Author Topic: Original Sin (Read 11955 times)

SJB · « **Reply #75 on:** June 21, 2013, 08:51:50 AM »

Quote from: Stephen Francis

Come on... no offense is intended here, fratres, but all of the speculation that goes on surrounding this issue is not very edifying.

What is "not very edifying" about discussing Catholic theology and quoting proper authorities?

SJB · « **Reply #76 on:** June 21, 2013, 10:00:50 AM »

Quote from: Stephen Francis

Encourage people in the Faith from the beginning and you won't often find yourself having desperate last-minute arguments with dying people.

And then what if you happen across a person who is dying in the situation described? Pretend it isn't happening? Lament about how nobody talked to this dying person earlier?

Ambrose · « **Reply #77 on:** June 21, 2013, 01:37:19 PM »

There is always the danger when combatting heresy and error, that one may swing to far and in one's zeal, create a new heresy or error.

Baptism of Desire is the teaching of the Church. Outside the Church There is No Salvation is the teaching of the Church. There is no contradiction between the two.

The Church does not allow heresy and error to be taught in its name.

Stubborn · « **Reply #78 on:** June 21, 2013, 02:03:03 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

There is always the danger when combatting heresy and error, that one may swing to far and in one's zeal, create a new heresy or error.

Baptism of Desire is the teaching of the Church. Outside the Church There is No Salvation is the teaching of the Church. There is no contradiction between the two.

The Church does not allow heresy and error to be taught in its name.

Right, and there is no Novus Ordo.

Ambrose · « **Reply #79 on:** June 21, 2013, 02:23:48 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose
There is always the danger when combatting heresy and error, that one may swing to far and in one's zeal, create a new heresy or error.

Baptism of Desire is the teaching of the Church. Outside the Church There is No Salvation is the teaching of the Church. There is no contradiction between the two.

The Church does not allow heresy and error to be taught in its name.

Right, and there is no Novus Ordo.

The Novus Ordo did not come from the Church, and could never have been allowed to exist within the Church. The Catholic Church is always holy and always teaches the truth.

The Church is holy, it is not the pillar of heresy, error and evil. The Church is not the whore of Babylon!

Stubborn · « **Reply #80 on:** June 21, 2013, 03:10:36 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
There is always the danger when combatting heresy and error, that one may swing to far and in one's zeal, create a new heresy or error.

Baptism of Desire is the teaching of the Church. Outside the Church There is No Salvation is the teaching of the Church. There is no contradiction between the two.

The Church does not allow heresy and error to be taught in its name.

Right, and there is no Novus Ordo.

The Novus Ordo did not come from the Church, and could never have been allowed to exist within the Church. The Catholic Church is always holy and always teaches the truth.

The Church is holy, it is not the pillar of heresy, error and evil. The Church is not the whore of Babylon!

No, it did not come from within the Church but it has convinced the world that it is the Church is what I was getting at.

The thing is that the dogma of exclusive salvation means exactly that. One who God (not us) determines is sincere and desires the sacrament will receive the sacrament, period. He could sustain the birds on nothing but air, but that's not how He created them - if they want to live, they must eat, and He feeds them. He could let us in without the Sacrament but that's not what he said He would do.

It takes God no more effort to allow the sincere person to live an additional hour or day or year or 1000 years for that matter in order to get the sacrament to that person, than it does to simply accept the person's good intentions.

The difference is that God said, and His Church has infallibly declared that the Sacrament is a necessity, or he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. God never said - nor are there any magisterial pronouncements that say some can get in without it.

BOD, regardless of whichever particular theory one subscribes to, all have the same thing in common, namely, in the name of some type of desire, they all ignore completely the requirement established by God and taught through His Church since the time of the Apostles.

I was reading old news articles on Google about the Boston Heresy Case and came across this article from 1949 about how the new catechism was revised so as to agree with those who accused Fr. Feeney of causing the scandal of disunity with "his interpretation" of the dogma.

Anyone who goes back to read some of these articles cannot help but see that the crooks were already in charge back in those days and that the crooks still use the same methods to stay in control - 1) they silence the good guy, 2) they ignore all pleas for justice to be served in the matter, 3) after the initial slander campaign has been started, the crooks remain wholly silent, 4) the good guy is expelled, 5) the crooks now are free to promote error without much resistance because after seeing what happened to the good guy, no one wants to be subject to the BS.

Again, the question is asked - what becomes of the dead person if you are wrong vs what if we are wrong?

Ambrose · « **Reply #81 on:** June 21, 2013, 11:54:15 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
There is always the danger when combatting heresy and error, that one may swing to far and in one's zeal, create a new heresy or error.

Baptism of Desire is the teaching of the Church. Outside the Church There is No Salvation is the teaching of the Church. There is no contradiction between the two.

The Church does not allow heresy and error to be taught in its name.

Right, and there is no Novus Ordo.

The Novus Ordo did not come from the Church, and could never have been allowed to exist within the Church. The Catholic Church is always holy and always teaches the truth.

The Church is holy, it is not the pillar of heresy, error and evil. The Church is not the whore of Babylon!

No, it did not come from within the Church but it has convinced the world that it is the Church is what I was getting at.

The thing is that the dogma of exclusive salvation means exactly that. One who God (not us) determines is sincere and desires the sacrament will receive the sacrament, period. He could sustain the birds on nothing but air, but that's not how He created them - if they want to live, they must eat, and He feeds them. He could let us in without the Sacrament but that's not what he said He would do.

It takes God no more effort to allow the sincere person to live an additional hour or day or year or 1000 years for that matter in order to get the sacrament to that person, than it does to simply accept the person's good intentions.

The difference is that God said, and His Church has infallibly declared that the Sacrament is a necessity, or he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. God never said - nor are there any magisterial pronouncements that say some can get in without it.

BOD, regardless of whichever particular theory one subscribes to, all have the same thing in common, namely, in the name of some type of desire, they all ignore completely the requirement established by God and taught through His Church since the time of the Apostles.

I was reading old news articles on Google about the Boston Heresy Case and came across this article from 1949 about how the new catechism was revised so as to agree with those who accused Fr. Feeney of causing the scandal of disunity with "his interpretation" of the dogma.

Anyone who goes back to read some of these articles cannot help but see that the crooks were already in charge back in those days and that the crooks still use the same methods to stay in control - 1) they silence the good guy, 2) they ignore all pleas for justice to be served in the matter, 3) after the initial slander campaign has been started, the crooks remain wholly silent, 4) the good guy is expelled, 5) the crooks now are free to promote error without much resistance because after seeing what happened to the good guy, no one wants to be subject to the BS.

Again, the question is asked - what becomes of the dead person if you are wrong vs what if we are wrong?

The church you are describing as the Catholic Church is a source of error and heresy. Baptism of Desire has been taught in catechisms, by the Doctors, theologians, approved books, etc.

If Baptism of Desire was a heresy or error, then the Church would have allowed heresy to be published and taught as truth. Catholic children, adults, and seminarians would have been taught heresy for almost a millennium by the official structures and teaching docuмents used to instruct Catholics.

This mentality leads to a great distrust of the Holy See and the bishops in communion with the pope, the Shepherds.

In answer to your question, why worry about the dead? What can you do about it anyway? We profess our faith, we live the duties of our state, we pray for the conversion of unbelievers and sinners, etc.

For all I know a non-Catholic may be dying, and an angel visits him, instructs him, and the man explicitly accepts the Catholic Faith and makes a perfect act of love for God, and desires to be baptized. He then dies before his baptism, visibly outside the Church, but as one who believes the Faith and who is justified before God. I have no doubt that this man will have saved his soul, through baptism of desire.

I can say that because I can trust the Church who approved the doctors, theologians, canonists, seminary books, catechisms that tell me to believe this.

Stubborn · « **Reply #82 on:** June 22, 2013, 05:01:45 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

The church you are describing as the Catholic Church is a source of error and heresy. Baptism of Desire has been taught in catechisms, by the Doctors, theologians, approved books, etc.

If Baptism of Desire was a heresy or error, then the Church would have allowed heresy to be published and taught as truth. Catholic children, adults, and seminarians would have been taught heresy for almost a millennium by the official structures and teaching docuмents used to instruct Catholics.

This mentality leads to a great distrust of the Holy See and the bishops in communion with the pope, the Shepherds.

No, the Church has not allowed error to be taught, the Church, through the popes and councils, have infallibly declared that the sacrament is necessary for salvation, and through the common and constant consent of Her theologians, She has taught that the sacrament is necessary for salvation. A few pages of some of the great saints teaching it do not qualify as " the Church teaching BOD".

She left no wiggle room. She taught no exceptions.

Why She has not explicitly condemned BOD we can only guess, but until She either defines it or condemns it, we cannot believe that the Sacrament is both an absolute necessity for all - but not for all - anymore than we can believe that anyone whose life was lived rejecting the Church can slide in at the final moment via some implicit desire.

Quote from: Ambrose

In answer to your question, why worry about the dead? What can you do about it anyway? We profess our faith, we live the duties of our state, we pray for the conversion of unbelievers and sinners, etc.

Well this is what it is all about - death and eternal condemnation or salvation.

Quote from: Ambrose

For all I know a non-Catholic may be dying, and an angel visits him, instructs him, and the man explicitly accepts the Catholic Faith and makes a perfect act of love for God, and desires to be baptized. He then dies before his baptism, visibly outside the Church, but as one who believes the Faith and who is justified before God. I have no doubt that this man will have saved his soul, through baptism of desire.

The notion of "baptism of desire"-and it is only a notion, there is no doctrine to it-falls into the same category as the Protestant form of confession, the confession of one's sins "directly to Christ." As it is stated, it sounds pious and adequate. But God says it is insufficient, because He forgives sins through the Church only, and one must submit oneself to the Church to receive this forgiveness.

Can we agree on this point?

Isaac Jogues · « **Reply #83 on:** June 22, 2013, 06:55:40 AM »

Quote

Why She has not explicitly condemned BOD we can only guess, but until She either defines it or condemns it, we cannot believe that the Sacrament is both an absolute necessity for all - but not for all - anymore than we can believe that anyone whose life was lived rejecting the Church can slide in at the final moment via some implicit desire.

1Cor 11:19-"For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you."

This is the reason right here. God allows some errors to happen to see who is truly devoted to His Church and the magisterium. We have to work at our faith. Someone who really loves the truth is going to say, "wait, the Church teaches that one must be Sacramentally Baptized to be a member of the Church and be an actual member of the Church to be saved. It doesn't seem like BOD brings people into the Church and the Church teaches a person cannot be saved like that."
The people of good will know this and it's very clear. They don't have to say things like "BOD and EENS are completely compatible" because they're not.

The magisterium is the Proximate rule of faith. We can and should learn from Catechisms, Theologians, and Doctors of the Church unless they contradict what Holy Mother Church teaches. She is what interprets scripture and tradition for us and Her definitions are never hard to understand because they ARE the explanations of Divine Revelation.

Ambrose · « **Reply #84 on:** June 22, 2013, 07:32:12 AM »

Isaac and Stubborn,

Hypothetically, if your theory were true, then the Church would have defected, and would have ended. Such could not happen, it is heresy to think such an idea.

The Church cannot lead Catholics astray in matters of Faith and morals. The Church teaches us not only in ex cathedral pronouncements, but in its ordinary teaching. The Church teaches her children through its approved catechisms, it teaches its seminarians through the manuals, it teaches through its sermons, and books approved to instruct Cathoilics.

If your theory were correct, then the Church would have allowed a "heresy" to be taught explicitly for about a thousand years. Not only would this "heresy" have been tolerated, it was explicitly taught as Catholic belief to Catholics throughout the world in the Roman Catechism and the regional catechisms. Along with the catechisms the "heresy" was taught to seminarians throughout the world in their dogmatic theology manuals, and the Doctors and theologians were allowed to espouse heresy in their writings for the last thousand years.

I do not believe either of you understand the proximate rule of faith. I also do not think you grasp that the Church does not tolerate heresy and approve of it. If the Church did as you allege, it would not be the Church, it would lack the marks.

The church you are describing is "many, unholy, uncatholic and non-apostolic."

Stubborn · « **Reply #85 on:** June 22, 2013, 08:02:55 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Isaac and Stubborn,

Hypothetically, if your theory were true, then the Church would have defected, and would have ended. Such could not happen, it is heresy to think such an idea.

The Church cannot lead Catholics astray in matters of Faith and morals. The Church teaches us not only in ex cathedral pronouncements, but in its ordinary teaching. The Church teaches her children through its approved catechisms, it teaches its seminarians through the manuals, it teaches through its sermons, and books approved to instruct Cathoilics.

This is one of the misunderstandings - that because BOD is taught and appears in text books (*revised* catechisms, writings of *some* Fathers, theologians etc) that the Church allows it.

The Church has already condemned it, albeit not explicitly, but it (salvation outside the Church) keeps resurfacing and people keep accepting a condemned teaching as though it is allowed.

There is no doctrine of BOD or BOB (which are essentially the same) and in fact, pope Eugene IV condemned the error infallibly - "....Not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can [he] be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

"BOD" has gone from Trent's catechism, which is excellently explaining the dogma defined at Trent:

The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.

To the Baltimore Catechism's explicit contradiction of Scripture (Eph. 4:5)

Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

To the latest catechism from the Conciliar Church's CCC

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

This is what you believe constitutes an approved teaching of the Church. It is right here for you to compare Trent's teaching to the obvious lie printed in the CCC.

Ambrose · « **Reply #86 on:** June 22, 2013, 07:35:46 PM »

You are presuming that Baptism of Desire and EENS somehow contradict. There is no contradiction. They are both part of the Church's teaching, and both must be believed.

Ambrose · « **Reply #87 on:** June 22, 2013, 07:37:36 PM »

I do not read the CCC, but I do keep a copy for reference. It is heretical and it is not a catechism from the Church.

Isaac Jogues · « **Reply #88 on:** June 23, 2013, 12:29:09 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

I do not read the CCC, but I do keep a copy for reference. It is heretical and it is not a catechism from the Church.

You say that the CCC is heretical but it says pretty much exactly as you believe.

Quote

You are presuming that Baptism of Desire and EENS somehow contradict. There is no contradiction. They are both part of the Church's teaching, and both must be believed.

Quote

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

No contradiction?
You are saying that the Desire for Baptism supplies the fruits of sacramental Baptism, i.e. remission of all types of sin and the punishment due to it and membership into the Church. Since we cannot enter into heaven with original sin and without membership in the Church then you have to say that BOD/BOB have the same sacramental effect of water Baptism.
In effect this means that there is more than one Baptism which is condemned.

SJB · « **Reply #89 on:** June 23, 2013, 06:39:30 AM »

Quote

You say that the CCC is heretical but it says pretty much exactly as you believe.

Obviously, not everything found in the CCC is heretical. If you go back to pre-V2 you'll find many things have not changed, but that's not what makes it heretical. If you had any sense you'd have seen Ambrose was saying it cannot be used as a guide and he keeps it for reference.