Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Caminus on July 27, 2009, 02:21:03 AM
-
-
-
The first (at the very least implicit) Dogmatic teaching on BOD/BOB was Pope St Leo I letter "The Tome" in 449 AD which states:
"Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God ? It is he, Jesus Christ who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony--Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."
-
Caraffa, I addressed the quotation from Pope St. Leo the Great this morning.
Take a look, page 4 of this thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=8081&min=45&num=15), posted at 7:59 am.
-
This file may be interesting to those who have read the Dimonds long list of fathers who, apparently, did not support Baptism by Blood or Desire.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CEXELJ40
I have created it in Microsoft word for ease of reading.
-
C.M.M.M.
Thank you for uploading this file. I'll study it and get back to you. :detective:
-
This file may be interesting to those who have read the Dimonds long list of fathers who, apparently, did not support Baptism by Blood or Desire.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CEXELJ40
I have created it in Microsoft word for ease of reading.
First of all, many of the Fathers quoted also teach the reality of baptism of desire, so to construe their words as contradicting their other doctrine is disengenous. Secondly, tell me why one should accept this supposed doctrinal tradition and not the other very long doctrinal tradition teaching baptism of desire? Why the arbitrary picking and choosing, especially when a) a consensus of the fathers compels assent which is clearly established with respect to baptism of desire and b) the magisterium, in doctrinal explanations and even through canon law itself, have taught baptism of desire? The doctrine is found in the Summa itself along with every theological manual approved and published by the authority of the Church. Prior to Trent every Father, theologian and doctor who has addressed this doctrine ex professo has affirmed its truth based tradition and scripture and after Trent asserted its truth based upon Trent itself. This is pure hypocrisy all because of a misunderstanding on the part of certain people who cannot grasp proper distinctions and who act as if God is intrinsically bound by His own sacraments. Shallow and narrow minds are always the cause of error and deceit whether they are attempting to interpret Scriptures or the doctrinal tradition of the Church.
-
I assume you didn't read it?
I the file, it shows the quote from the Dimonds, and in response, I show other quotes which show the same fathers supporting baptism by blood.
-
...certain people who cannot grasp proper distinctions and who act as if God is intrinsically bound by His own sacraments.
Does God keep his oaths, Matthew? Yes or no?
-
...certain people who cannot grasp proper distinctions and who act as if God is intrinsically bound by His own sacraments.
Does God keep his oaths, Matthew? Yes or no?
Malachias 3:6 For I am the Lord, and I change not
John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said then, and will he not do? hath he spoken, and will he not fulfill?
John 3:7 Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again.
-
And here is your fatal flaw, one among many I suppose. God has promised, made an oath if you will, to save men through baptism. Now if God ended up by not saving men through baptism by withdrawing His saving powers from it then you could say that God broke His promise. But if God chooses to supply the effects for baptism by another means, that doesn't amount to breaking His promise, for He can save a man in any way He desires without being prejudicial to His own sacraments by temporarily extending the power of one in certain cases of necessity.
But revelation has taught that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation and that is what we should teach without reserve, for even though sometimes a desire for baptism, among other things, can justify, it is not in any way equal to or beside sacramental baptism.
-
I assume you didn't read it?
I the file, it shows the quote from the Dimonds, and in response, I show other quotes which show the same fathers supporting baptism by blood.
I'm sorry, I did not. I assumed it was more of the same. Take my remarks and direct them at others in this thread as I think it exposes their hypocrisy.
-
-
First of all, St. Thomas did not reject the Immaculate Conception, so you're claiming that he did as a justification for asserting that he taught error elsewhere is extremely unjust on several counts. If you do not fear to audaciously confront the Angelic Doctor with such arrogance and impetuosity, how can we expect you to treat fairly anything else? Secondly, you did not address the point that just because God promised to save men through baptism your conclusion does not at all follow.
-
When will it dawn on you two that you are arguing like the old heretics?
-
Answer this question (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=8117) Matthew.
-
Answer this question (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=8117) Matthew.
LOL. After you've ignored my inconvenient points? The only answer I can give you is that the "proper sense" includes the possibility of baptism of desire, so in the end, it is only yourself and yourself alone that is perverting the "sense of dogma." This hasn't dawned on you?
-
Caraffa, I addressed the quotation from Pope St. Leo the Great this morning.
Take a look, page 4 of this thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=8081&min=45&num=15), posted at 7:59 am.
Ah, but when a Pope issues a dogmatic statement addressing a certain point, outside points mentioned in that same letter or Bull cannot be heretical, only possibly erroneous. Usually these outside points fall into at the very least two theological categories:
Doctrina catholica-Catholic Doctrine-things taught by Popes or a very high majority of Doctors, Saints, theologians, though not always infallibly. If a doctrine is in this category it cannot change.
Theologica certa-Theologically Certain-a Doctrine which has connection to divine revelation or revealed dogma or is contained within the revealed dogma. Theological schools prior to the rise of progessivism/modernism taught it as such.
-
First of all, St. Thomas did not reject the Immaculate Conception, so you're claiming that he did as a justification for asserting that he taught error elsewhere is extremely unjust on several counts. If you do not fear to audaciously confront the Angelic Doctor with such arrogance and impetuosity, how can we expect you to treat fairly anything else? Secondly, you did not address the point that just because God promised to save men through baptism your conclusion does not at all follow.
Asserting that St. Thomas Aquinus rejected the Immaculate Conception , how on earth do people get into this?
What is the point, anyway?
-
Asserting that St. Thomas Aquinus rejected the Immaculate Conception , how on earth do people get into this?
What is the point, anyway?
Tell me Elizabeth, why is it so absurd to believe as we must that infallibility was not given to theologians, but the pope.
-
Asserting that St. Thomas Aquinus rejected the Immaculate Conception , how on earth do people get into this?
What is the point, anyway?
Tell me Elizabeth, why is it so absurd to believe as we must that infallibility was not given to theologians, but the pope.
Why do you ask misleading questions pregnant with red herrings and non-sequiturs? Once again, I must insist that your entire attitude regarding this question is wrong. If you accept the unanimous assent of the Fathers regarding a particular doctrine, which you must since it compels assent, then you should have no problem at all accepting said doctrine in its substance. You are bound to this fact if you claim to be Catholic. Your work should be focused on attempting to understand the doctrine, not negate it because you'd prefer to pick and choose based upon your own opinions.
-
Caraffa, I addressed the quotation from Pope St. Leo the Great this morning.
Take a look, page 4 of this thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=8081&min=45&num=15), posted at 7:59 am.
Ah, but when a Pope issues a dogmatic statement addressing a certain point, outside points mentioned in that same letter or Bull cannot be heretical, only possibly erroneous. Usually these outside points fall into at the very least two theological categories:
Doctrina catholica-Catholic Doctrine-things taught by Popes or a very high majority of Doctors, Saints, theologians, though not always infallibly. If a doctrine is in this category it cannot change.
Theologica certa-Theologically Certain-a Doctrine which has connection to divine revelation or revealed dogma or is contained within the revealed dogma. Theological schools prior to the rise of progessivism/modernism taught it as such.
Your response seems to have nothing to do with what I said regarding Pope St. Leo's quotation. Say plainly what you mean.