Author Topic: Original Sin (Read 11942 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #105 on:** June 26, 2013, 07:34:27 AM »

Quote from: Isaac Jogues

Quote from: Nishant
Quote from: Isaac
Prove from magisterial, infallible pronouncements, that the desire ONLY for the sacrament of Baptism remits original sin without actual reception.

Easy. Trent says "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected...without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof"

So the desire of baptism has the same effect as the sacrament itself with regard to the translation from the state of original or actual mortal sin to the state of grace.

First of all, it seems rather subversive that you did not quote the whole passage.
The rest of the sentence in Session 6, Chapter 4 of Trent is "AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."

So as an honest person can see that this declaration is obviously not saying what you claim. If it did, it would contradict itself in the very same sentence. If desire were all that was necessary then John 3:5 would definitely not be "AS IT IS WRITTEN".
A man would be able enter the kingdom of heaven without being born again of water and the Holy Spirit.
Second, it is using the word "or" (aut) and in this context means "and",which it did also in other councils. It's like saying this wedding cannot take place without the bride or groom. It's not that the wedding can take place with one or the other, it needs both, bride and groom. This is the meaning of Trent, that both are necessary because the desire for the laver is just as necessary as the laver itself for a person above the age of reason.

The Church has always interpreted John 3:5 literally. Your interpretation of the dogma of Baptism twists John 3:5 into some sort of metaphor.
So actually your quoting of this passage in Trent actually disproves your heretical belief in BOD.
Try again.

Well stated!
I don't get why BODers reject the fact that: "as it is written", means what it says.

Nishant · « **Reply #106 on:** June 26, 2013, 05:31:23 PM »

I should add that when I say this is Thomistic theology, I don't mean in any wise that it is unique to the Angelic Doctor. It became the unanimous teaching of all Catholic schools, and there is not a single theologian or authority, let alone Doctor or Saint, who since that time has doubted or denied the Catholic doctrine of the threefold baptism and their salvific efficacy.

Also, Pope St. Pius V's condemnation of Michael Baius' propositions evidently affirms perfect charity in catechumens also remits sins, which modern Feeneyites attempt to deny.

As for you, Isaac, your original post implied you believed the Feeneyite error that baptism of blood or desire could suffice for justification, but not salvation, which is a common Feeneyite misunderstanding. So I posted that passage which despite your misunderstanding of it does show that desire has the same effect as baptism itself, also in the canons, with regard to the translation from sin and death to grace and life.

A brief comment on your erroneous view. I could have provided three paragraphs before and after and it would have made no difference to what I already knew you were going to say. Trent is speaking about justification and baptism, so obviously it quotes the Gospel in John 3:5. But precisely to prevent people like you from wresting the Gospel, and indeed the Council, it adds the phrase "or the desire thereof", even in the canons, which every one at the Council understood to dogmatically affirm the known Catholic teaching that the sacramental effect both of baptism and later of penance can be received in re or in voto.

The selfsame Apostle and even the Lord Himself in the same Gospel plainly and repeatedly teach that perfect charity secures the remission of sins and the translation into grace, as the Catholic Church has often affirmed. As Our Lord explained to St. Catherine of Sienna, the Apostle also speaks of the threefold baptism in his Gospel and epistles.

Quote

"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.

Quote

You make quite the leap by going from the pope declaring the dogma of exclusive salvation all the way to the pope not declaring anything at all.

The Pope is saying exactly what St. Fulgentius and the Fathers say - there is no salvation outside the Church. But there is a threefold way in which one may enter or be joined to the Church and the very excerpt from Florence is phrased in the very terms St. Fulgentius used "unless before death they are joined with Her" which he understood as and which plainly refers to an extraordinary means of baptism such as that of blood.

Indeed, the very Saint who first formulated EENS as such was St. Cyprian, and he spoke of the threefold baptism. Your objection is patently false.

It is exactly like saying I will not believe in the Holy Trinity because it contradicts my monotheism.

You are absolutely obliged to believe in it.

Cushing is irrelevant. You contradict yourself all the more by claiming a "new catechism" after Cushing "suddenly" taught "three baptisms" when I've shown you the doctrine is approved and taught by the Magisterium of the Church, as well as by the Baltimore Catechism, is of Apostolic origin, is plainly contained in Sacred Scripture, is borne witness to by the Fathers, is taught by the great Saints and Doctors including in the Summa, and was the unanimous teaching of all Catholic schools centuries prior to this Cushing. The heretic Peter Abelard is the last recorded person who attempted to cast doubt on the Catholic doctrine of the threefold baptism, before modern dogmatic Feeneyites. He was refuted based on Holy Writ and patristic Tradition by Hugh of St. Victor and St. Bernard.

Isaac Jogues · « **Reply #107 on:** June 26, 2013, 06:52:10 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Isaac Jogues
Quote from: Nishant
Quote from: Isaac
Prove from magisterial, infallible pronouncements, that the desire ONLY for the sacrament of Baptism remits original sin without actual reception.

Easy. Trent says "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected...without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof"

So the desire of baptism has the same effect as the sacrament itself with regard to the translation from the state of original or actual mortal sin to the state of grace.

First of all, it seems rather subversive that you did not quote the whole passage.
The rest of the sentence in Session 6, Chapter 4 of Trent is "AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."

So as an honest person can see that this declaration is obviously not saying what you claim. If it did, it would contradict itself in the very same sentence. If desire were all that was necessary then John 3:5 would definitely not be "AS IT IS WRITTEN".
A man would be able enter the kingdom of heaven without being born again of water and the Holy Spirit.
Second, it is using the word "or" (aut) and in this context means "and",which it did also in other councils. It's like saying this wedding cannot take place without the bride or groom. It's not that the wedding can take place with one or the other, it needs both, bride and groom. This is the meaning of Trent, that both are necessary because the desire for the laver is just as necessary as the laver itself for a person above the age of reason.

The Church has always interpreted John 3:5 literally. Your interpretation of the dogma of Baptism twists John 3:5 into some sort of metaphor.
So actually your quoting of this passage in Trent actually disproves your heretical belief in BOD.
Try again.

Isaac Jogues · « **Reply #108 on:** June 26, 2013, 07:41:38 PM »

Quote

As for you, Isaac, your original post implied you believed the Feeneyite error that baptism of blood or desire could suffice for justification, but not salvation, which is a common Feeneyite misunderstanding. So I posted that passage which despite your misunderstanding of it does show that desire has the same effect as baptism itself, also in the canons, with regard to the translation from sin and death to grace and life.

Negative. A man cannot be justified without having first received the Sacrament of Baptism. Since a man needs to be justified to enter heaven, the Sacrament of Baptism is also necessary for Salvation. Since 'baptism of blood/desire' are not sacraments, they are insufficient for justification and therefore salvation.
You can plainly read the passage of Trent, that it's clearly stating that John 3:5 is meant to be interpreted literally and claim I misunderstand it. Any person not trying to give salvation to everyone, outside of Christ, can see this. "I only apply it to catechumens" you say?, well once that door is opened there is no limit to who gets it. It is the reason why it has degenerated to the point it's at today.

Acts Of Apostles 2:38- But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Quote

A brief comment on your erroneous view. I could have provided three paragraphs before and after and it would have made no difference to what I already knew you were going to say. Trent is speaking about justification and baptism, so obviously it quotes the Gospel in John 3:5. But precisely to prevent people like you from wresting the Gospel, and indeed the Council, it adds the phrase "or the desire thereof", even in the canons, which every one at the Council understood to dogmatically affirm the known Catholic teaching that the sacramental effect both of baptism and later of penance can be received in re or in voto.

Ya!!! That makes sense. In order to keep people like me from believing John 3:5 means exactly as it is written, it states that it is to be understood as it is written. It's simple to understand, A man cannot be taken from the state of original sin to a justified state without both baptism and a desire for it. Tell me, can a man be Baptized without desiring Baptism first? Obviously not.

Nishant · « **Reply #109 on:** June 26, 2013, 08:45:43 PM »

Quote from: Isaac Joques

Since 'baptism of blood/desire' are not sacraments, they are insufficient for justification and therefore salvation.

Rubbish. Why don't you state frankly that you don't believe the Catholic teaching on baptism of desire and blood, that when you use these terms you are not at all speaking of the same things that the Doctors and Saints are, instead of redefining these terms and making up your own novel theology as you go along? These are the standard definitions.

Quote

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato.

But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment.

Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis as baptism of blood does as it were ex opere operato. It remits all mortal sin as well as original sin and effects the infusion of grace. This is the Catholic teaching on the subject. They effect justification. Either frankly say you do not believe in them or confess that you do, but don't attempt to make strawman arguments that "because they are not sacraments (which everyone concedes) they are insufficient (which every Doctor denies)

Do you admit that the sacramental effect of penance, at least, can be had in desire, without the actual reception of the sacrament? That the translation back to grace is effected immediately, when desire is perfected by contrition?

Quote

You can plainly read the passage of Trent, that it's clearly stating that John 3:5 is meant to be interpreted literally and claim I misunderstand it. Any person not trying to give salvation to everyone, outside of Christ, can see this.

Guess every single Doctor and Saint after Trent missed it, including St. Alphonsus and St. Robert. You must be so proud of yourself, being able to so "plainly" see and understand, what, alas, they could not. Perhaps some of the most eminent and brilliant Doctors the Church has ever known were too dull?

Quote

"I only apply it to catechumens" you say?, well once that door is opened there is no limit to who gets it. It is the reason why it has degenerated to the point it's at today.

I hold with St. Thomas and the more common teaching that explicit faith in Christ is always necessary by necessity of means, even in the invincibly ignorant baptized by desire.

Quote

Ya!!! That makes sense. In order to keep people like me from believing John 3:5 means exactly as it is written, it states that it is to be understood as it is written.

No. If the words "and the desire thereof" were not added, the meaning is absolutely plain and easy for everyone to understand. There was no need to add the additional clause, unless Holy Mother Church wished to dogmatically affirm what was already the common Catholic teaching about in re and in voto.

Quote

It's simple to understand, A man cannot be taken from the state of original sin to a justified state without both baptism and a desire for it. Tell me, can a man be Baptized without desiring Baptism first? Obviously not.

I'll await your answer to my earlier question, on penance and desire.

Stubborn · « **Reply #110 on:** June 26, 2013, 09:00:54 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote
You make quite the leap by going from the pope declaring the dogma of exclusive salvation all the way to the pope not declaring anything at all.

The Pope is saying exactly what St. Fulgentius and the Fathers say - there is no salvation outside the Church. But there is a threefold way in which one may enter or be joined to the Church and the very excerpt from Florence is phrased in the very terms St. Fulgentius used "unless before death they are joined with Her" which he understood as and which plainly refers to an extraordinary means of baptism such as that of blood.

Indeed, the very Saint who first formulated EENS as such was St. Cyprian, and he spoke of the threefold baptism. Your objection is patently false.

St. Cyprian uses the example of the penitent thief who died before the Sacrament was instituted and he certainly did not preach three fold baptism contrary to Scripture i.e. One Lord, One Faith, *One Baptism*. What were you thinking?

It was St. Cyprian who is credited with teaching: "He cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his Mother" - and you accuse him of teaching three baptisms?

Quote from: Nishant

Cushing is irrelevant. You contradict yourself all the more by claiming a "new catechism" after Cushing "suddenly" taught "three baptisms" when I've shown you the doctrine is approved and taught by the Magisterium of the Church, as well as by the Baltimore Catechism, is of Apostolic origin, is plainly contained in Sacred Scripture, is borne witness to by the Fathers, is taught by the great Saints and Doctors including in the Summa, and was the unanimous teaching of all Catholic schools centuries prior to this Cushing. The heretic Peter Abelard is the last recorded person who attempted to cast doubt on the Catholic doctrine of the threefold baptism, before modern dogmatic Feeneyites. He was refuted based on Holy Writ and patristic Tradition by Hugh of St. Victor and St. Bernard.

You have not shown any magesterial docuмents so do not make the false claim that the theory of salvation via BOD is taught by the Magisterium as though it is true. Everyone knows there have been one or two famous saints who taught salvation without the Sacrament - - - - everyone also knows that there was also a very great saint who taught that there was no Immaculate Conception.

Popes ex cathedra declarations have supreme authority over any and all saints or theologian's teachings, try to always remember that.

Cushing is irrelevant to you because you believe as he did, which is why you agree with him. If you don't agree, start reading about him and post some quotes - you will soon see that you and he have much in common when it comes to salvation outside the Church.

The process of destroying the Church was happening at least 100 years before V2 - and Cushing with the new catechism was part of that effort. Prior to Cushing, EVERY CATHOLIC knew that without the sacrament, you could not get to heaven.

Stubborn · « **Reply #111 on:** June 26, 2013, 09:12:43 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Do you admit that the sacramental effect of penance, at least, can be had in desire, without the actual reception of the sacrament? That the translation back to grace is effected immediately, when desire is perfected by contrition?

Boy Nishant, you really are grasping at straws.

You are making another leap. You are speaking about something (Sacrament of Penance) that one who is not baptized cannot even partake of. According to you, BOD makes that sacrament unnecessary at best and a joke at worst.

While it is taught that for a Catholic (one who is baptized), perfect contrition *can* suffice for forgiveness, Holy Mother STILL teaches that next confession, you are bound to confess those same sins because *that's* the only way to be certain your sins are forgiven.

As Fr. Feeney taught:
But the very fact that the Church requires every mortal sin committed to be confessed, whether one is perfectly sorry for it or not, shows the Church has a maternal suspicion of this perfect act of love of God obtaining forgiveness apart from the Sacrament of forgiveness instituted by Christ.

Nishant · « **Reply #112 on:** June 26, 2013, 09:23:57 PM »

No, Stubborn, you are mistaken.

Trent uses the same word both relating to baptism and penance, it teaches that both can be had in desire. No one doubts it in the case of the one, so why in the other?

Also, you and Fr. Feeney completely misunderstand the reality when you say the Church has a "maternal suspicion" concerning it. No, she does not, rather she teaches it with absolute certainty that it suffices in case of death and immediately effects the restoration to grace even before the sacrament is received if at all.

The reason we are obliged to confess all our sins in number and in kind is because desire for the sacrament is implicit in every such act of perfect love for God.

No, one or two Saints is not at all equivalent to the absolute unanimity of all Catholic schools, of several Saints and Doctors all in complete agreement with one another, and in opposition to heretics like Abelard, of the whole ecclesia docens without exception, and this for many centuries.

Another total strawman. St. Cyprian nor any of the Fathers and Doctors teach "three baptism" but a threefold means of the one baptism, somewhat comparable to the Holy Trinity. You claim you can reject this Catholic doctrine on the vain pretense that it is opposed to the one baptism, comparable to the false claim that the Holy Trinity is opposed to monotheism.

Your error destroys the Church at least as much as indifferntists like Cushing. Do you have any idea what a horrible error it is to imply the Catholic faithful cannot trust their traditional and childhood catechisms with absolute certainty, like that of Trent, Baltimore, St. Pius X, Stubborn? That error entirely overthrows the Catholic Church and makes it impossible for her faithful to know and trust her teachings and place their faith in them.

Stubborn · « **Reply #113 on:** June 27, 2013, 06:30:25 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

No, Stubborn, you are mistaken.

Trent uses the same word both relating to baptism and penance, it teaches that both can be had in desire. No one doubts it in the case of the one, so why in the other?

No, it does not. You are misrepresenting the decrees of Trent.

Quote from: Nishant

Also, you and Fr. Feeney completely misunderstand the reality when you say the Church has a "maternal suspicion" concerning it. No, she does not, rather she teaches it with absolute certainty that it suffices in case of death and immediately effects the restoration to grace even before the sacrament is received if at all.

Only the Conciliar Church teaches such a thing.

Quote from: Nishant

The reason we are obliged to confess all our sins in number and in kind is because desire for the sacrament is implicit in every such act of perfect love for God.

The reason we must confess to a priest is for us to be certain that our sins have been forgiven. There is no other way to be certain in this life - this is why Our Lord instituted the Sacrament.

Quote from: Nishant

No, one or two Saints is not at all equivalent to the absolute unanimity of all Catholic schools, of several Saints and Doctors all in complete agreement with one another, and in opposition to heretics like Abelard, of the whole ecclesia docens without exception, and this for many centuries.

Another total strawman. St. Cyprian nor any of the Fathers and Doctors teach "three baptism" but a threefold means of the one baptism, somewhat comparable to the Holy Trinity. You claim you can reject this Catholic doctrine on the vain pretense that it is opposed to the one baptism, comparable to the false claim that the Holy Trinity is opposed to monotheism.

All it takes in one Pope to make a solemn pronouncement, after that we have no choice, we are bound to believe what has been pronounced - without exception. There is no 3 baptisms no matter how many catechisms say there is.

Quote from: Nishant

Your error destroys the Church at least as much as indifferntists like Cushing. Do you have any idea what a horrible error it is to imply the Catholic faithful cannot trust their traditional and childhood catechisms with absolute certainty, like that of Trent, Baltimore, St. Pius X, Stubborn? That error entirely overthrows the Catholic Church and makes it impossible for her faithful to know and trust her teachings and place their faith in them.

Oh, so because all the text book catechisms have been revised to include 3 baptisms and universal salvation, we should accept it because it is too upsetting to see the horrible error for what it is? And to disclose the error destroys the Church? Sounds very NOish to me.

You reject the fact that prior to Cushing perverting the dogma, the whole world knew that dying without the Sacrament meant that you went to hell. After perverting the dogma successfully, he has nearly the whole world convinced that "no salvation outside the Church" means "some salvation outside the Church".

Here is the original catechism which came directly from Trent.

Please post it's teachings on a BOD or how a BOD is salvic or how the unforeseen accident + BOD = salvation.

Are you a NOer?

Nishant · « **Reply #114 on:** June 28, 2013, 12:17:21 AM »

Your error destroys the Church because it destroys the rule of Faith, it means the Church has defected and taught false and harmful doctrines to her faithful for a 1000 years and more. You make a number of false claims in the above, I will answer them all, but I just noticed this one and wanted to start with responding to it,

"You have not shown any magesterial docuмents"

When we've discussed them in the past, you've just brushed them aside on some transparent excuse, as I know you'll do again. But anyway, so that you do not even have that pretense, here is the doctrine of the Church in two cases, one whom it was discovered after his death that he had not been baptized in water and the other of a Jew who attempted to baptize himself.

Quote from: Pope Innocent II, Apostolicam Sedem

Read in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where, among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned

Quote from: Pope Innocent III, Debitum pastoralis officii

We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: "Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.," the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another ... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith

That's Denzinger 388 and 413, though I know you'll have an excuse for not submitting to this Magisterial teaching, you can check them out for yourselves below if you like.

http://denzinger.patristica.net/#n400

Stubborn · « **Reply #115 on:** June 28, 2013, 07:18:06 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Your error destroys the Church because it destroys the rule of Faith, it means the Church has defected and taught false and harmful doctrines to her faithful for a 1000 years and more. You make a number of false claims in the above, I will answer them all, but I just noticed this one and wanted to start with responding to it,

You preach a strange "rule of faith" when any one of any faith can slide into heaven via the road of good intentions.
Certainly we both agree here.

Quote from: Nishant

"You have not shown any magesterial docuмents"

When we've discussed them in the past, you've just brushed them aside on some transparent excuse, as I know you'll do again. But anyway, so that you do not even have that pretense, here is the doctrine of the Church in two cases, one whom it was discovered after his death that he had not been baptized in water and the other of a Jew who attempted to baptize himself.

Quote from: Pope Innocent II, Apostolicam Sedem
Read in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where, among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned

First, Saint Augustine’s City of God is not a magisterial docuмent ~ FYI on that one. The pope quoting it was later corrected infallibly.

Second, fwiw to you, St. Augustine wrote his final book named it "Retractions" - you will find in that book that he retracted his theory of invisible baptism and replaced it with the absolute necessity of the sacrament.

Do you still hold the opinion of St. Thomas and reject the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady? I hope so because otherwise you do not believe St. Thomas!

Quote from: Nishant

Quote from: Pope Innocent III, Debitum pastoralis officii
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: "Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.," the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another ... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith

That's Denzinger 388 and 413, though I know you'll have an excuse for not submitting to this Magisterial teaching, you can check them out for yourselves below if you like.

http://denzinger.patristica.net/#n400

Again, an opinion of a pope is not a magisterial docuмent dictating to the faithful what we are bound to believe about the sacrament. And even if it were, Trent, with all the authority of Heaven, has infallibly clarified the matter forever and proven Pope Innocent III, and whoever else taught BOD, wrong. Just because Cushing was able to convince everyone that BOD is salvic does not change error into truth.

I don't know why honest BODers would neglect to answer but I see you ignored something important here *again* Nishant, so I will ask again.............Here is the original catechism which came directly from Trent.

Please post it's teachings on a BOD or how a BOD is salvic or how the unforeseen accident + BOD = salvation.

Are you a NOer?

SJB · « **Reply #116 on:** June 28, 2013, 08:20:22 AM »

Quote

All it takes in one Pope to make a solemn pronouncement, after that we have no choice, we are bound to believe what has been pronounced - without exception. There is no 3 baptisms no matter how many catechisms say there is.

Of course it has never occurred to you that if nobody else has noticed this ... then maybe you really haven't noticed it either.

Quote

You preach a strange "rule of faith" when any one of any faith can slide into heaven via the road of good intentions.

Without true supernatural faith nobody is saved. Your comment about "sliding into heaven" is strange and reminds me of the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

Nishant · « **Reply #117 on:** June 28, 2013, 08:52:35 AM »

As expected, you simply dismiss what is shown to you, then make all sorts of circular claims. You claimed I'd showed no Magisterial teachings, falsely - anyway now that I have here and in this thread you simply reject them as such on a specious pretense. Leaving aside that Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum is an authoritative compilation of the Church's doctrinal and dogmatic statements, why don't you just admit you have no intention of submitting to Magisterial authority whatsoever?

No, the instance of the Immaculate Conception is not comparable at all, because here it is the Church approving and affirming what in the Fathers is correct as her own true doctrine.

I've already answered all your questions several times and on this thread as well. I've said a while ago that I attended an SSPX chapel. I also answered that question you keep repeating about Trent's catechism earlier, go back and see, with the words, "Exactly, for adults, the danger present for infants if they die is not there, because it is certain that desire will avail for adults in that case, which therefore no man may ever lawfully call into question, without being offensive to the Church" to which you didn't answer. If that teaching of the Catechism of Trent is false, the martyrs and catechumens who have gone to their death believing it, have been lost for all eternity because of the Church, which is heretical to assert, and which destroys the Church.

The Pope here also authoritatively and unhesitatingly states, in response to a formal inquiry, without a doubt that there are indeed and truly people in heaven who died without being sacramentally baptized, which shows your error is directly and definitively condemned here for all time.

To wit,"To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation that the priest whom you indicated had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland."

So the question is settled, the doctrine is taught, the error is condemned, even before Trent, so there is not even the possibility given to you of wresting Trent to try and support your case.

Even though, of course, Trent itself shows you false, I remind you, you asked me to show you Magisterial docuмents - that means ordinary teaching from a Pope. I did. Now what? Will you at least admit it condemns your error and you are bound to assent to it, or not?

Anyway, you cannot legitimately refuse to obey the Popes' clear and definitive doctrinal pronouncements which in their Encyclical Letters, as Pope Pius XII said, are indeed authoritative and binding on Catholics and an exercise of their ordinary magisterium and to which the words "He who hears you, hears Me. He who rejects you, rejects Me" are applicable. So it is the teaching of Christ that you reject. And the vain pretense that you are not bound is only, as St. Pius X said of those who'd argued in this way in his day, the transparently false plea of those who do not wish to obey the Pope and the Church.

Stubborn · « **Reply #118 on:** June 28, 2013, 09:51:47 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
All it takes in one Pope to make a solemn pronouncement, after that we have no choice, we are bound to believe what has been pronounced - without exception. There is no 3 baptisms no matter how many catechisms say there is.

Of course it has never occurred to you that if nobody else has noticed this ... then maybe you really haven't noticed it either.

All the souls in heaven noticed it - that much is guaranteed.
All the Catholics before Cushing noticed it - since it was, after all, the only teaching of the Church that is easily traced from the time of the Apostles that 100% all saints and theologians and fathers and doctors of the Church taught that there was only one baptism - read Eph 4:5 - this makes the teaching of one baptism universally common and constant - and defined infallibly.

Quote from: SJB

Quote
You preach a strange "rule of faith" when any one of any faith can slide into heaven via the road of good intentions.

Without true supernatural faith nobody is saved. Your comment about "sliding into heaven" is strange and reminds me of the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

The workers in the vineyard labored, all preformed the same labor under the same owner - your attempt at using the parable for justification of rewarding infidels, who explicitly reject to labor at all, the same reward as Catholics is futile.

Stubborn · « **Reply #119 on:** June 28, 2013, 09:54:29 AM »

Nishant

I answered your points - just because you were proven wrong does not mean you went unanswered.

How about replying to the below?

I don't know why honest BODers would neglect to answer but I see you ignored something important here *again* Nishant, so I will ask again.............Here is the original catechism which came directly from Trent.

Please post it's teachings on a BOD or how a BOD is salvic or how the unforeseen accident + BOD = salvation.

Are you a NOer?