Author Topic: The Dimonds latest (Read 4028 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #45 on:** August 23, 2013, 01:30:17 PM »

This is the passage, and apart from its plain sense, the proofs St. Thomas adduces from other texts and glosses seem amply sufficient to me

Quote from: Acts 10

44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.
45 And the faithful of the circuмcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.
46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God.
47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.

But we'll come back to that. What is your view on the excerpt from the Catechism of Trent cited above?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #46 on:** August 23, 2013, 01:31:28 PM »

SJB, I have yet to see any substantial argument from you. You have absolutely nothing to offer by way of rational argument.

"You cannot play baseball without a ball or a bat, since you need a ball and a bat to play baseball."

No idiot would read this to say that you can play baseball with EITHER a ball OR a bat, rather, but that you need both ... since the second part completely disambiguates the first.

Similarly, with Trent, there's an immediate disambiguation offered: "[Justification] however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected without the laver of regeneration or the will for it, as it is written: 'Unless a man be born gain of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'

Same thing here as in the baseball example:

"Justification cannot happen without the laver or the will for it, since one must be born again of water (laver) and the Holy Ghost (Who predisposes the will for it, cf. the rest of Trent's teaching on Justification)."

Similarly, no idiot would read this to mean, "You can have justification with one or the other, since Jesus said you need both." You would have a contradition of Our Lord's own words in the teaching of Trent.

If you look at all of Trent the "votum" refers to the will (votum derives from the Latin word for will) being "moved freely by the Holy Ghost" towards justification in the Sacrament of Baptism.

It's very telling that St. Robert Bellarmine (a Trent Father) did not cite this passage to prove BoD, nor did St. Alphonsus Liguori. I submit that they would have had they read it the same way you do, SBJ, and that their failure to cite this passage indicates that they DID read it the way I do.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #47 on:** August 23, 2013, 01:39:42 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

This is the passage, and apart from its plain sense, the proofs St. Thomas adduces from other texts and glosses seem amply sufficient to me

Quote from: Acts 10
44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.
45 And the faithful of the circuмcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.
46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God.
47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.

But we'll come back to that. What is your view on the excerpt from the Catechism of Trent cited above?

Changing the subject like this usually betrays begging the question; you're looking for reasons to back up your preconceived beliefs. If one falls, I simply move on to the next.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #48 on:** August 23, 2013, 01:56:14 PM »

I will, nevertheless, address the Catechism of Trent issue tonight when I have some time.

SJB · « **Reply #49 on:** August 23, 2013, 02:05:17 PM »

Ladislaus, what I asked you for was a Catholic who saw this grave error and commented on it (other than you). What you're claiming is idiotic and what is even more disturbing is that it doesn't seem to bother you in the least that you have no source that agrees with you and you dismiss all sources that contradict you.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #50 on:** August 23, 2013, 02:33:06 PM »

I don't think that my interpretation of Trent is the least bit idiotic. Why don't you have a look and comment on my reading of it in substance instead of engaging in name-calling?

Let me turn this around. Can you cite the earliest (in time) source who reads this passage in Trent as teaching BoD?

St. Robert Bellarmine didn't read it that way, nor did St. Alphonsus, in their thinking on BoD. If in fact it reads the way I do, then you wouldn't have people really commenting on the passage to the effect of "No, this doesn't refer to BoD." In other words, silence on the matter could just mean that the meaning of this passge was not controveted.

Jehanne · « **Reply #51 on:** August 23, 2013, 05:59:24 PM »

Quote from: Deliveringit

WoW Jehanne. You argued against BOD in other Forums, but now you argue in favor of BOD in this Forum and you misread what the Council of Florence says to present your false position? This "charity" which unites one to Christ is speaking of "non-Catholics" in your opinion? Where does the Council of Florence say that? Stop giving us your false interpretations.

If one is united with Christ, then one is grafted into the body, and the body of Christ is the Church. So therefore that individual would be a member of the Church. Therefore 'charity' unites Catholics to Christ since Catholics are members of the Church. It does not unite non-Catholics who have not been water baptized. Jehanne, what happened to you? You buying into all the Vatican 2 lies now? I'm disappointed in you.

I don't believe that I have ever denied BOD/BOB; rather, the theological opinion that the omnipotent One and Triune God can bring the Waters of Baptism to those who love Him is just that, a theological opinion, one which even Pope Pius XII did not condemn, and he was certainly aware of it, as was the Holy Office.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #52 on:** August 23, 2013, 11:17:29 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Can you cite the earliest (in time) source who reads this passage in Trent as teaching BoD?

In my review of the topic, St. Alphonsus Liguori (1691-1787) would be in close proximity to this teaching from the Council of Trent.

Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
"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. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon "A p o s t o l i c a m D e P r e s b y t e r o N o n B a p t i z a t o" and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #53 on:** August 23, 2013, 11:29:17 PM »

On the same topic, St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) wrote in Liber II, Caput XXX, "Boni Catehecuмeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa" (Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).

Nishant · « **Reply #54 on:** August 24, 2013, 05:04:44 AM »

Moreover, Trent later speaks of desire with regards to the sacrament of penance, which teaching everyone acknowledges. The Holy Office Letter, which followers of Fr. Feeney don't accept, expressly points out, after saying the sacramental effects necessary for salvation can sometimes be had in desire, "This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807)."

Trent's usage, then, would seem to suggest that baptism of desire is to the sacrament of baptism as perfect contrition is to the sacrament of penance, as most Catholics understand.

Jehanne · « **Reply #55 on:** August 24, 2013, 07:08:05 AM »

Some of Father Feeney's followers were asked to "understand" the Holy Office letter as opposed to "accepting" it. The Holy Office letter nowhere states that it is de fide that there are individuals, since the Law of Baptism became obligatory, who are in Paradise and who lack that Sacrament. But, "Time & Eternity" will tell, and so, we agree, it is somewhat pointless to argue about this issue.

Here's the true beef:

The post-conciliar "Church" is not interested in converting non-Catholics to the One True Faith.

That's why they hate Traditionalists, and "Feeneyites", in particular. Honestly, I don't know what many of them believe. I think that most of them are like mainline Protestant denominations (Methodist, Espiocoplan, etc.), and they are into this, "All rivers flow to the same sea, All paths lead up the same mountain"-type indifferentism, and so they see no need to convert non-Catholics to the One True Faith, which is Roman Catholicism; as long as one has "fidelity to one's conscience," one can be saved, "at least by desire." I think that is what Karl Rahner taught and believed.

For them, dialogue with traditional Catholics is just another form of "ecuмenism," and as traditional Catholics ("Feeneyites" included) are opposed to the type of ecuмenism which does not at least desire that non-Catholics convert to the True Faith, the modernists do not like us. In addition, I think that we plant "seeds of doubt" in their de facto atheistic brains ("What if the Traditionalists are right?!"), because their theology simply does not make sense, is full of contradictions, logical fallacies, etc.