CathInfo.com

How does the use of terms like "shameless Pelagian heretic" "one handful of crap after another" "mansplained" help in this dialogue?

Oh, I'm not interested in "dialogue".  People spewing herersy and error should not be dignified with "dialogue".  That's the same problem with the Conciliars, where let's dialogue with the demonic Lutheran heretics.  Just by doing so, you're granting a degree of legitimacy to their depraved errors that they do not deserve.

Modernists and heretics of all stripes need to be beaten with fists.

And, just as the Modernists have found out ... dialogue "converts" no one.  I've been "dialoguing" with the BoDer Pelagian-Prot heretics for over 15 years here, and rarely do you find any who are actually seeking the truth.  One can spend hours and hours arguing with them, with ACTUAL theological arguments, only to find them completely ignored and to see them re-spamming the same crap over and over again, or, the handfuls of execrement metaphor is apt.  When after you refute one argument, they shift to another, then try a third, and then a fourth ... and then eventually come full circle to the one that had been refuted first, months earlier, simply respamming the exact same thing, this is evidence that they're made up their minds beforehand, are not seeking the truth, and are just causing you to waste time.

I myself used to believe in BoD becuase I naively accepted that "Trent taught it", since ... I'd rather believe that pigs would fly than that priests would lie, having trusted the good faith of Trad clergy.  I believed that the "Church Fathers unanimously taught it", since Fr. Laisney claimed this.  But ... when I actually started digging in ... I found that hardly a Church Father could be found who supported it, whereas about 7-8 clearly and explicitly rejected it.  In other words ... I had been lied to.  But, unlike these others, once I saw the evidence, i did not just pretend it didn't exist because I didn't want it to.  Then I just happened to be reading Trent in Latin, just because ... and then I got to the infamous passage where Trent "taught BoD", my reaction was ... "Wait a minute.  Trent is teaching no such thing here.  This has to do only with the cooperation of grace and free will in justification, and about the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation." ... and that's why Trent uses the term "votum", which is derived from the word for "to will", explaining how both the fee grace of God and the cooperation of the will "votum" are required for justification.  If Trent had been intending tto teach about BoD, then what's the explanation for the inexplicable of even a token mention of or even tip of the hat to so-called "Baptism of Blood".  If you tread Trent as treating of the "Three Baptisms", well ... Trent just taught "two Baptisms" and effectively declared that there's no such thing as a distinct "Baptism of Blood" that doesn't ultimately reduce to BoD.

Oh, I'm not interested in "dialogue".  People spewing herersy and error should not be dignified with "dialogue".  That's the same problem with the Conciliars, where let's dialogue with the demonic Lutheran heretics.  Just by doing so, you're granting a degree of legitimacy to their depraved errors that they do not deserve.

Modernists and heretics of all stripes need to be beaten with fists.

I see.  Are the priests who believe in concepts like baptism of blood and desire heretics?

This is nonsensical Paxspeak, spun out of yourself like a web - of confusion. You provide no foundation or authority and build on it with reasonable inference, but just spin it out of yourself.

You can argue and say, "yes, a state of justification assures salvation, but no one who will be saved doesn't receive the sacrament, so no one dies justified who hasn't received the sacrament." That's a permissible argument for a Feeneyite to make.

But your denying that a state of justification would result in ultimate entry into beatitude is probably heresy, though for our purposes I am certain it's Paxspeak bull.

Here's the CE, and that's right out of Trent, Session VI.


If you die in a "state of holiness and sonship of God," you're heaven bound.

Stop making up your own definition of things. "Natural justification" - good grief, there is no such thing. No one is made holy and a Son of God naturally.

How is it that something is "probable heresy"?  A statement is either heretical or it is not.  If Trent says that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation, and then I say the contrary, the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, my denial is heretical.  

Not to be confused with an impious opinion.  In seminary Bp. Williamson brought up dogma in Acta Magisterium one day, and I brought up the example of the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph, which is not dogma.  If a Catholic were to maintain that St. Joseph was not always Virgin, I would say that his opinion is impious, but not heretical, since the Church has never defined the question.  But his opinion would have no basis in theology or Sacred Scripture, hence it would be rash and impious.