The prefect for the former CDF (now “dicastery” for the doctrine of the [conciliar] faith) raised no objections, so you should all be reassured. After all, he’s in charge of [conciliar] orthodoxy, and the author of this book:
https://onepeterfive.com/full-text-art-kissing-pope-francis-ghostwriter-archbishop-tucho-fernandez/
They are rubbing our faces in it.
(https://i.imgur.com/V4ACjoX.png)
PS: Note the androgynous forms about to kiss: Are they both “men?”
The kinky Inquisitor begins:
“I want to clarify that this book was not written so much based on my own experience, but based on the lives of people who kiss. In these pages I want to synthesize the popular feeling, what people feel when they think of a kiss, what mortals experience when they kiss.
For that I chatted at length with many people who have abundant experience in this area, and also with many young people who learn to kiss in their own way.
I also consulted many books, and I wanted to show how the poets talk about the kiss. So, trying to synthesize the immense richness of life, these pages emerged in favor of kissing. I hope that they help you kiss better, that they motivate you to release the best of your being in a kiss.”
🤢🤬😳
“I want to clarify that this book was not written so much based on my own experience ...
PS: Note the androgynous forms about to kiss: Are they both “men?”
Yeah, the fact that this guy has been chosen to head up the office formerly known as Holy simply shows that the conspirators who have taken over the Church are just rubbing our faces in it at this point. They're trying to humiliate and degrade Catholics with this stuff. There are thousands of alternative choices for the position, including among the flaming Modernists that Bergoglio favors, but he had to pick this guy. Bergoglio is actually using this appointment to mock the Traditional Catholic faith and deride the traditional notion of the Holy Office as being responsible for defending the faith from attacks.
Yeah, the fact that this guy has been chosen to head up the office formerly known as Holy simply shows that the conspirators who have taken over the Church are just rubbing our faces in it at this point. They're trying to humiliate and degrade Catholics with this stuff. There are thousands of alternative choices for the position, including among the flaming Modernists that Bergoglio favors, but he had to pick this guy. Bergoglio is actually using this appointment to mock the Traditional Catholic faith and deride the traditional notion of the Holy Office as being responsible for defending the faith from attacks.
Vatican: TransɛҳuąƖs can be BaptizedSo? Isn't baptism for sinners?
So? Isn't baptism for sinners?Excuse me? That may be the stupidest snark I have read in quite some time. Is it not the case that Catholic Baptisms are predicated on being and staying Catholic?
(https://i.imgur.com/yI3kmi4.png)“I’m going to get another boob job for the occasion!”
“I’m going to get a boob job for the occasion!”
I’m starting to believe that Bergoglio may be a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. Everyone knows that flaming ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs run Jesuit leadership, so either Bergoglio is being blackmailed, or he is a homo himself.Starting?
Excuse me? That may be the stupidest snark I have read in quite some time. Is it not the case that Catholic Baptisms are predicated on being and staying Catholic?
Why shouldn't an in-your-face rejection of Catholic doctrine be disqualifying?
If those sinners are so damn [pun intended] needy of Baptism, they can go to their home faucets for the water, to the internet for the formula, and Tinder for god[less]-parents.
So? Isn't baptism for sinners?Every now and again, you say something that makes me scratch my head. Baptisms are for adults who convert to the Catholic Faith. How has a transgender converted to the Catholic Faith?
Is it not the case that Catholic Baptisms are predicated on being and staying Catholic?One has to be already Catholic before being baptized? Baptism is not conditional on already being Catholic.
How has a transgender converted to the Catholic Faith?By renouncing his past sins.
By renouncing his past sins.But continuing to live as a different sex than assigned by God?
Deuteronomy 22:5
A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.
I’m starting to believe that Bergoglio may be a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. Everyone knows that flaming ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs run Jesuit leadership, so either Bergoglio is being blackmailed, or he is a homo himself.If it quacks like a duck…
But continuing to live as a different sex than assigned by God?Obviously that's a sin, and obviously one can sin after being baptized.
Obviously that's a sin, and obviously one can sin after being baptized.
When I see "TransɛҳuąƖs can be Baptized" I think: Yes, and so can murderers, adulterers, or any other type of sinner.
An adulterer who plans on continuing in his adultery can’t be baptized. A Tranny who continues living an immoral life believing that he can change his sex, can’t be baptized. This is all supposing that they are wanting to be validly and licitly baptized in the Church.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Bapt. cont. Donat. i): "Then does Baptism begin to have its salutary effect, when truthful confession takes the place of that insincerity which hindered sins from being washed away, so long as the heart persisted in malice and sacrilege."
I answer that, As stated above (III:66:9), Baptism is a spiritual regeneration. Now when a thing is generated, it receives together with the form, the form's effect, unless there be an obstacle; and when this is removed, the form of the thing generated produces its effect: thus at the same time as a weighty body is generated, it has a downward movement, unless something prevent this; and when the obstacle is removed, it begins forthwith to move downwards. In like manner when a man is baptized, he receives the character, which is like a form; and he receives in consequence its proper effect, which is grace whereby all his sins are remitted. But this effect is sometimes hindered by insincerity. Wherefore, when this obstacle is removed by Penance, Baptism forthwith produces its effect.
The requisites of valid reception in the case of Baptism are mainly three:
(1) The recipient must be a human being,
(2) He must be in the wayfaring state [alive]
(3) He must not have been previously baptized.
Obviously that's a sin, and obviously one can sin after being baptized.Murderers can stop murdering and adulterers can stop committing adultery because they are behaviors. But transsɛҳuąƖs cannot stop "being" their "new" sex....unless they intend to detransition. I've seen nothing that addresses this issue.
When I see "TransɛҳuąƖs can be Baptized" I think: Yes, and so can murderers, adulterers, or any other type of sinner.
Shouldn't and can't are very different things.
Summa Theologiae, III, Q. 69, A. 10
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4069.htm#article10
Article 10. Whether Baptism produces its effect when the insincerity ceases?
Msgr. Joseph Pohle
The Sacraments: The Sacraments in General. Baptism. Confirmation. A Dogmatic Treatise
Page 265
https://archive.org/details/V08TheSacramentsInGeneral/page/n275/mode/2up
Obviously that's a sin, and obviously one can sin after being baptized.It seems that you want to miss the point.
When I see "TransɛҳuąƖs can be Baptized" I think: Yes, and so can murderers, adulterers, or any other type of sinner.
Murderers can stop murdering and adulterers can stop committing adultery because they are behaviors.And "transɛҳuąƖs" can stop pretending to be the sex they are not.
Manifest evidence of rejection of Catholic dogma is manifest evidence that the person has no intention of being Catholic or of raising children Catholic.The same can be said about murderers and adulterers. If they keep murdering or committing adultery after baptism, that shows they reject the natural law, too.
It seems that you want to miss the point.
Manifest evidence of rejection of Catholic dogma is manifest evidence that the person has no intention of being Catholic or of raising children Catholic.
The American Ecclesiastical Review 1929-09: Vol 81 Iss 3
Pages 306 to 308
https://archive.org/details/sim_american-ecclesiastical-review_1929-09_81_3/page/306/mode/2up
BAPTISM OF A PERSON LIVING IN SIN.
Question
Mrs. B. is invalidly married to a Catholic. The marriage cannot be revalidated owing to the fact that the husband’s first wife is still living. Mrs. B. is well instructed in the Catholic religion and makes open profession of it as far as possible. She desires to be baptized, but her pastor refuses on the ground that she is living in sin and intends to so continue, which constitutes an obstacle to the liceity and validity of the sacrament. Another priest advises him that the sacrament is valid under the circuмstances, but illicit. A third maintains that it is both licit and valid. Which is the correct solution?
Response
It is difficult to understand what reason the pastor has for holding that baptism in this case would be invalid. Probably he confuses the unworthy reception of the sacrament with its invalid reception. Even though received unworthily, the baptism can nevertheless be valid. If only the dispositions of Mrs. B. are considered, that would be verified in the present instance. For Mrs. B. has a very positive intention of receiving baptism in the Catholic Church. On her part therefore nothing prevents the valid reception of that sacrament.1
Her reception of baptism, however, would be unworthy. Worthy reception of baptism by an adult requires that he have at least attrition for his personal sins. Now Mrs. B.’s attrition is insufficient and insincere, since it lacks a necessary complement, namely, a firm purpose of amendment, for she is determined to persevere in her adulterous union. Hence her reception of baptism, while valid, would be unworthy. Far from producing the new man in Christ in her, it would burden her soul with the added guilt of sacrilege.
It were folly here to suggest good faith, seeing that with her acceptance of the Catholic faith she must accept the teaching of the indissolubility of marriage and thus recognize her own sinful state. Even if she were to assert her conviction that her present state is not wrong, she could not be believed; for the Catholic doctrine of the indissolublity of marriage, of the prohibition of divorce and of the resultant invalidity of a second marriage while both parties to the first marriage are still living, is too well known to be ignored by a convert. She must therefore be considered in bad faith, and so her reception of baptism in her present frame of mind would be sacrilegious.2
This suggests the answer to the other question, whether a priest could lawfully receive her into the Church and baptize her. Since reception of baptism by her in her present condition would be sacrilegious, it would likewise be a sacrilege for the priest to confer baptism. This phase of the question is not treated by moralists when discussing baptism, for the reason that it is quite exceptional. But the same rules, relatively speaking, must per se be applied here as in refusing absolution to a penitent who may have made a complete confession but lacks the firm purpose of amendment.3
It is the second priest’s solution that is correct. The baptism of Mrs. B., as far as the requirements on her part are concerned, would be valid but unlawful. Pastoral prudence, however, will bid the pastor not to be brusque in rejecting her requests, but to be forbearing in order to preserve the spark of faith so that, if a change of conditions permits it, he can baptize and receive her into the Church with good conscience. Moreover, if the circuмstances are favorable, he may be able to persuade this woman and the man with whom she is living to separate, or, if there is no danger of continued sin and of scandal, to live as brother and sister. Then he could lawfully admit her to baptism at once.
1 S. C. S. Off., 1 August, 1860—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 963. Cf. Cappello, De Sacramentis, Turin, 1921, I, n. 13.
2 Cappello, of. cit., I, n. 88, 3.
3 Cappello, of. cit., I, n. 70-76. In an extraordinary case a priest fully cognizant of the lack of a firm purpose of amendment on the part of a baptizand would nevertheless
be obliged to comply with the request for baptism, viz. if on the one hand the fact of the baptizand’s living in an adulterous union were entirely unknown to the people
because the bond of the preéxisting marriage was concealed and on the other the refusal to baptize such a one would betray the actual conditions. Cf. Canon 855, § 2.
Of course! It would be valid but illicit. So, according to Catholic discipline they *CAN’T* do it. Read the part of your quote that I highlighted in red.
We're talking past one another.
We agree on the same principle, it would be valid, but unlawful.
Technically, it CAN be done, because truly the words can be pronounced, and the water poured, but it would be unlawful.
I assumed you understood that I predicated my post on the notion that most people on this traditional Catholic forum understood the doctrine that unrepentant sinners *can’t* (lawfully) receive the sacraments.
Well, I wasn't thinking:
can't (lawfully) receive the sacraments,
but rather
can't (validly) receive the sacraments.
The situation is more complex.
As St. Thomas explains, although in the case described above, "the character" would be imprinted (making the Sacrament "valid" and unrepeatable), because the sinner has not repented of the sin, "the reality" or "the grace" of the Sacrament would not be effected unless and until the sinner repented.
“I want to clarify that this book was not written so much based on my own experience, but based on the lives of people who kiss.That includes the dudes who kissed him.::)
It's similar to how they put a senile buffoon in as President of the US ... they did it to humiliate the country.Exactly.
But wait, there’s more!I predict the next "pope" will be a trans, not like the closet geriatric fag we have in their now.
Apparently, transtesticals can also be godparents, and sodomitic couples can have “their” kids baptized too:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-says-trans-people-can-be-godparents-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-parents-can-have-children-baptized/?utm_source=featured-news&utm_campaign=usa
You will ACCOMPANY them just the way they are, all are welcome under Franks big tent no matter what.
All of them must give up their sinful ways and repent before they are baptized. An adulterer who plans on continuing in his adultery can’t be baptized. A Tranny who continues living an immoral life believing that he can change his sex, can’t be baptized. This is all supposing that they are wanting to be validly and licitly baptized in the Church.
"Rome will become the seat of antichrist" Our Lady of LaSalette It is all starting to come into focus now. The Sanhedrin had its Caiaphas, and we have our Francis.Except Caiaphas went after what he thought was a revolutionary.
And "transɛҳuąƖs" can stop pretending to be the sex they are not.Really?
The same can be said about murderers and adulterers. If they keep murdering or committing adultery after baptism, that shows they reject the natural law, too.Your analogy is less than weak; it is bullshit.
Murderers and adulterers cannot properly raise Catholic children because their bad example contradicts the faith.
I am not disputing the validity of a true Baptism. I am affirming a discipline of not Baptizing people who manifestly continue in opposing Catholic morals and dogma.
Which is irrelevant in regards to the validity of the sacrament.
Well, I wasn't thinking:
can't (lawfully) receive the sacraments,
but rather
can't (validly) receive the sacraments.
how does one stop pretending?By admitting one's mistake of mutilating his or her body and considering oneself the sex assigned at birth.
trannies present with permanent surgical alterationsThe mutilations they undergo do not place them in a new, permanent state.
1. Can a transsɛҳuąƖ be baptized?
A transsɛҳuąƖ-who had also undergone hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgery-can receive baptism, under the same conditions as other believers, if there are no situations in which there is a risk of generating public scandal or disorientation among the faithful. In the case of children or adolescents with transgender issues, if well prepared and willing, they can receive Baptism.
At the same time, the following should be considered, especially when there are doubts about the objective moral situation a person is in, or about his or her subjective dispositions toward grace.
In the case of Baptism, the Church teaches that when the sacrament is received without repentance for grave sins, the subject does not receive sanctifying grace, although he or she does receive sacramental character. […]
manifestly continue in opposing Catholic morals and dogma.Even repentant, ex-mutilators?
The mutilations they undergo do not place them in a new, permanent state.
"Sex change" mutilations do not change one's sex.
By admitting one's mistake of mutilating his or her body and considering oneself the sex assigned at birth.
The remains of sin persist after baptism, whether they're bodily apparent (as in the case of body mutilators) or not.
Even repentant, ex-mutilators?Two problems with this snarky half-liner.
St. Catherine of Siena, a 14th. century mystic among the 33 Doctors of the Catholic Church, experienced many visions of Our Lord. In her Dialog she quotes Jesus: “They not only fail from resisting this frailty…but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them.…It is disagreeable to the demons, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demon who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demon leaves.”
When we fought the pedos and fαɢɢօts in our N.O. diocese, we prepared brochures to transmit authentic Catholic dogma and morality.Most trans people were manipulated by others. Even if their mutilation is 'permanent' it will easily be restored on the day of judgement. If they truly repent and try to go back to normal to the best of their ability then I don't see the issue.
From one brochure, this excerpt was memorable:
If demons are repulsed by sodomitic acts in the un-mutilated, how much more repulsed are they by the depravity of permanent sɛҳuąƖ mutilation aimed at furthering such sodomitic acts?
Most trans people were manipulated by others. Even if their mutilation is 'permanent' it will easily be restored on the day of judgement. If they truly repent and try to go back to normal to the best of their ability then I don't see the issue.You don't see the issue???
Now do you see the issue?
Once mutilated, always mutilated. Cutting off one's genitals is permanent.
Which is manifest? the repentance? or the rejection of Catholic morality?
It would seem the rejection of Truth is the gravest sin not necessarily the removal of body parts.
Cutting off one's penis is permanentWe're speaking here about requirements for baptism, not circuмcision.
This is a straw man fallacy. Apparently your team needs to play stupid.
Even the video from MHFM in Reply # 46 states that a former transsɛҳuąƖ who no longer identifies as such can be baptized. At the 2:00 time stamp of the video.
Being mutilated, in and of itself, is not an impediment to baptism.
Are genitals, or rather the lack thereof, going to be manifest when performing a baptism?
If anything, the only persons to ever see such ever again are themselves or a doctor, as the mutilation will be an impediment to marriage.
We're speaking here about requirements for baptism, not circuмcision.You are the one who is avoiding the actual stated problem.
This is yet another straw man argument.
Rather, mutilation is not an unforgivable sin.
The genital mutilation is permanent. There is absolutely no human way to revert to a normal unmutilated state. Is a priest expected to examine the privates of anyone seeking Baptism? Emphatically. NO!***
However if a person (1) presents for Baptism (2) was born a male, and (3) is still sporting store-bought "breasts" (or dresses as a woman, one may reasonably question: (4) the sincerity of repentance and (5) the propriety of publicly Baptizing a male who presents himself appearing as female.
Analogously, if a person (1) presents for Baptism (2) was born a female, and (3) is still sporting a beard and dresses and coiffs as a man, one may reasonably question: (4) the sincerity of repentance and (5) the propriety of publicly Baptizing a female who presents herself appearing as male.
Are you too stupid to identify what sex these persons intend to manifest?
Would you also say they would also be prevented from publicly receiving confession, or communion?
Is gynecomastia in men, or hirsutism in women impediments to public reception of the sacraments?
If natural deformities are not impediments, then neither would artificial ones be.
I already quoted Deuteronomy 22:5, thus former transsɛҳuąƖs would need to dress the sex that God assigned to them, and ultimately do the best they can in presenting themselves as God intended.
Do not pretend that I claim jurisdiction. I am simply consistent with 2,000 years of Catholic praxis.
Last time I went to confession, it was PRIVATE.
As for Holy Communion, it follows BAPTISM… so… address the stated criticisms and stop playing games.
If you really do agree, why did you camouflage your agreement with a bunch of straw man garbage and try to conflate natural medical problems with intentional sɛҳuąƖ mutilation???!!!
They would need to cease dressing in such a manner, I've already quoted Deuteronomy 22:5
That's right. It is manifest at Mass and in the confessional line that I am not dressed, coiffed, behaving, or speaking like a femboy. I do not give the appearance of a God-cursed, sɛҳuąƖ self-mutilating sodomite who rejects Catholic morality and dogma.
Yes, but each time you go to church you are 'manifest', waiting in line, able to be seen by others, likewise with receiving the Eurcharist.
BAPTISM OF A PERSON LIVING IN SIN.
[ . . . ]
Her reception of baptism, however, would be unworthy. Worthy reception of baptism by an adult requires that he have at least attrition for his personal sins. Now Mrs. B.’s attrition is insufficient and insincere, since it lacks a necessary complement, namely, a firm purpose of amendment, for she is determined to persevere in her adulterous union. Hence her reception of baptism, while valid, would be unworthy. Far from producing the new man in Christ in her, it would burden her soul with the added guilt of sacrilege.
[ . . . ]
It is the second priest’s solution that is correct. The baptism of Mrs. B., as far as the requirements on her part are concerned, would be valid but unlawful. Pastoral prudence, however, will bid the pastor not to be brusque in rejecting her requests, but to be forbearing in order to preserve the spark of faith so that, if a change of conditions permits it, he can baptize and receive her into the Church with good conscience. Moreover, if the circuмstances are favorable, he may be able to persuade this woman and the man with whom she is living to separate, or, if there is no danger of continued sin and of scandal, to live as brother and sister. Then he could lawfully admit her to baptism at once.
Gynecomastia does not reach 38DD proportions. Gynecomastia is not accompanied by regression to a female larynx (no "Adam's apple"). Gynecomastia does not typically manifest with wearing feminine hairdos, clothing, feigned high voice, and body language mimicry
Scandal is part of the concern. As was stated early in this thread, liceity of such Baptism and the eternal fate of the allegedly repentant trannie(s) are other concerns.
What is under dispute is the possibility of scandal, is it not?
Scandal is part of the concern. As was stated early in this thread, liceity of such Baptism and the eternal fate of the allegedly repentant trannie(s) are other concerns.
If natural deformities are not impediments, then neither would artificial ones be.
Really? You postulate moral equivalence between congenital anomalies and self-mutilation??? Go figure.
Demonstrate that equivalence in Magisterium.
[ . . . ]
Applying these distinctions to an invalid marriage, the case is formally public if both the fact of the invalidity of the marriage is known or likely to be known, and it is also known that the marriage cannot be repaired.
[ . . .]
Since, in a formally public case, there is already the scandal of cohabitation in an invalid marriage, and there would be the still greater scandal of the apparent approval of the Church if such persons were known to receive the sacraments, permission to live as brother and sister will rarely be given. Such parties must separate if it is at all possible. If separation is impossible because of very grave reasons, they must make every effort to move to a place where the invalidity of their marriage is not known. The case would then become occult. In a case where it is both impossible for the parties to separate because of very grave reasons, and it is also impossible for them to move to a new locality, the public reception of the sacraments can never be permitted. However, at times the private or secret reception of the sacraments may be permitted to such people, provided the other requirements of the brother and sister arrangement are met, and the parties promise to remove the scandal as soon as it is morally possible.
Gynecomastia does not reach 38DD proportions.
Canon 752
§ 1. An adult should not be baptized unless he knowingly and with desire has been rightly instructed; moreover, he should be admonished to be sorry for sins.
Canon 855
§ 1. All those publicly unworthy are to be barred from the Eucharist, such as excommunicates, those interdicted, and those manifestly infamous, unless their penitence and emendation are shown and they have satisfied beforehand the public scandal [they caused].
Canon 942
[On the subject of extreme unction]
This sacrament is not to be conferred on those who are impenitent, persevering contumaciously in manifest mortal sin; if there is doubt about this, it should be conferred under condition.
Most trans people were manipulated by others. Even if their mutilation is 'permanent' it will easily be restored on the day of judgement. If they truly repent and try to go back to normal to the best of their ability then I don't see the issue.Mark I am not sure what the issue is? See the bold above.
Mark I am not sure what the issue is? See the bold above.Blather and digression. What sinner is not "manipulated"? The "manipulation" is irrelevant to the stated criticism. So, why change the subject to an irrelevant matter?
I'm not sure I completely understand this debate, as I haven't read every post, but formal repentance is necessary even if materially the damage can't be undone. If they have the intention to repent, they can be baptized, go to Confession, etc.You have accurately distilled the gravamen.
It's similar to any other sin that requires restitution of some kind. Let's say I steal $10,000 and spent it. I repent and intend to pay it back, even though I can't right now and may never be able to. I can be forgiven as long as I intend to do my best to make restitution. Then you have to try.
As for public vs. private Baptism, Baptism is inherently public, as it determines membership in the Church, and requires witnesses precisely for that reason. Yet, it could be quasi-private in the sense that the ceremony need not be performed in front of the broader public. This may be done to avoid scandal. [emphasis added]
Beards, breasts (store-bought or otherwise), "Adam's apple," male v. female hairline, male v. female hairstyles, and manner of dress are readily apparent.None of those things are necessary for baptism.
There is no difficulty as to hermaphrodites, because sex does not affect the validity of Baptism.
None of those things are necessary for baptism.
Regarding 1917 Canon 748 (https://books.google.com/books?id=2XbtF6Y21LUC&pg=PA277) (which has no equivalent in the 1983 Code), which deals with baptism in the case of deformed or abnormal fetal humans, canonist Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D., writes in A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, on Can. 748 (https://archive.org/stream/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary#page/n1371/mode/2up):
{Even hermaphrodites with predominate male aspect can be validly (albeit illicitly) ordained. (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/63458/1787)}
After ignoring several clear statements of the focused criticism, you continue to engage in straw man arguments.
Mentioning pattern recognition of features manifesting opposition to Catholic morals and dogma is not a claim that any certain body part is mandated in Canon Law.
You also continue to conflate unfortunate congenital anomalies with willful sɛҳuąƖ self-mutilation.
It is becoming more clear that you intend to be a deceiver and cloud the issue. What is your major malfunction, Geremia?
In this thread Geremia never recanted his conflation of an unfortunate unwilled birth defect (congenital hermaphroditism) with willful sɛҳuąƖ mutilation (surgical transɛҳuąƖism).
If someone is caught in an accidental mistake (e.g., "Hey, your fly is open."), no ill will can be imputed… however, once the mistake is pointed and you refuse to fix the mistake, it is reasonable to consider that the "mistake" is actually intentional.
So, over 8 months since you were called on your error, you still haven't acknowledged or recanted the "mistake."
Geremia, you are long overdue "zipping up"!
So? Isn't baptism for sinners?Baptism is for sinners who are in a state of grace.
Baptism is for sinners who are in a state of grace.And you can't have sanctifying grace unless you're baptized.
Baptism is for sinners who are in a state of grace.With all due respect, that doesn't even make sense. You can't be in a state of grace without having been baptized.
In this thread Geremia never recanted his conflation of an unfortunate unwilled birth defect (congenital hermaphroditism) with willful sɛҳuąƖ mutilation (surgical transɛҳuąƖism).
If someone is caught in an accidental mistake (e.g., "Hey, your fly is open."), no ill will can be imputed… however, once the mistake is pointed and you refuse to fix the mistake, it is reasonable to consider that the "mistake" is actually intentional.
So, over 8 months since you were called on your error, you still haven't acknowledged or recanted the "mistake."
Geremia, you are long overdue "zipping up"!
With all due respect, that doesn't even make sense. You can't be in a state of grace without having been baptized.Yes. It does make sense. Yes. I’m fine.
I sometimes read your posts and simply want to ask you, "Are you ok?"
I was baptized as an adult. Repentance was a requirement for the baptism to take place. That was about 25 years ago in an NO church. I guess things have changed since then.Thank you.
An adult practicing sodomite shouldn’t be baptized at all.It would be better for them were they not baptized (lesser punishment in hell), but they can be baptized.
It would be better for them were they not baptized (lesser punishment in hell), but they can be baptized.
How odd that you can understand an important contraceptive/contragestive distinction, but for 8 months have evaded acknowledging the difference between willful acts and unwilled acts.
Yes, "The Pill" can be contraceptive or contragestive (preventing implantation, thus starving the baby, thus abortifacient).
Catechism of the Council of Trent on matrimony (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Matrimony.shtml):
willed sɛҳuąƖ mutilationBaptism erases all sins.
Baptism erases all sins.Non-responsive and evasive. The effect of Baptism is NOT in question and NEVER was in question.
Mark, do you deny baptism to detransitioners, too?
Yes. It does make sense. Yes. I’m fine.How can one be a in a state of grace without baptism?
An adult practicing sodomite shouldn’t be baptized at all.
And you are correct, no unrepentant sinner should be baptized.What's being debated is whether they "can be Baptized" (title of this thread), not whether they should be.
the most basic element of sin, willful intention?Yes, all sin is willful. Your point?
Why do you continue to evade admitting that there is a pivotal difference between willful sɛҳuąƖ mutilation (trannies) and unwilled congenital defects (hermaphroditism)?Of course there is, but my point in bringing up hermaphrodites is that the Church bars them from the priesthood, but not from baptism.
Of course there is, but my point in bringing up hermaphrodites is that the Church bars them from the priesthood, but not from baptism.
Are you debating the question of whether "TransɛҳuąƖs can be Baptized" or whether they should be?
NOBODY here ever suggested that truly repentant trannies be denied Baptism. NOBODY!
Why then did you feel compelled to cloud the discussion by feigning that we proposed denying Baptism? or that trannies "cannot" be Baptised. Why???
We were crystal clear, narrowly focused on a very specific aspect, public Baptism of seemingly unrepentant trannies, and that record remains for all who read the thread to bear witness.
The practicing Catholics here objected to the public Baptism of Trannies because of the scandal, especially in cases that publicly appeared non-repentant. Nobody objected to their Baptism. Nobody questioned the efficacy of Baptism, yet you turned contortions to cloud the matter by invoking hermaphrodites, and pretended that we did question the efficacy of Baptism, pretended that we objected to the Baptism of any trannies. You tried to use unwilled congenital defects (hermaphroditism) to support public Baptism of willfully mutilated trannies in public!
You threw all manner of diversion into the discussion, including nonsense about beards and breasts not being impediments to Baptism.
For 8 months you have done your worst to cloud the issue simply to avoid admitting that it causes scandal to publicly Baptise transɛҳuąƖs who appear unrepentant.
It took you 8 months to finally admit: "Of course there is [a difference between willed and unwilled acts]."
And even with that admission you continue to cloud the narrow question by re-asking what has long been answered. So, for the umpteenth time in this thread:
NOBODY here ever suggested that the truly repentant trannies be denied Baptism. NOBODY!
NOBODY here ever questioned the efficacy of Baptism. NOBODY!
We were all clear on these points. We were repeatedly clear on all these points. Yet 8 months later, this very day, you pretend to be unclear on that. At this point I can only wonder why you invested so much effort in evasion, diversion, avoiding admitting "Of course there is [a difference between willed and unwilled acts]."
What's being debated is whether they "can be Baptized" (title of this thread), not whether they should be.Can an unrepentant sinner be baptized? Of course, you simply pour the water in his head and say the form.
Can an unrepentant sinner be baptized? Of course, you simply pour the water in his head and say the form.
Is it illicit? Yes. Is it a sacrilege? Yes. Is the unrepentant sinner in a state of grace afterwards, no.
The just baptized unrepentant sinner is now in state of mortal sin.. actual sin, not original.
This is moral theology 101.
NOBODY here ever suggested that truly repentant trannies be denied Baptism.Repentant or not, they can be baptized.
to avoid admitting that it causes scandal to publicly Baptise transɛҳuąƖs who appear unrepentant.Yes, it could cause scandal, but, again, I thought we were debating whether they can be baptized (not whether they should be).
He could have said, "Of course there is a difference between willed and unwilled acts…," but didn't.Why do you keep bringing up this distinction? I fail to see how it bears on whether they can be baptized.
Why do you keep bringing up this distinction? I fail to see how it bears on whether they can be baptized.