Author Topic: Raoul76 v. DeMaistre/Catholic Martyr (Read 1894 times)

DeMaistre · « **on:** June 26, 2009, 08:37:48 PM »

I'll make my opening statement. The Catholic Church professes ONE Baptism for the remission of sins, and solemnly declares that it is only through the laver of regeneration (water baptism) that one is joined to the Body of Christ, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.

Its clear if you look at the Holy Mass, that catachumens are not members of the Church. This is why they are dismissed before the Mass of the Faithful, because they are not among the Faithful (aka members of the Church). Therefore, a catachumen, should he expire before baptism, cannot be saved. To say otherwise is to deny the Catholic dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

The idea of "Baptism of Blood" is probably just an extension of the fact that a martyr is forgiven all his sins, and it (BoB) is destroyed single handedly by Cantate Domino.

"Baptism of Desire" on the other, is a more sticky mattter, since its never been condemned by name, however, it has never been declared that it must be believed de fide either. I now leave Raoul76 to make his opening statement.

CM · « **Reply #1 on:** June 27, 2009, 08:57:47 AM »

He won't. He's got nothing other than an illogical interpretation of Trent, and some saints here and there who made statements at one time or another in which they speculated about the possibility of BoD, often before retracting their position on the matter.

Finally, he doesn't WANT BoD to be heresy, because then he will have to change his whole life around again to separate himself from the heretics.

Also, DeMaistre, have you recognized Benedict XV as an antipope yet? Why do you still have Pio on your Blog? He was a schismatic at least and possibly a heretic. Bellarmine was a BoD heretic, and 'canonized' by an antipope.

CM · « **Reply #2 on:** June 27, 2009, 08:58:19 AM »

And what about the question I asked you about the FSSP?

Caminus · « **Reply #3 on:** June 27, 2009, 01:32:25 PM »

Quote from: DeMaistre

I'll make my opening statement. The Catholic Church professes ONE Baptism for the remission of sins, and solemnly declares that it is only through the laver of regeneration (water baptism) that one is joined to the Body of Christ, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.

That doesn't exclude the possibility that the effects of this one baptism can be applied in another mode. You are confusing an affirmative statement with an exclusive one.

Its clear if you look at the Holy Mass, that catachumens are not members of the Church. This is why they are dismissed before the Mass of the Faithful, because they are not among the Faithful (aka members of the Church). Therefore, a catachumen, should he expire before baptism, cannot be saved. To say otherwise is to deny the Catholic dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

You infer from one fact the impossibility of an unrelated question, whether in fact, one can be baptized by a desire for the sacrament if necessity presents itself. A good portion of logical thinking involves making legitimate inferences. This is an illegitimate inference.

Quote

The idea of "Baptism of Blood" is probably just an extension of the fact that a martyr is forgiven all his sins, and it (BoB) is destroyed single handedly by Cantate Domino.

How so?

Quote

"Baptism of Desire" on the other, is a more sticky mattter, since its never been condemned by name, however, it has never been declared that it must be believed de fide either. I now leave Raoul76 to make his opening statement.

What is of the ordinary magisterium must be believed as well. In addition, it could be argued, as Ligouri asserts, that it is in fact De Fide based upon the Council of Trent. In addition, you'll have to contend with hundreds Fathers, Doctors, Theologians, Popes, and Saints that say the contrary. Considering that you haven't perceived the difference of an affirmative vs. exclusive proposition as well as making a very bad inference blunder all in the same post, I think it is highly doubtful that you will succeed in overcoming this dogmatic tradition of the Catholic Church. What ever happened to that thing called 'humility'? I suppose it has no place in considering what constitues catholic doctrine.

CM · « **Reply #4 on:** June 30, 2009, 02:23:22 AM »

Caminus, Trent does not teach baptism of desire. Remember that textbook geometry stuff that you accused me of coming up with on my own? You are twisting the decree out of context.

And as for hundreds of saints, etc... It could be millions and I will never believe them over God the Holy Ghost.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** June 30, 2009, 02:41:32 AM »

DeMaistre,

Your opening statement is both bold (you are young and have had no real training) and incorrect. It is unwise to enter into public discussion of a matter that is beyond you. Go read St. Thomas Aquinas, pray, and ponder. If you need the contact information of a learned, aged, holy priest who can help you settle the matter, please let me know.

Caraffa · « **Reply #6 on:** June 30, 2009, 03:26:20 PM »

Quote

Apostolicam Sedem
Letter of Pope Innocent II to the Bishop of Cremona

"To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) 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. Read (brother) 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 in which 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."

CM/DM, Was Innocent II a heretic?
Was the last true Pope Honorius II in 1130 AD?

Matthew · « **Reply #7 on:** June 30, 2009, 03:39:04 PM »

With some sedes (note I said SOME), nothing with surprise me.

Just like nothing that happens at a Novus Ordo Mass surprises me. They are infinitely variable, and there's always someone even more in left field willing to push the envelope even further.

"Truth is one, error is many."

Matthew

DeMaistre · « **Reply #8 on:** June 30, 2009, 04:06:16 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

DeMaistre,

Your opening statement is both bold (you are young and have had no real training) and incorrect. It is unwise to enter into public discussion of a matter that is beyond you. Go read St. Thomas Aquinas, pray, and ponder. If you need the contact information of a learned, aged, holy priest who can help you settle the matter, please let me know.

I'm not sure how its incorrect, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it was. I'm actually wondering if professes BoD is actually heresy, since many holy men have believed it. I still disagree with it though.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #9 on:** June 30, 2009, 04:09:18 PM »

I think that I am old enough. St. Pius V entered the Inquisition at age 14.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** June 30, 2009, 04:50:46 PM »

One could easily say, "But you're no St. Pius V!"

But, more importantly, times were a lot different 500 years ago.

A 14-year-old male was mature enough to get married and support a family back then.

Matthew

Elizabeth · « **Reply #11 on:** June 30, 2009, 06:29:25 PM »

Maybe the Teen Hangout section of the forum would work?

roscoe · « **Reply #12 on:** June 30, 2009, 06:40:04 PM »

I have figured DeMaistre a shill or troll of sorts from about a week after he got here.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #13 on:** June 30, 2009, 10:09:15 PM »

:scratchchin:ya think? :scratchchin:

CM · « **Reply #14 on:** June 30, 2009, 10:37:13 PM »

You arrogant people! The man disagrees with your heresy so you attack his age! As though God could not choose the young and humble to know and believe His Truth!

Quote from: Caraffa

CM/DM, Was Innocent II a heretic?
Was the last true Pope Honorius II in 1130 AD?

First of all it was Innocent III, and no as a matter of fact he was not a heretic, since the necessity for water baptism was not dogmatically defined until the Council of Vienne about a hundred years later, and this was not a dogma held by unanimous consent of the Church Fathers.

If he had written this letter after Vienne, guess what- you still could not call him an antipope, because it is a private letter and would not constitute public or manifest heresy. Most people would be invincibly ignorant of the matter.

If he made it a public teaching after Vienne, heretic and to be rejected.

Furthermore do you believe everything you read? A priest who had persevered in the Holy Catholic Faith but was never baptized? :detective:

Just because a certain proposition has not been condemned by name doesn't mean that it's not heresy.

The dogmatic canons on baptism admit of NO exceptions, and if we want to argue that someone receives baptism after death by some heavenly minister, well sorry but that contradicts Florence, which states that those who die with original sin go straight to hell, not that they get help from some spirit after their death. Augustine and Ambrose lived before this decree also, so no no no they were not heretics.