CathInfo.com

To elaborate on the point of this thread, Boru's invocation of "Hebrew thought"…

Boru:

In Hebrew thought, …

"In Hebrew thought…". So much for Catholic dogma, eh? After you were called on this, you first lied that there was “no rhyme or reason” to challenge you about invoking “Hebrew thought” in a discussion about Catholic dogma— only later to claim the opposite.

Belatedly you claimed there actually was a reason to discuss “Hebrew thought”:

Boru, a verbatim quote:

“This use of the word Hebrew was used in order to show that the word 'righteousness' has always been, even in the OLD TESTAMENT, to mean 'holiness',”

That is another lie.*

Not only is there no Catholic use of “Hebrew” to convey “righteousness,”* the Jews use the Hebrew word for “righteous”
( צַדִיק transliterated variously as ’zaddik’ or 'tsedeq') as a name for their revered тαℓмυdic rabbis—as in the Koliner rabbi’s claim [referenced in my previous posts] that “A Zaddik decrees and God obeys.”

• See the end of this post regarding my Grok inquiry on that point.

I am sure that this irony is lost on you.

In dissembling to vindicate your invocation of “Hebrew thought,” you have actually dug yourself deeper into the pit of hell.
You sought solace in “Hebrew thought” which actually claims the Zaddik, the rabbis, have authority over God Himself and who have the authority to alter Scripture.**

You reject the Word of God (John 3:5) and you reject the Extraordinary Magisterium of His Church. You emulate the damned rabbis in such usurpation and rejection and you invoke “Hebrew thought” as part of your ineffectual defense. Oh, the irony!

No amount of verbosity or word salad slithering allows you to escape your mirroring “Hebrew thought” in rejecting the Truth and substituting instead a bunch of man-made bullshit. You emulate the worst of "Hebrew thought."

You lie on the spot to make up any bullshit that is convenient at the moment to promote your errors.


**

The Koliner rebbe [17th century rabbi of Prague] stated, “Our Zaddikim’s (famous Orthodox rabbis) words are more important than the Torah of Moses As our Sages teach: A Zaddik decrees, and God obeys.”

“God smiled and said: ‘My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me!’ God’s sons ‘defeated him’ with their arguments. Rabbi Yehoshua was correct in his contention that a view confirmed by majority vote must be accepted, even where God Himself holds the opposite view.”
Babylonian тαℓмυd, Tractate Bava Metzia 59b, Steinsaltz Edition [NY: Random House 1990], Vol. III p.237

“... The rabbi constituted the projection of the divine on earth. Honor was due him more than to the scroll of the Torah, for through his learning and logic he might alter the very content of Mosaic revelation. He was Torah, not merely because he lived by it, but because at his best he constituted as compelling an embodiment of the heavenly model as did a Torah scroll itself.”
Rabbi Jacob Neusner, “The Phenomenon of the Rabbi in Late Antiquity: II The Ritual of ‘Being a Rabbi’ in Later Sasanian Babylonia,” Numen, Vol.17, Fasc. 1., Feb., 1970, pp.3-4

* Now for Boru's claim that the word "Hebrew" is "always" understood as "righteousness," I asked Grok:

Is there any sense in which Catholic theology considers the word "Hebrew" as a synonym, metaphor, or simile for the word "righteousness"?


Grok answers:

No, there is no evidence in Catholic theology that the word "Hebrew" is considered a synonym, metaphor, or simile for "righteousness."

The term "Hebrew" (from the Hebrew "Ivri") is typically interpreted in Catholic sources, such as the writings of St. Jerome and other Church Fathers, as an ethnic designation derived from Abraham's ancestor Eber (Genesis 10:21, 11:14-17) or as meaning "one who crosses over" or "passer-by" (from the root 'abar, referring to Abraham's migration across the Euphrates River from Ur to Canaan). This "crossing over" is sometimes symbolically linked to Abraham's faith journey away from idolatry toward God, as seen in patristic commentaries on Genesis 14:13. Abraham himself is a model of righteousness by faith in Catholic teaching (e.g., Romans 4, cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras. 144-147), but the word "Hebrew" itself is not used as a direct stand-in for "righteousness."

The Hebrew word for "righteousness" is instead "tsedeq" or "tzedakah," which denotes justice, moral uprightness, or covenant fidelity, and is unrelated etymologically or theologically to "Hebrew" in Catholic tradition. Any symbolic connection between Abraham's "Hebrew" identity and righteousness stems from Jєωιѕн midrashic interpretations (e.g., Abraham standing alone against the world for God), which Catholic theology may acknowledge in broader biblical exegesis but does not adopt as a direct equivalence for the term.


My follow-up question to Grok:

Is  צַדִיק , transliterated variously as ’zaddik’ or 'tsedeq', also a term of reverence used by тαℓмυdic Jews to refer to "sages" and respected rabbis?


Grok answers:

Yes, the Hebrew term **צַדִּיק** (transliterated as *tzaddik* or *tsaddik*) is used in Jєωιѕн tradition, including тαℓмυdic literature, as a term of reverence to refer to exceptionally righteous individuals, sages, or respected rabbis. The word derives from the root **צ-ד-ק** (*ts-d-q*), meaning "righteousness" or "justice," and denotes someone who embodies moral and spiritual uprightness.

In тαℓмυdic and later Jєωιѕн tradition, a *tzaddik* is not merely a "righteous person" in a general sense but often carries a specific connotation of holiness, wisdom, and closeness to God. The term is applied to figures such as revered rabbis, sages, or spiritual leaders who exemplify piety and adherence to Torah. For example:
- In the тαℓмυd, figures like Rabbi Akiva or Hillel are implicitly regarded as *tzaddikim* due to their exemplary lives and teachings, though the term is not always explicitly applied to every sage.
- In later Jєωιѕн mysticism, particularly in Hasidism, the *tzaddik* became a central figure, often referring to a rebbe (spiritual leader) believed to have a unique connection to God, capable of interceding for their followers. The Hasidic concept of the *tzaddik* builds on earlier тαℓмυdic reverence but elevates it with mystical significance.

The related term **צְדָקָה** (*tzedakah*), also from the same root, refers to acts of charity or righteousness but is distinct from *tzaddik*, which describes a person. In Catholic theology, as noted previously, *tzaddik* or *tsedeq* is understood as "righteousness" in biblical contexts (e.g., in the Hebrew Scriptures), but the specific Jєωιѕн usage as a title for revered sages or rabbis is not paralleled in Catholic tradition, which has its own categories like "saint" or "doctor of the Church" for venerated figures.

I have said that a Baptism—of—Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death as one of "the faithful departed.” Were he to be revivified immediately after death—were he to come to life again—he would not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by water. Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get into the Church Militant without it. - Fr. Feeney

Let the Baltimore Catechism answer Fr. Feeney's flawed reasoning:


The Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 765. What is perfect contrition?
A. Perfect contrition is that which fills us with sorrow and hatred for sin, because it offends God, who is infinitely good in himself and worthy of all love.
Q. 766. When will perfect contrition obtain pardon for mortal sin without the sacrament of penance?
A. Perfect contrition will obtain pardon for mortal sin without the sacrament of penance when we cannot go to confession, but with the perfect contrition we must have the intention of going to confession as soon as possible, if we again have the opportunity

If sincere and perfect contrition can grant us the effects of confession before the actual sacrament of confession, then it stands to reason that a sincere and perfect desire for the sacrament of baptism can grant us the effects of baptism before actually getting the sacrament.  The words "sincere and perfect", of course, make this conditional. Meaning, that if the the contrition or the desire is indeed sincere and perfect, the person will have the firm resolution to do what the Church asks: submit to the Sacraments as soon as they can. Naturally, if it is impossible - death/imprisonment - then God takes the intent to submit to the sacraments as fact. If a person did die without the sacrament of baptism - but had longed for it and studied for it and booked a date - he would die a baptized Catholic. If miraculously, he was revived, then he would have the freedom to fulfill his intention because that is part of the condition.

In the case of the extra-ordinary, Baptism of Desire = Baptism of Water. So Fr. Feeney's positing has no meaning. In the case of the extra-ordinary, the person enters the Church Triumphant with the effects of the Baptism of Water.

The Church teaches that God alone knows the heart and judges accordingly (Hebrews 4:12).

Let the Baltimore Catechism answer Fr. Feeney's flawed reasoning:

The Baltimore Catechism:

If sincere and perfect contrition can grant us the effects of confession before the actual sacrament of confession, then it stands to reason that a sincere and perfect desire for the sacrament of baptism can grant us the effects of baptism before actually getting the sacrament.  The words "sincere and perfect", of course, make this conditional. Meaning, that if the the contrition or the desire is indeed sincere and perfect, the person will have the firm resolution to do what the Church asks: submit to the Sacraments as soon as they can. Naturally, if it is impossible - death/imprisonment - then God takes the intent to submit to the sacraments as fact. If a person did die without the sacrament of baptism - but had longed for it and studied for it and booked a date - he would die a baptized Catholic. If miraculously, he was revived, then he would have the freedom to fulfill his intention because that is part of the condition.

In the case of the extra-ordinary, Baptism of Desire = Baptism of Water. So Fr. Feeney's positing has no meaning. In the case of the extra-ordinary, the person enters the Church Triumphant with the effects of the Baptism of Water.

The Church teaches that God alone knows the heart and judges accordingly (Hebrews 4:12).

Ah, more of your disgraceful lying.  While the Baltimore Catechism is not to be taken as some kind of theological rule (that was not its purpose), and Msgr. Fenton points out numerous regrettable errors in it, it is correct on this point, as the Council of Trent taught that perfection contrition (combined with the intention to go to Confession ... we notice that you failed to underline that part, deliberately, as per your pattern of lying and distortion) can return someone to a state of grace.  There can be no jutification without the Sacraments, so there's no such thing as forgiveness of sins fallen into after initial justification without the Sacrament of Confessions, even if its effects can be had by the mere intention to receive it.

But then you blunder and fumble with your "stands to reason".  No, it does NOT stand to reason that ALL the effects of the Sacrament of Baptism can be had by the intention to receive it.  Baptism is a Character Sarament, and even proponents of BoD admit that BoD does not confer the Sacramental character, even if it can remit (punishment due to) sin.  That's precisely the meaning of St. Ambrose's "washed but not crowned", where he posits some measure of forgiveness for sins, but without crowning, which is what is required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, aka justification without salvation, a certain forgiveness of (the punishment due to) sin without ultimately being in a position to enter the Beatfic Vision ... similar to the state that infants end up in Limbo.  You can no more receive all the effects of Baptism by "desire" than you can receive Holy Orders of Desire or Confirmation of Desire (the other two Character Sacraments).  Not sure which part of this does not compute to you.

You're a bumbling fool, who bumble and stumble from one error to another all because you hate the Church's EENS dogma and are simply looking for reasons to reject it, or to "distinguish" it away so that you can pretend you believe in it by paying lips service to the (for you meaningless) formula.

You cannot draw conclusions from Confession to Baptism, since they're completely different Sacraments.  In fact, Trent EXPLICITLY states that they are in fact different.  So unless you account for the differences, your "stands to reason" represents yet another epic fail.

Melchior Cano, OP, also held that there can be justification without salvation, for people such as infidels.  In fact, that's the state that unbaptized infants in Limbo are in, a state of justification (friendship with God due to lack of actual sin) without salvation (entery into the supernatural state, the Beatific Vision, which can only be had by the Sacraments and elevation to the supernatural state).  It is my contention, consistent with the Church Fathers, that the character is in fact what bestows the supernatural faculty (that we lack by nature) that allows us to see God as He is, i.e. experience the Beatific Vision.  That's why the Fathers refer to it as the "crowning" ... ya know, to allow you to enter the KINGdom.  Get it?  Or else the "glory", by which they are referring to elevation to the supernatural state and the Beatific Vision.