Scripture is not Baptism.
.
Then he said BoD and BoB are not sacraments, but "these three are one."
.
You can't make this stuff up.
.
Now they argue that St. Emerentiana never received Baptism.
.
Show me her Baptism of Desire Certificate.
One of the reasons she stands out in the Roman Martyrology is the fact that she *was* a catechumen. Catechumens are by definition NOT baptized.
.
Show me ANYONE'S Baptism of Desire Certificate!
See above.
.
If St. Emerentiana sincerely asked God for Baptism of water then certainly God must have provided it for her.
.
Yes he could’ve, but he didn’t.
How could He have refused her such a simple matter?
God’s ways are not your ways.
.
Just to break His own rule so the liberals could make the Exception into the New Rule?
Liberals like, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Alphonsus, Venerable Pius IX?
.
Why can't we just be concerned with the essential matters and leave the speculation for theologians?
.
It’s not speculation.
Here you go:Then the operative condition for BOD is: "unforeseen accident" ?
Then the operative condition for BOD is: "unforeseen accident" ?Indeed, but also another condition is that these adults be repentant.
"their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
Indeed, can someone describe a circuмstance or what type of "accident" would be unforeseen by God?An automobile accident, a horse accident, etc, are types of sudden accidents that would be unexpected or unforeseen by men, but not unforeseen by God as God knows all things. Even a venomous snake bite might kill someone before they can get medical help and seek baptism.
And if such a man is destined for the Kingdom, something which God has known from all time, can such an accident occur before God and snatch away this soul from His hand, and thwart his will?
.And a very reasonable and easily understood exposition of the Christian doctrine concerning these matters it is. Who would deny it? Who would argue against it?
PLEASE CONSIDER??
.
In charity, I really would like everyone to pause and look and digest all the comments regarding BOD [desire] and the Council of Trent, chapters VI and XIV. Those of good-will, will be able to see, regarding all the comments here, that this is exactly the thing, that was going on at the Council of Trent, from the time of Session VI, all the way to Session XIV. Why would I say this?? Because Pope Julius saw it and the proof of it, is in his words, the first thing that Pope Julius said upon opening Session XIV is this!
.
Julius III., celebrated on the twenty-fifth of November, 1551.
.
Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance.
.
The sacred and holy, ecuмenical and general Synod of Trent, -lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legate and Nuncios of the holy Apostolic See presiding therein, --although, in the decree concerning Justification, there has been, through a certain kind of necessity, on account of the affinity of the subjects, much discourse introduced touching the sacrament of Penance; nevertheless, so great, in these our days, is the multitude of various errors relative to this sacrament, that it will be of no small public utility to have given thereof a more exact and full definition, wherein, all errors having been, under the protection of the Holy Ghost, pointed out and extirpated, Catholic truth may be made clear and resplendent; which (Catholic truth) this holy Synod now sets before all Christians to be perpetually retained.
.
I would like everyone to consider, for a moment, as to what is said above, collectively and compare it to the incredible noise, from everyone now in this forum, on the topic of the fallacious BOD heresy?
.
Then, please consider that it would be necessary for Pope Julius to put this to rest and he did so, by giving an exact and full definition, by defining the differences between the sacrament of Justification and the sacrament of Penance. When Pope Julius, spoke about Justification, he did not include the word "desire", when he spoke about the laver of baptism, at all! He could have easily and without effort, incorporated the word "desire", with laver of baptism but he did not, its not there. In the first sentence of chapter II, he even says that non-members of the Catholic church have no right to the sacrament of Penance, who have not entered the gate of baptism. Which would have been another opportunity to incorporate the word "desire" but he didn't! Pope Julius goes on to make clear, a distinction of Justification and Penance, as two fruits, unique, unto themselves. And furthermore, he confirms this by saying that the sacrament of Penance is for those, who have fallen after baptism, just as baptism is for those, who have not yet been regenerated. Another opportunity to incorporate the word "desire" but he did not do it. Because it is not taught!
.
Chapter II.
.
On the difference between the Sacrament of Penance and that of Baptism.
.
For the rest, this sacrament is clearly seen to be different from baptism in many respects: for besides that it is very widely different indeed in matter and form, which constitute the essence of a sacrament, it is beyond doubt certain that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, seeing that the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not entered therein through the gate of baptism. For, what have I, saith the apostle, to do to judge them that are without? (m) It is otherwise with those who are of the household of the faith, whom Christ our Lord has once, by the laver of baptism, made the members of His own body; for such, if they should afterwards have defiled themselves by any crime, He would no longer have them cleansed by a repetition of baptism--that being nowise lawful in the Catholic Church-but be placed as criminals before this tribunal; that, by the sentence of the priests, they might be freed, not once, but as often as, being penitent, they should, from their sins committed, flee thereunto. Furthermore, one is the fruit of baptism, and another that of penance. For, by baptism putting on Christ, (n) we are made therein entirely a new creature, obtaining a full and entire remission of all sins : unto which newness and entireness, however, we are no ways able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance, without many tears and great labours on our parts, the divine justice demanding this; so that penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism. (o) And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation ; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.
.
And then please consider what Pope Julius said in Session XIV; chapter IV, On Contrition. He was speaking about both sacraments, Justification and Penance and the distinctions there of. Pope Julius, had another easy and perfect opportunity to incorporate "desire", with the laver of baptism, but the word "desire", is nowhere to be found, in chapter IV, concerning baptism. In fact, Pope Julius, opens chapter IV, clearly defining Contrition and its attributes, with one, who has fallen after baptism!
.
This is incredibly important to understand and admit, when going forward, in chapter IV, of Session XIV.
.
"Contrition, which holds the first place amongst the aforesaid acts of the penitent … in one who has fallen after baptism" …
.
Pope Julius, from that point, goes on in a description of the requirements of the penitent. And then Pope Julius, specifically introduces and incorporates the word "desire" with the sacrament of Penance. He said that a man is reconciled with God, if he has perfect contrition, and the desire for receiving the sacrament of Penance, before actually going before a priest, to physically receive it, i.e. performing the action of. He goes on to describe imperfect contrition, unto conclusion. In chapter IV, there is nothing there attributed to baptism and the desire of.
.
CHAPTER IV.
.
On Contrition.
.
Contrition, which holds the first place amongst the aforesaid acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future. (r) This movement of contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the pardon of sins; and, in one who has fallen after baptism, it then at length prepares for the remissions of sins, when it is united with confidence in the divine mercy, and with the desire of performing the other things which are required for rightly receiving this sacrament. Wherefore the holy Synod declares, that this contrition contains not only a cessation from sin, and the purpose and the beginning of a new life, but also a hatred of the old, (H) agreeably to that saying; Cast away from you all your iniquities, wherein you have transgressed, and make to yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. (t) And assuredly he who has considered those cries of the saints; To thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before thee, (v) I have laboured in my groaning, every night I will wash my bed, (w) I will recount to thee all my years, in the bitterness of my soul, (x) and others of this kind, will easily understand that they flowed from a certain vehement hatred of their past life, and from an exceeding detestation of sins. The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein. And as to that imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, because that it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment, It declares that if, with the hope of pardon, it exclude the wish to sin, (y) it not only does not make a man a hypocrite, and a greater sinner, but that it is even a gift of God, and an impulse of the Holy Ghost, --who does not indeed as yet dwell in the penitent, but only moves him, --whereby the penitent being assisted prepares a way for himself unto justice. And although this (attrition) cannot of itself, without the sacrament of penance, conduct the sinner to justification, yet does it dispose him to obtain the grace of God in the sacrament of Penance. For, smitten profitably with this fear, the Ninivites, at the preaching of Jonas, did fearful penance and obtained mercy from the Lord. Wherefore falsely do some calumniate Catholic writers, as if they had maintained that the sacrament of Penance confers grace without any good motion on the part of those who receive it: a thing which the Church of God never taught, or thought: and falsely also do they assert that con-trition is extorted and forced, not free and voluntary.
.
Please look how, Session XIV, CANON II, further supports the clear and distinct, separate natures of the two sacraments, Justification and Penance.
.
PENANCE
.
Session XIV, CANON II.--If any one, confounding the sacraments, saith that baptism is itself the sacrament of Penance, as though these two Sacraments were not distinct, and that therefore Penance is not rightly called a second plank after shipwreck; let him be anathema.
.
**The only reason that you find the word "desire" in Session VI, chapter 4, is because you are dealing with the impious, those above the age of reason i.e. adults. In truth, desire, necessarily, did not need to be there, because everyone commonly knows that in order for an action to have taken place, it must have originated in the mind i.e. desire, the thought. This is a self-evident principle! Quite honestly, I believe God allowed that word "desire" to be there, to weed out the good from the bad. [1 Corinthians 11:19]
.
Furthermore, the last words of Session IV, chapter 4 concludes with this; "as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
.
And then followed with the Canons for Session VI. Please notice that Session VI, Canons XII, XIV says that believing alone, or confidence alone, without the work done, the thought, the desire, is anathematized.
.
JUSTIFICATION
.
Session VI, CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.
.
Session VI, CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.
.
Please take notice, carefully, Session VII, Canon II, mentions that anyone who denies the absolute necessity of water baptism, in favor to and reducing it to some sort of metaphor, a word, for instances, like "desire", is anathematized.
.
METAPHOR. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
.
ON BAPTISM
.
Session VII, CANON II.-If any one 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.
.
Session VII, CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
.
And finally because of the exact and full definition of Pope Julius III on Justification and Penance, it is absolutely clear, that what Pope Paul III said, regarding Session VII; Canon IV, on the sacraments in general, the word desire is specifically attributed to Penance but also with a description of disposition of the impious concerning, Justification.
.
ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL
.
Session VII, CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
.
This conclusion is also supported by the fact that desire, is not included in the causes for Justification, in Session VI, chapter 7.
.
CHAPTER VII.
.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
.
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
.
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation.
.
For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circuмcision, availeth anything, nor uncircuмcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen's beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.
.
And so it is, desire, faith alone, is not a cause, it can do nothing, in and of itself, it is just a description of disposition, the action and completion of baptism, must be performed!
.
"As it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." [John 3:5]
.
Sincerely,
.
Freedom
The OP starts us off with contradictions to the Canons of the Council of Trent.
One is anathema if they say that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary. It does not say anywhere that the grace of Baptism is all that is necessary. The Canon would most definitely read differently. Maybe like "CANON V.-If any one saith, that (the grace of) baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema." It's as plain as that. The outward sign and the interior effect are absolutely and necessarily part of the Sacrament. Those who claim like the OP are saying that the outward sign is not necessary are anathema as per Trent. This is FAITH ALONE. Without the actual Sacrament, original sin is not removed nor are we made subject to the Roman Pontiff, nor are we made members of and within the Church. ALL of these things are necessary to be saved.
RS,:facepalm:
Fortunately, you're wrong on this point about Trent.
Your reference is from a doctored English translation, which started appearing in the 1890's. TAN books carries on the error.
If you reference a Trent Catechism, from 1850 and before, you won't see a whiff of BOD and BOB.
I've easily found these pre 1850 references, like this one: Trent Catechism (1829) (https://archive.org/details/thecatechismofth00donouoft)
A friend on mine went as far as to purchase an antique Catechism from the 1600's and verified the same.
Father Leonard Feeney made reference to this fact in his self-defense for one Water baptism.
That is in the original Latin version of the Council of Trent, there is no BOD or BOB.
And finally, BOD and BOB are not de fide.
A quick reference to this is Father Hesse's admission that the issue has not been resolved. He was sympathetic to St. Thomas Aquinas's speculation about the existence of BOD and BOB.
He had nothing to back it up and he was over-ruled by Pope Innocent III (1215), Pope Boniface VIII (1302) and Pope Eugene IV (1441).
And since it is the wonderful feast of "All Saints Day" and we're quoting Saints, I dare you to read the Mystical City of God by St. Maria Agreda. See what the Blessed Mother told her about Water Baptism.
Are you (^*&ing kidding me? First, people like me catch shit because, yeah, I back people like the Dimonds, who also catch shit, in no small part BECAUSE THEY STOMP ON BOD/B MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE, then people like me get batched with a bunch of (UYTtard heretics, WHO MOSTLY THINK THAT THE CONCILIAR FAKES ARE ACTUALLY POPES...Sometimes you address people very respectfully and at other times you sound like a typical guttersnipe, but nearly always you are incoherent!
Just choke yourself Blowhican.
Dimwit.
.Sorry about that!
You see what happens when you post your replies inside the quote box -- no one can quote your response because the reply box is blank.
.
If you want to have a discussion, please put your replies outside the quote box.
.
I had to paste the following in here, and the system won't let me see what I'm typing.
.
Quote from: Neil Obstat on Today at 04:47:01 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/why-so-many-feeneyites-on-cathinfo/msg576341/#msg576341)
... but nearly always you are incoherent!
Wow, this is getting hot. I don't understand why this topic always gets so emotionally wild?Do you have specifics? Thanks for the link to the 1829 edition (https://archive.org/details/thecatechismofth00donouoft (https://archive.org/details/thecatechismofth00donouoft)) (note that there is no publishing date, just the date of the Preface so actually the publication date could be later than that). I checked a little bit of the section on the Sacrament of Baptism but I didn't see anything that seemed out of line with what people have been quoting here. So could you be more specific about how the book was tampered with? Thanks!
It seems we should be able to debate it openly, keep and rank the solid evidence and throw-out unproven anecdotes.
We have proven the case that the Trent Catechism, a defining docuмent, was tampered with at the publisher's level as far back as the late 19th Century.
What do the initials EENS represent?Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
I cannot keep up with all the initials.
Is there a thread where all the initials are listed and explained? Has Matthew created one?
This is what I can't stand. They (the BODers) sit there and swear up and down that the Sacrament is necessary for Salvation, then offer exceptions to the actual reception of it for Salvation, clearly making it unnecessary.I think it is unfair to call them heretics. They base their teaching on imprimatured catechisms and theology manuals printed prior to V2. I'm not saying they are correct but it is not the same thing as V2 folks who knowingly reject the Church's approved doctrines. A logical mistake or a faulty understanding of the doctrine doesn't make you a formal heretic. No traditionalist has the intention of rejecting a Church teaching. But they do sometimes get it wrong. And they sometimes go so far as to call the guy who has the correct understanding a heretic or a schismatic. Very annoying. But not necessarily evidence of a bad will. I also happen to think it is wrong to call the strict EENS guys heretics. I've read the definitive BOD resource (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/ (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/)) and I don't see where the OUM has given a definition of BOD and of course the pope has never given a definition of it either. Most of the material there concerns BOB for catechumens. BOD doesn't really come into play until St Robert Bellarmine (16th c) but it is not clear from his writings that he is talking about anyone other than catechumens. The first definition which appears to have opened it up to non-catechumens was St Alphonsus (18th c). Even if a large majority of the clergy agreed with St Alphonsus (that's not clear either given the Penny Catechism) I still don't see how that amounts to the OUM giving us a definitive decision on the matter. Wouldn't it be in the best interests of the Conciliar Church to affirm that the decision is made in a definitive manner in favor of BOD? Yet they (the CDF under Ratzinger) ruled that strict EENS is an allowable position. In other words, they couldn't find any definitive evidence that strict EENS is an error. I'm a sede so I don't believe the CDF is to be trusted but given they have a vested interest in condemning strict EENS, you would think they would find a way to do it. And yet they couldn't. They even had the use of Suprema Haec Sacra. But still no success. They reconciled Fr. Feeney (epikeia anyone? supplied jurisdiction?) with the Catholic Church and he was not required to renounce any error. So apparently it is true that he was excommunicated for disobedience, not for heresy. Don't get me wrong, I think these debates a great. I just don't think it is a good thing to be throwing anathema-bombs all over the place. Of course, I also realize that you don't have to be a heretic to go to hell. Errors have consequences. So it is good to point out errors.
The contradiction of heretics is exhausting.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla SalusAre you saying that it is de fide that he is in hell?
Here's an explanatory link: Link (http://catholicism.org/eens-fathers.html)
BTW, on Cathinfo, we have Baptism of Desire manifested to an everyday heretical thought process.
One example, when Hugh Hefner, the King of 20th century porn died, someone posted that he wondered if "Hef" had deathbed regrets and was saved?
"Hef" was outside the Church, no BOD or repentant sigh or regret would save him.
Take this question to the SSPX and they will quote the Catechism of St. Pope Pius X and tell you that Catholicism was intrinsically written on "Hef's" heart. If you buy this... no need to be Catholic my friend.
Are you saying that it is de fide that he is in hell?Catholics never ever asked questions like that except in the USA near to and after the 20th century. Breathing that American Protestant air has poisoned Americans. :
Does anyone know why there is such an explosion of Feeneyism not only on Cathinfo, but in the traditional world in general?
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla SalusLord have mercy. The SSPX has serious problems if they are saying that people can be saved without any signs of repentance, but Francis has been saying that all one needs to be saved is to be a good Jєω, or a good Buddhist, or a good Moslem. :o Where is Christ in this picture?
Here's an explanatory link: Link (http://catholicism.org/eens-fathers.html)
BTW, on Cathinfo, we have Baptism of Desire manifested to an everyday heretical thought process.
One example, when Hugh Hefner, the King of 20th century porn died, someone posted that he wondered if "Hef" had deathbed regrets and was saved?
"Hef" was outside the Church, no BOD or repentant sigh or regret would save him.
Take this question to the SSPX and they will quote the Catechism of St. Pope Pius X and tell you that Catholicism was intrinsically written on "Hef's" heart. If you buy this... no need to be Catholic my friend.
Why is it that this recusant never seems to STFU and recuse?When I see people use bad language I have a tendency to believe they are a guttersnipe not a Catholic.
Not so much "truth in advertising", is there?
Think people, think! How is it possible that all of the Saints, popes, bishops, theologians, canonists misinterpreted the Council of Trent so badly that layman of the twenty first century needed to correct them? This is beyond stupidity.What variant of BOD are you talking about that you say, we think "all of the Saints, popes, bishops, theologians, canonists misinterpreted from the Council of Trent"? Be precise.
I think it is unfair to call them heretics.
Indeed, can someone describe a circuмstance or what type of "accident" would be unforeseen by God?
And if such a man is destined for the Kingdom, something which God has known from all time, can such an accident occur before God and snatch away this soul from His hand, and thwart his will?
Granted. This is a huge problem, and the denial of EENS and the use of BOD to do so is likely why we ended up where we are, as Father Feeney gathered.And it is clear that this type of mindset and thinking is a root from which springs the notion of ecuмenism.
Forget about "variants" of BOD.I've been at this for 20 years, THAT question I posed should be the ONLY questioned asked of a BODer.
Believe me, it is a waste of time to discuss explicit BOD of the catechumen "who dies by accident" on the way to be baptized", a waste of time to discuss it with a person that believes that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, indeed people in all false religions can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards.
Right. Agree again. Not the issue.Not in this thread, this thread is not about what you or I want to discuss, it is about the OP and the OP only. Until the OP answers precisely what he means by BOD, there is no point in discussing anything else, I'd just be letting him off the hook.
Has the Church taught BOD? At what level? Was it teaching "error" (some here say heresy) at that level? Has BOD been abused? Has opposition to the abuse of BOD been set back by rejection of the concept in toto in light of that Church teaching, at whatever level?
All legitimate questions. No?
Right. Agree again. Not the issue.
Has the Church taught BOD? At what level? Was it teaching "error" (some here say heresy) at that level? Has BOD been abused? Has opposition to the abuse of BOD been set back by rejection of the concept in toto in light of that Church teaching, at whatever level?
All legitimate questions. No?
I'm not asking a question of a BODer, but of you.Excellent, you put it much better than I do!
You deny BOD, period. Has it been taught by "all" the saints, popes, theologians, doctors etc. since Trent and prior to Father Feeney?
Truth matters. I'm sure you'd agree.
If the Church teaches BOD, it is a truth. That a truth may be abused doesn't justify denial of the truth, but of the abuse. You don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
You didn't answer the question: does the Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter IV teach the possibility of BOD there or not? The saints, doctors, popes, theologians, etc. say that it does. They teach BOD to be a truth of the faith.
If they are wrong, what does that mean is the next question.
Where they wrong?
Let's do it. Here, now. Let us lean. LOL
Learn.
I don't care enough to spend a minute arguing against someone who believes in a BoD for catechumens. One can argue that they have a kind of imperfect membership in the Church. They profess the Catholic faith. By virtue of this profession, one can argue that they belong, at least imperfectly, to the visible society of the Church. Little impact to traditional Catholic / Tridentine ecclesiology.Ditto here. That is exactly my observation.
But these BoDers quote St. Thomas Aquinas et al. on BoD and then extend BoD to infidels ... which St. Thomas never did. So they try to give people the impression that St. Thomas taught the salvation of non-Catholics ... when he did no such thing. They run for cover behind BoD when their heresies are exposed. When these infidels are saved, then ... since there's no salvation outside the Church .. you have to say that these infidels are WITHIN the Church. Now you have a Church whose membership is not visible and in which you have not only Catholics but also heretics and all manner of infidel (Jєωs, Muslims, etc.). Sound familiar? Yeah. That's Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell.
Ditto here. That is exactly my observation.I believe in the Dogma, "Outside the Church there is No Salvation", exactly as Bishop Hay does in his work, "The Sincere Christian Instructed in the Faith of Christ":https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=post;quote=576700;topic=47012.120
Now Recusant
What variant of BOD are you talking about that you say, we think "all of the Saints, popes, bishops, theologians, canonists misinterpreted from the Council of Trent"? Be precise.
Do you believe that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, etc. can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards? Or do you restrict BOD to someone who explicitly desires baptism (but dies by accident)because you believe it is taught at Trent?
https://youtu.be/4wt824D1BqgSeriously, how old are you, 16? I honestly can't follow 95% of your posts.
Shuck-n-jive aside, that "or" being responded to is at least a bit shady.
I believe in the Dogma, "Outside the Church there is No Salvation", exactly as Bishop Hay does in his work, "The Sincere Christian Instructed in the Faith of Christ":https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=post;quote=576700;topic=47012.120
The pertinent part starts on page 487 and should be required reading for every Catholic!
We shouldn't be required to read the book to determine what YOU believe. Do you believe that infidels (Jєωs, Mohammedans, etc.) can be saved without first converting? Yes or no?Put down the Dimond junk and read from an *authorized* authority.
We shouldn't be required to read the book to determine what YOU believe. Do you believe that infidels (Jєωs, Mohammedans, etc.) can be saved without first converting? Yes or no?No Jєω, Mohammedans, etc. can ever be saved if they die as such, period!
No Jєω, Mohammedans, etc. can ever be saved if they die as such, period!I agree. A person who does not believe in Christ or who rejects Christ cannot be saved.
No Jєω, Mohammedans, etc. can ever be saved if they die as such, period!
Put down the Dimond junk and read from an *authorized* authority.
I have read Bishop Hay. My point was that your answer was a cop-out. PS -- the Dimonds consider me a heretic.Who don’t they consider a heretic? :)
Who don’t they consider a heretic? :)Yes, we are all condemned as heretics by the Dimond Brothers who act like they are the infallible source of all truth.
No Jєω, Mohammedans, etc. can ever be saved if they die as such, period!If you really believe that, then why aren't you going on Novus Ordo, Lefevbrist, or Sede forums to educate them that they are in error for teaching that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus ect. can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards? Isn't that worse than not believing that a sincere catechumen could die by accident before he is baptized? For every person who does not believe that a sincere catechumen ever died before baptism, there are I'd say 1000 American Catholics that believe that a sincere Jєω can be saved. Why aren't you enlightening them?
Catholics never ever asked questions like that except in the USA near to and after the 20th century. Breathing that American Protestant air has poisoned Americans. :.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
Lord have mercy. The SSPX has serious problems if they are saying that people can be saved without any signs of repentance, but Francis has been saying that all one needs to be saved is to be a good Jєω, or a good Buddhist, or a good Moslem. :o Where is Christ in this picture?.
This is heresy.
Be careful with this word. We need to look at the Latin. "Accidens" means more something like "circuмstance" ... something that happens. So that could change the translation of this entire passage. In English the phrase implies accidental death, but that's not the case in Latin..
If you really believe that, then why aren't you going on Novus Ordo, Lefevbrist, or Sede forums to educate them that they are in error for teaching that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus ect. can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards? Isn't that worse than not believing that a sincere catechumen could die by accident before he is baptized? For every person who does not believe that a sincere catechumen ever died before baptism, there are I'd say 1000 American Catholics that believe that a sincere Jєω can be saved. Why aren't you enlightening them?Thanks for posting this information.
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
__________________________________________
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
Thanks for posting this information.From the CI thread: “Dogmatic Decrees? We Will Interpret Them to Our Desires”
I never knew that the SSPX taught this type of universalism, for that is what it is.
.
You are.
.
The problem with you is, in spite of being shown the truth, you choose to obstinately hold a lie. That makes you a heretic.
Freedom,No one desires baptism without God putting that desire there. No one dies "by accident" unless God takes them. Why would God give someone the grace to receive baptism, then pull the rug from underneath them? Why on the other hand would he bring back 100's from the dead just to be baptized? Why would he have people cling to life for years, and to die one second after being baptized? Why would he put a native on an island where no missionary will go, in a century when there was no possibility of ever knowing anything about Catholicsm?
The "approval" of St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, both not only made saints but doctors by the Church... Both expressed those views on BOD after a solemn magisterial statement that you say says the opposite of what they held, thus expressing heresies contrary to dogma in the wake of a solemn magisterial pronouncement on the dogma.
Freedom,This is why I put FREEDOM on IGNORE.
Worship of saints? Why, because my question mentioned saints?
You can tell when someone has no leg to stand on in an argument: they run away from questions and shift the argument to some other ground, usually a field populated with their favorite straw men.
This is why I put FREEDOM on IGNORE.
He is following in the footsteps of the Dimond Brothers.
.*. False charges of heresy.
>> Who/What/When/...
.*. NoChurch with no priests and no bishops
>> Speaking of "False charges"...
.*. They think they are infallible
>> Suspected conflation of "infallible" and "logically sound."
This is why I put FREEDOM on IGNORE.
He is following in the footsteps of the Dimond Brothers.
.*. False charges of heresy.
>> Who/What/When/...
.*. NoChurch with no priests and no bishops
>> Speaking of "False charges"...
.*. They think they are infallible
>> Suspected conflation of "infallible" and "logically sound."
Freedom has accused many
>> Define what you meant by "many" please.
here of being heretics, and so have his friends, the Dimond Brothers.
>> What, do they draw for "secret Santa" every year? Do the respective parties even know each other?
Enough said.
>> If being rash, unjust, and somehow entitled to the "benefit" of a double-standard is "enough" then
.*. " more than "enough".
QuoteHere is the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, why did they allow in the 1600's the Salamancan's to teach that people can be saved without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity (though it went nowhere for 200 years, till the late 1800's) and continues to allow it to this day?Can you provide a source or something for this?
I am getting tired of saying the same things over and over.I think the meetings are still Weds 1900 @ Stuckey's, off of exit twelve.
.Beg pardon Neil, but what day did Frank say that water baptism was absolutely necessary for salvation?
I find it entirely ironic how sedes can argue on and on and on about BoD, completely failing to recognize that they're in total agreement with the Newchurch Pope, but they don't think he's a valid pope.
.
.What is a “Newchurch Pope”?
I find it entirely ironic how sedes can argue on and on and on about BoD, completely failing to recognize that they're in total agreement with the Newchurch Pope, but they don't think he's a valid pope.
.
AES,So now, if he stops, the implication is that you're right and sent him running and that he, and not you, lack integrity and honesty.
So you really think I believe that the Church's judgment is only preferable to a doctors regarding the advisability of pilgrimages? LOL Really? Well, I'll disabuse you of that notion: the Church's judgment is always preferable to a doctor's. Good grief.
You're not big on context or the specifics. You latch onto a general principle that sounds good like a Protestant with a verse of Scripture and make absurd applications, like they take a Roman's verse like "there are none good, no, not one" and throwing it at Our Mother to "disprove" the Immaculate Conception.
So I gave you the specifics surrounding Benedict's quote, not because I think a doctor's opinion is preferable to the Church's, but to show your offering of the statement - which has no relevance to the debate since I am not arguing that a doctor's judgment is above the Church's, never have - to be really ridiculous in light of the issue being discussed: the Church's making a doctor of her doctrine someone who taught HERESY (in your Feeneyite view) in direct contradiction to her solemn teaching about the workings of grace and salvation.
But I'm "dishonest," and "really . . . adverse to the Truth, and this is proof." Right.
This is only proof that your Feeneyite position is backed into a corner and you're out of arguments, so you go on the personal attach. Like Freedom claiming everyone "lacks good will."
For the 30th time, with hope your skull isn't too thick.
This isn't about preferring the view of a saint above the Church, or holding a saint infallible, or saying the Church overlooks "error" in saints or doctors sometimes, like St. Gregory's regarding the advisability of pilgrimages.
This is about your absurd reading of Trent that maintains the Church there indicates that there is no salvation possible without baptism with water and anathematizes anyone saying that the grace of baptism is available without water, and then the same Church making saints and doctors of men after it has made that solemn pronouncement who said, and one literally, BOD can save, and, in fact, that it was "de fide" that BOD could save (St. Alphonsus).
"Error" indeed. LOL
Yeah, I'm willing to say ANYTHING just to win an argument, and am not legitimately searching for the Truth.
It's sad, AES, what lengths you will go to hold onto your Feeneyism blanket.
You can't continue much longer?
You best stop immediately; the cliff's not far off if all you have left is to attach the integrity and honesty of fellow Catholics.
So now, if he stops, the implication is ...It's that careful reading that instills such confidence, speaking of "mind reading".
Think, man. You maintain that Trent taught infallibly and solemnly, and backed it up with anathemas pronounced on those who contradict it, that there is no salvation without receipt of the sacrament of baptism, and St. Alphonsus and St. Robert are going around contradicting and denying that dogma, publicly teaching HERESY, and one of them declares that this heresy is de fide. And the Church makes them saints and doctors.He is quoting from dogma, the council of Trent and other dogmatic decrees, while you are doing an end run replacing dogma with your belief that St. Alphonsus Ligouri could not be a saint if he taught error. There is no such dogma. If Trent or any dogma needs to be interpreted, then it is useless.
This is absurd.
The teachers of salvation by implicit faith, belief in a God that rewards are the Salmanticenses, Suarez, Lezana, Mendive, Viga, Dominique Soto, Lugo, Ripalda, per book Baptism of Desire - A Patristic Commentary by SSPX Fr. Jean Marc Rulleau, page 59. The Salmantices and Suarez date to the late 1500' early 1600's. With all those names you can see if you find more material online.re: St. Alphonsus BOD is defide comment
My point is that this teaching is contrary to the Athanasian Creed and it has never been condemned, here is St. Alphonsus Ligouri mentioning it:
St. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma: “‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”
So there you have a direct contradiction to clear dogma going on now for 400+ years and the Church has not condemned it.
Please read my last post to AES about what this discussion is about and the contention at issue. It's a simple point, and has nothing to do with man worship. And because you cannot grasp what is at issue you attack my faith and call me a liar.Torn, it seems obvious that these people are of bad will. They don’t have a Catholic attitude and sadly it will be very difficult for them, without God’s grace of course, to come out of their Dimondite stupor. When layman have to belittle the status of Doctors of the Church, they have a serious problem that rational debating can’t overcome. In any event, you did an admirable job defending the Faith.
I pity you, and particularly in the fact that you say this and feel all righteous in doing so.
Torn, it seems obvious that these people are of bad will. They don’t have a Catholic attitude and sadly it will be very difficult for them, without God’s grace of course, to come out of their Dimondite stupor. When layman have to belittle the status of Doctors of the Church, they have a serious problem that rational debating can’t overcome. In any event, you did an admirable job defending the Faith.It would appear that we have a just another sede group or SSPX follower here that believes that the dogmatic Athanasian Creed is just an opinion.
When layman have to belittle the status of Doctors of the Church, ...
BoDers consistently imply that we are not allowed to do this, to have thoughts independent of St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus,The same false BODers who throw St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus under the bus when the BODers teach that people can be saved by belief in a God that rewards.
The same false BODers who throw St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus under the bus when the BODers teach that people can be saved by belief in a God that rewards.
Woe to them who deny the Mercy of God.
In the past whenever I asked how in the Old Covenant was original sin removed, I was instructed that in the Old Covenant circuмcision took the place of Baptism. Is that correct?
I still wonder what about the women did they just die with original sin?
My point has always been that Yes, Baptism of WATER is the sacrament that God expects of us, but He does make exceptions to His own rule through Baptism of desire and blood, we also understand BOD/BOB are not sacraments but God's Mercy.
No, there are no "exceptions". That's to deny that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation. At best you can argue that people can receive Baptism in voto. You simply make that up out of an arrogant presumption that to do anything other than what you fancy should be done would be contrary to God's Mercy.This is a short interesting thread also to read:
Just stop this emotional nonsense, would you, Myrna? So it's a denial of God's mercy that an infant who dies without Baptism cannot be saved? If God has made Baptism necessary, then He most certainly makes it available to the elect. You just keep blabbering about mercy when that's entirely irrelevant to this discussion.I am a woman and am suppose to be emotional, no nonsense about it. lol !
But you actually do summarize quite well the essence of BoD theology; its core premise is that it would not be merciful of God not to have BoD. And that's the "theology" behind it.
No, there are no "exceptions". That's to deny that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation. At best you can argue that people can receive Baptism in voto. You simply make that up out of an arrogant presumption that to do anything other than what you fancy should be done would be contrary to God's Mercy.Ladislaus, I’m not sure you answered my objection. If you did, I apologize in advance. Please explain to me how the Church can possibly teach an erroneous doctrine unanimously for over 400 years?
Ladislaus, I’m not sure you answered my objection. If you did, I apologize in advance. Please explain to me how the Church can possibly teach an erroneous doctrine unanimously for over 400 years?
Just food for thought to the so many Feeyeyiites on Catholic Info as the title of this thread indicated.Myrna: The necessary requirements for salvation/ justification in the old dispensation were (1) sorrow for sin and (2) belief in the Messias to come. Circuмcision was not a necessary requirement.
In the past whenever I asked how in the Old Covenant was original sin removed, I was instructed that in the Old Covenant circuмcision took the place of Baptism. Is that correct?
I still wonder what about the women did they just die with original sin?
According to this verse in the book of Romans, it seems that God does make exceptions to His rule, am I wrong?
(By accident I was actually searching for in the book of Romans about how God will call His people back, the Jєωs after the Gentiles have filled their number, and found this about circuмcision) Thanks for asking. I also found what I was searching for about the Jєωs.
My point has always been that Yes, Baptism of WATER is the sacrament that God expects of us, but He does make exceptions to His own rule through Baptism of desire and blood, we also understand BOD/BOB are not sacraments but God's Mercy.
This was my point!
.This ^ doesn't say "necessary". You need something more to prove your assertion.
That is not true, circuмcision was necessary.
.
Exodus 4:24-26 [24] And when he was in his journey, in the inn, the Lord met him, and would have killed him. [25] Immediately Sephora took a very sharp stone, and circuмcised the fore skin of her son, and touched his feet and said: A bloody spouse art thou to me. [26] And he let him go after she had said A bloody spouse art thou to me, because of the circuмcision.
.
I already explained this, but maybe it was on a different thread.#1. Yes it was, as it was defined by Trent according to Saint Alphonsus and others.
#1) Church has not taught BoD
#2) see the erroneous Augustinian opinion that was held universally for 700 years before being rejected by the Church
You all confused a widely-held opinion of speculative theology with Church teaching.
This ^ doesn't say "necessary". You need something more to prove your assertion.Yes, Free needs a priest to teach him.
Yes, Free needs a priest to teach him.Well, maybe he needs that, and, maybe not, I don't know. I'm just saying that I'm not convinced that the citation he gave is proof of the necessity of circuмcision. I'm ready to be educated on this subject but not by his interpretation of Holy Scripture.
Myrna: The necessary requirements for salvation/ justification in the old dispensation were (1) sorrow for sin and (2) belief in the Messias to come. Circuмcision was not a necessary requirement.I agree and that from the Old testaments converts over to what is needed for Baptism of water TODAY, it is ... Faith!
Priest: N., what do you ask of the Church of God? | Priest: N., quid petis ab Ecclesia Dei? |
Sponsor/Catechumen: Faith. | Sponsor/Catechumen: Fidem. |
Priest: What does Faith offer you? | Priest: Fides, quid tibi præstat? |
Sponsor/Catechumen: Life everlasting. |
.You love to be unnecessarily contentious, don't you? I have difficulty in taking your interpretation as de fide on this issue. Again, I asked for more than this citation and you didn't provide it.
Would you say that preserving one's own life, is necessary!? God was going to kill Moses, for not circuмcising his son. Is that necessary enough for you!? Does the punishment for not circuмcising, necessitate the necessity!? Are you genuinely having difficulty in understand or is it pride?
.
."...to cease..." when it should be "....to seize..." And I am supposed to trust in his education and interpretations of scripture for my answers?
When I showed motorede, what scripture said regarding the necessity of circuмcision, I knew that Myna was going to attempt to cease the moment and apply this idea, with baptism of desire and water baptism. If Myrna, would rightly and correctly read Trent Session VI, chapters 5-7, she would understand the hope and charity together, is infused at once with Faith. And as of right now, Myrna, rejects God, I hope soon, that she will convert.
.
Nothing more can be said to these people, they are lost, it is that simple!
.
.
That is not true, circuмcision was necessary.
.
Exodus 4:24-26 [24] And when he was in his journey, in the inn, the Lord met him, and would have killed him. [25] Immediately Sephora took a very sharp stone, and circuмcised the fore skin of her son, and touched his feet and said: A bloody spouse art thou to me. [26] And he let him go after she had said A bloody spouse art thou to me, because of the circuмcision.
.
Please explain to me how the Church can possibly teach an erroneous doctrine unanimously for over 400 years?We do not determine truth by what we think the Church has taught "unanimously" for 400 years, we determine truth by direct dogma from the Holy Ghost. The Church has not dogmatically defined baptism of desire and its effect. Like all BODers this pour soul is just gathering scattered theological opinions and opening the door into the vortex of confusion.
.Look who is so good at twisting, who said Faith alone, I said if you read what the Church teaches it says, Faith comes before the water, in an adult baptism and in the case of infants, the God parents answer FAITH before the infant receives the water, it is very clear to anyone who can read properly.
You know better than that Myrna, you are wrong and I am right, regarding Trent and the absolute necessity of water baptism. Faith alone is dead! As I said you are lost!
.
.FYI: precept and commandment are the same. ...And you want to be our teacher?
Ladi's comment.
.
"Circuмcision was necessary by necessity of precept only. Stop interpreting Scripture and actually try to apply Catholic theology."
.
There is no interpretation, it is, as it is written. Circuмcision was not a precept, it was a commandment of God, starting with Abraham. God used solemn language and circuмcision was the signature of the contract.
.
Genesis 17:4,9-14 And God said to him: I AM, and my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. … [9] Again God said to Abraham: And thou therefore shalt keep my covenant, and thy seed after thee in their generations. [10] This is my covenant which you shall observe, between me and you, and thy seed after thee: All the male kind of you shall be circuмcised: [11] And you shall circuмcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you. [12] An infant of eight days old shall be circuмcised among you, every man child in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant shall be circuмcised, and whosoever is not of your stock: [13] And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant. [14] The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circuмcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant.
.
I did apply catholic theology idiot! The old is revealed in the new and the new is concealed in the old.
.
And because this is so, the death penalty for not circuмcising in the old testament, applies to the new testament regarding baptism. That is catholic teaching. Baptism replaces circuмcision.
.
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.” Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439:“Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
.
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”
.
Forever resisting the truth.
.
.
You think so? In the context used above, yes, they are the same. And I say that even while understanding the distinctions you make below; still the same.
.
A precept is a general rule of behavior. A commandment is a Divine rule, like the ten commandments and if you break that rule, you die i.e. mortal sin. But regarding precepts, precepts did not demand death, but there still was punishment [loss] attached to the violation of a precept.
.
Genesis 26:5 Because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my precepts and commandments, and observed my ceremonies and laws.
.
As I previously stated about the solemn language pertaining to Abraham, God, contract and circuмcision, look at the same language with God giving the ten commandments to Moses, not precepts. God starts out by saying I Am … It is of the utmost importance, solemn, a commandment.
.
Exodus 20:1-3 [1] And the Lord spoke all these words: [2] I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [3] Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. ...
.
"...to cease..." when it should be "....to seize..." And I am supposed to trust in his education and interpretations of scripture for my answers?An argument, presuming there is one, is either good or it isn't.
So, who's gonna give LT the business for using the word "pour" instead of "poor"?No double-standard--just didn't read the post. But I think I'll give her a pass b/c she doesn't irk.
C'mon now, mind the double-standards.
No double-standard--just didn't read the post. But I think I'll give her a pass b/c she doesn't irk.A different motive for a double-standard doesn't change it into a single.
A different motive for a double-standard doesn't change it into a single.Well it is what it is.
Well it is what it is.Uh huh.
Circuмcision was not a precept, it was a commandment of God, starting with Abraham.
:facepalm:LOL :applause:
There really are no words.
.
You think so?
.
A precept is a general rule of behavior. A commandment is a Divine rule, like the ten commandments and if you break that rule, you die i.e. mortal sin.
.
Catechumens do not have supernatural faith until it is infused in them through water baptism along with hope and charity. No water baptism, no salvific faith.The Church teaches otherwise.
This brings to mind another error of BOD supporters, which is that they claim an "act of perfect love" suffices for salvation. Yet how can that act be greater than one who has received the Sacrament of baptism (in which supernatural charity is infused into the soul)? If it is not greater, then how could it be perfect?This above brings to mind a grave error of those who deny God's Mercy.
those who deny God's Mercy
This brings to mind another error of BOD supporters, which is that they claim an "act of perfect love" suffices for salvation.
.
It really is pointless to argue with those, who believe in BOD. No matter how much truth is thrown at them, they will not believe. Even Jesus said;
.
John 10:26 But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep.
.
They don't even believe the bible, they call you a prot or a Jєω, its amazing. They always claim misinterpretation, out of context, these are the things that liars say.
.
John 10:26 But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep.
.
They don't even believe the bible, they call you a prot or a Jєω, its amazing. They always claim misinterpretation, out of context, these are the things that liars say.
Here is a mirror for you.
(https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/74002445-add7-4ae7-bc8f-d1426f9da8c2_1.2043fc90534df4804093ddb16bc114d9.jpeg)
:facepalm:So please explain in lay man's terms how I accuse Him of lacking in mercy. I would not want to be guilty of that, therefore I really want to know more about this grave sin you accuse me of.
No, Myrna, it's people like you who deny God's Mercy. You impose your own notion of "mercy" on God and then would accuse Him of lacking in mercy if He doesn't conform to your notions about what would be merciful and what would not. That takes a lot of hubris.
So please explain in lay man's terms how I accuse Him of lacking in mercy. I would not want to be guilty of that, therefore I really want to know more about this grave sin you accuse me of.
Logic says that God does not command impossibilities. If a person is of good will, God can preserve him (through His mercy) to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. For although you believe in God's mercy (as I do), you deny His justice and His power.You may be correct in that God can certainly preserve him, and I agree He can and has.
I just did ... the very quote to which you're responding.Clever way of wiggling out! :laugh2:
Clever way of wiggling out! :laugh2:
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.
I didn't say that.
>> I don't think that's what he's saying man, not exactly.
How is Baptism in voto not contrary to that Canon?
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.