Author Topic: The Revolution Takes Hold Under Pius XII (Read 16718 times)

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #165 on:** November 07, 2012, 08:37:34 PM »

bowler, the simple fact is that you contradict St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, etc., and contradicting the unanimous interpretation of St. Ambrose by other theologians in denying BOD.

roscoe · « **Reply #166 on:** November 08, 2012, 11:38:00 AM »

Getting back on topic--- Acc to Gallagher in Vatican Secret Diplomacy, Card Pacelli's meeting with Roosenveldt in 1936 went like this.........

Roosenveldt tells Pacelli( pronounced PaCHelli--- not Paselli) that he is afraid the US will go 'Fascist'. The Cardinal then chides the Pres telling him that US is in much more danger of turning Communist. He was right of course.

Any idea( like that previously noted in this topic) that Pius XII was secretly soft on Communism is a joke.

bowler · « **Reply #167 on:** November 08, 2012, 02:56:04 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

bowler, the simple fact is that you contradict St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, etc., and contradicting the unanimous interpretation of St. Ambrose by other theologians in denying BOD.

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
I'm done here. All you keep on asking is already furnished by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, Popes Innocent II and III; again, you haven't proven at all BOD was denied by the early Church Fathers. All the above people I posted interpreted St. Ambrose in favor of BOD. If that doesn't make you believe, what else can I say except nothing?

I believe that you ran away because you did not want to answer my last question;

Quote
Bowler asked: Before we continue, please advise me where you stand with regard to the question of whether explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation of all those baptized by desire, or whether explicit faith in God and His Providence is sufficient ?

bowler · « **Reply #168 on:** November 08, 2012, 03:01:24 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

No, I agree with St.Alphonsus (and Suarez, for that matter, and a host of other authorities) that the Holy Innocents were baptized by blood, not by desire, which cannot apply to infants. That the Holy Innocents, the infants killed by Herod in pursuing Christ, were true martyrs.

Do you even deny that they taught this?

How many times do EENSers have to tell you that the Holy Innocents died under the old covenant? The Holy Innocents did not have to be baptized to go to paradise with Adam and Eve and everyone that was there with them. You might as well say that John the Baptist was saved by baptism of blood.

roscoe · « **Reply #169 on:** November 08, 2012, 03:09:51 PM »

More from Gallagher

pg 88.....'Astonishingly(? my note), Pacelli saw Hitler's nαzιsm as merely a political ruse. Aware that Hitler's earliest ostensible political alliance was with the socialist German Workers Party in 1919, he remained suspicious of Hitler a s politician of the left.

Acc to Pacelli, Hitler was not a true nαzι & would end up in the camp of the left wing nαzι extremists where he began his career. '

Nishant · « **Reply #170 on:** November 08, 2012, 04:00:03 PM »

What the example of the Holy Innocents suffices to establish is that there are extraordinary means of baptism. They did die under the Old Covenant, but they died as true martyrs and therefore it is to be held that they were thereby united to His future passion in a baptism like His. This is the teaching of Tradition.

Quote from: St.Alphonsus

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. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ.

Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious.

Explanation of terms:

Quote

Theological Note:   Certain.
Equivalent term:   Common; theologically certain.
Explanation:   A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning.
Example:   The true and strict causality of the sacraments.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition:   Temerarious.
Effects of denial:   Usually, mortal sin of temerity.

bowler · « **Reply #171 on:** November 08, 2012, 05:58:31 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

What the example of the Holy Innocents suffices to establish is that there are extraordinary means of baptism. ]

The Holy Innocents did not need the ordinary, nor the "extraordinary" means of baptism to be saved, why they would be used as examples of them, just shows why we follow dogma, and not individual opinions, like the erroneous opinion that started this thread, that baptism of desire is defide.

By the way, do you have an example of baptism of blood on infants since the new covenant? I never heard of one myself.

Nishant · « **Reply #172 on:** November 09, 2012, 09:21:05 AM »

There are so many mistakes in what you post, I don't know where to start. So much of what you say has been said exactly in the past, and condemned by the Magisterium.

You cited a Fr.Cekada article in the past, here is one of his writings on this subject.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf

Quote

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience
all those Catholics are bound ... also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter, Pope Pius IX

Your opinions would certainly merit many censures.

Theologians have “obscured” the more important truths of our faith. (Condemned by Pius VI.)

Catholics are obliged to believe only those matters infallibly proposed as dogmas. (Condemned by Pius IX.)

Encyclicals do not demand assent, because popes are not exercising their supreme power. (Condemned by Pius XII.)

You ought to have the attitude of a student, not of a teacher proposing to teach the world, including learned and eminent theologians of the past whose teaching has been approved by the Church.

bowler · « **Reply #173 on:** November 09, 2012, 10:14:56 AM »

You have a habit of constantly going outside of the subject to defend your ideas by threats of sin. But your theories of sin and disobedience are based on the your own erroneuos theological speculations.

Let me say it once more:

It is not a sin to believe "that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them that which the Almighty has predestined."

It is not a sin to understand the nine dogmas on EENS exactly as they are clearly written. That all non-Catholics who die as non-members of the Church go to perdition.

It is not a sin to believe the dogma of the Church that only the sacramentally baptized are members of the body.

bowler · « **Reply #174 on:** November 09, 2012, 10:36:30 AM »

Two new items to the list of "additions to make scripture work" for baptism of desire, see in blue, the Holy Innocents and Good Thief:

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Nishant

Now, when you say,
Quote
Bowler said; "Cornelius is not an example of baptism of desire, for he was baptized. You could say that Cornelius is an example of receiving justification a few minutes before baptism, but never that it's an example of baptism of desire, because they were baptized."

This is incorrect, for we are both agreed no one can receive justification wholly apart from baptism, therefore we must conclude by the witness of inspired Scripture that Cornelius received an extraordinary means of baptism. Now, this understanding is exactly the testimony of Tradition on Cornelius too. Therefore, this doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith, and must be accepted like any other.

Bowler answered;
Baptism of desire is just a theological construct that answers a flawed question: "What happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can be baptized".

St. Augustine said that “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined. In other words, there has never been a justified person who dies before he can be baptized". God can complete what he started.

The BODer on the otherhand, says that such a person can exist. They thus take the laws of probability over the Providence of God, and then begin to speculate.

Thus, they do the same to scripture, they add what is not there.
They ask basically, what would have happened to Cornelius had he not been baptized? And they answer: Well, he was justified, so he would have been saved without baptism.

However, scripture does not say that Cornelius was not baptized.

They say that the Holy Innocents are an example of baptism of blood of infants, therefore, all the aborted children today are saved by baptism of blood. However, the Holy Innocents died under the Old Covenant. They did not need to be baptized in any way water, desire or blood to go to paradise with Adam & Eve all the way to the Good Thief. They say never mind that.
They do the same with Trent, it teaches that a person can be justified by his desire to be baptized, so they ask "What happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can be baptized". Trent says nothing about it. But they say, it's just like the teaching in Trent about a "perfect act of contrition". In other words, again, they again have to add something that is not there.

The Church infallible teaches that only the sacramentally baptized are members, and that all who die non-members, are outside of the Church, and lost. That “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith....that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ”

The BODer has to again add to that dogma, a new category, a person that although not a member, is "united mysteriously by desire and longing".

All of that and much more additions, and speculations, almost limitless, just to answer a question which is flawed. AND all of the while NEVER anything said about BOD in any dogmatic decree in the history of the Church.

St. Augustine was right:

St. Augustine: "It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him"

SJB · « **Reply #175 on:** November 09, 2012, 11:31:23 AM »

This is a waste of time but I'll make a few points:

Quote from: bowler

It is not a sin to understand the nine dogmas on EENS exactly as they are clearly written. That all non-Catholics who die as non-members of the Church go to perdition.

It is not a sin to believe the dogma of the Church that only the sacramentally baptized are members of the body.

The dogma is that outside the Church there is no salvation. This does not mention membership and that's not accidental. You have argued earlier that even members of the Church are outside Her, when they clearly are not. In the end, not all members are saved, and not all who are saved were members. However, all who are saved were within the Church.

You don't want to believe this in your current state, and I am certainly not capable of convincing you.

bowler · « **Reply #176 on:** November 09, 2012, 11:33:06 AM »

BIG CORRECTION:

Quote from: bowler

You have a habit of constantly going outside of the subject to defend your ideas by threats of sin. But your theories of sin and disobedience are based on the your own erroneuos theological speculations.

Let me say it once more:

It is not a sin to believe "that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them that which the Almighty has predestined."

It is not a sin to understand the nine dogmas on EENS exactly as they are clearly written. That all non-Catholics who die as non-members of the Church go to perdition.

It is not a sin to believe the dogma of the Church that only the sacramentally baptized are members of the body.

bowler · « **Reply #177 on:** November 09, 2012, 12:02:32 PM »

Quote from: SJB

This is a waste of time but I'll make a few points:

Quote from: bowler
It is not a sin to understand the nine dogmas on EENS exactly as they are clearly written. That all non-Catholics who die as non-members of the Church go to perdition.

It is not a sin to believe the dogma of the Church that only the sacramentally baptized are members of the body.

The dogma is that outside the Church there is no salvation. This does not mention membership and that's not accidental.

That's a new one on me, it's up to you to prove it.

Quote from: SJB

You have argued earlier that even members of the Church are outside Her, when they clearly are not.

P.S.- I never said that "even members of the Church are outside Her'.

That's a total strawman, not worth answering. There's a whole thread on the subject to which you contributed. It is very clear what I wrote. I don't see anyone saying anything anymore after I posted my sources. Just because you never learned something, does not mean that it is wrong.

SJB · « **Reply #178 on:** November 09, 2012, 12:43:28 PM »

The dogma is outside the Church, there is no salvation. You need to show how actual membership is involved, and please show your sources. That is, an authority who explains the dogma the way you supposed learned it. I'm not interested in your doing your own theology.

Nishant · « **Reply #179 on:** November 09, 2012, 12:54:19 PM »

Sigh. It's not I who condemned your opinion, it's the Church herself that did so long ago. Bowler, I'd appreciate a yes or no answer to these questions.

1. Do you know that the opinion that Catholics ought to believe only dogmas is condemned? Do you accept Tuas Libenter of Pope Pius IX, that Catholics are bound to believe not only the dogmas of the Church but also what are held by theologians to be certain conclusions derived from revealed truths? Do you agree that denying these latter would merit censures and have been proscribed by the Magisterium in the past?

Quote from: Bowler

Baptism of desire is just a theological construct that answers a flawed question: "What happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can be baptized".

This is completely wrong.

2. Baptism of desire is merely an extraordinary means of baptism. It merely asserts that the effects of baptism, which is justification, can be received in extraordinary circuмstances without the matter and the form of the sacrament by the dispensation of God who has so instituted it.

I could take many examples, but I'll stick with Cornelius. You don't seem to understand the point about Cornelius at all. Consider this syllogism,

i. Justification cannot now take place without baptism (Trent)
ii. Cornelius received justification before water baptism (which you accept)
iii. Therefore, from i and ii, it follows that Cornelius received an extraordinary means of baptism.

Do you deny i or ii?

This suffices to disprove your claim that there are no extraordinary means of baptism.

St.Peter was preaching about the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. Cornelius did not desire baptism explicitly, but only implicitly, by implicit desire is meant that he had the right disposition of the will that was resolved to do all that God required and so God animated it with perfect charity.

And this the Prince of the Apostles himself bears witness to saying "They have received the Holy Ghost just as we have". Only after this were they baptized in water.

This is also the testimony of Tradition about Cornelius.

3. Lastly, only the following two points remain.

i. All who die in the state of mortal sin and death are lost in eternity, and equally certainly,
ii. All who die in the state of justification and grace are saved.

Do you actually deny one of these?