Author Topic: The Revolution Takes Hold Under Pius XII (Read 16684 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #195 on:** November 13, 2012, 05:47:29 PM »

Ah, I see you have actually not read Fr.Cekada's article then. There are several theologians who taught that BoD is a dogma, and Fr.Cekada names some of them. All others treat it as a Catholic doctrine or Catholic teaching.

Your example of Limbo is flawed, because though many had tended to favor St.Augustine's view, no theologian held the contrary opinion could not be maintained - that's why the matter was freely discussed in the schools.

But now all theologians have held that the contrary opinion is not lawful, at least after Trent. And this common and constant consent of theologians binds us. The matter is settled, not open to dispute.

If you don't like theologians, I gave the example of a Saintly priest earlier, here is a Saintly mystic, a very pious and humble soul, herself receiving a reflection on a text of a Saintly Apostle.

Quote from: Dialogue of St.Catherine

"I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed."

Thus it is written in Sacred Scripture also, of the water, the blood and the spirit that flowed from the Sacred Heart - that the three are one, and so the threefold baptism is one, it is Trinitarian.

If you believe as St.Alphonsus did, you will find that the true doctrine never lessens, but rather increases the missionary zeal that should burn in all Catholics to save souls that are in danger of perishing. This was true of St.Alphonsus.

bowler · « **Reply #196 on:** November 14, 2012, 06:37:15 PM »

Quote from: bowler

If God Predestined Some Persons to be Saved by Baptism of Desire, Then:

He also predestined that it would never be revealed infallible for 2000+ years.

He predestined that His dogmatic decrees on EENS should be meaningless, since the Church has infallible declared that only the water baptized are members of the Church (and all who die outside outside of the Church are damned). He predestined that His clear language really does not mean what he said like the 9 dogmas and creeds that say:

- that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil
- nobody at all [/u]is saved
- outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin
-every human creature
-no one at all is saved
-no one can be saved
-none can be saved

In other words, not only did God predestine that he would not reveal infallible that some persons will be saved by baptism of desire, but He also predestined to teach us infallible something that says the complete opposite of baptism of desire. If we can't trust God's infallible revealed dogmas, who can we trust, certainly not theological speculations? If the clear language of those dogmas can be twisted to mean the opposite, then nothing is safe.

St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

bowler · « **Reply #197 on:** November 14, 2012, 06:56:00 PM »

Quote

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.).”

Notice that St. Alphonsus affirms that only those who believe in these absolutely necessary mysteries of Catholic Faith (the Trinity and Incarnation) can be saved.

That quote from Alphonsus Ligouri is from the early 1700's. The "more common and truer opinion" of the theologians for more than one century now, is that the explicit belief of these articles is not necessary as a means for salvation. In other words, no longer does a person need to desire explicitely to be baptized, or to be infused by God with the knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation (belief in Jesus Christ), nor do they need to know or want to know anything about being a Catholic. Now a person can be saved by "making an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire", as quoted from a traditionalist bishop.

Dear Nishant,

So much for the "more common and truer opinion" of the theologians. You can keep that theory of yours. I'll stick with dogma and the Providence of God.

God Bless,

roscoe · « **Reply #198 on:** November 14, 2012, 08:38:33 PM »

Getting back on topic

I have promised a review of Gallagher's Vatican Secret Diplomacy and here it is.

The book is really a biography of Bp Joseph Hurley & his relationship with Pius XII. Hurley believes the nαzι's are the greatest threat to the world while Pius sees Communism as more dangerous. Hurley also believes that the Popes policy of neutrality is actually pro-nαzι. At this time of his life his mind is unfortunately infected with an Americanist philosophy as he rallies reluctant American Catholics to the policies of Roosenveldt. The chapter on Fr Coughlin is very interesting.

Later the bishop's experience in the Balkans produces an astounding reversal as he becomes the staunchest defender of Card Stepinac in his battle with the Commie Tito. This in spite of the Cardinals connection to the nαzι Ustasha.

Neither Hurley or the author ever seem to add up that the Pope was right all along.

The best part of the book was the bibliography where I discovered the following works.

Jesuits & The Third Riech by Vincent Lapomarda-- $165

The Coughlin- Fahey Connection by Mary C Athans

Spies In The Vatican by David Alvarez

Lonely Cold War of Pius XII by Peter Kent

Pius XII & The Second World War by Pierre Blet

Case of Card Stepinac by R Pattee

:reporter:

If one searches Amazon Books, reviews of the above books can be found.