Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"  (Read 1504605 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
« Reply #25 on: October 14, 2025, 01:40:55 PM »
Indeed, this is the conclusion I've come to. 
If you re-read Trent, it explains the difference between natural Faith and supernatural.  Between natural contrition and supernatural love of God (i.e. charity).

It is a doctrine that no man can come to God, in heaven, unless he have faith, hope, charity - the 3 supernatural virtues.
It is a doctrine that no man can attain such 3 virtues (on a supernatural level) unless God give them, as a gift.
It is a doctrine that no man can get them, except from the Church, thru the sacraments.


Quote
I personally hold that those who lived in invincible ignorance (say in the Americas before misisonaries), could in fact have arrived after death at something that does in fact approximate their notion of a "Happy Hunting Ground", to the extent that they lived in accordance with the natural law. 
And the number of indians who lived according to the natural law is as small as the number of good catholics who are saved.  Very small.  Most indian cultures practiced witchcraft, had slavery, were cannibals, practiced human sacrifice and were commonly involved in war and murder of other tribes.  Not to mention theft, multiple wives, etc, etc (i.e. normal immoral sins).  The idea that indians were "innocent natives" is NOT TRUE.

Quote
But this false dichotomy between ... either you behold the Face of God in the Beatific Vision ... or else you roast in Hell, this false dichotomy has caused the massive pushback against EENS dogma.
Right, there is a middle ground.  Even Christ says so in Scripture.

He who believes AND is baptized, is saved.  He who believes not, is condemned. (Mark 16:16)

Missing group of people = He who believes only, but no baptism = ??

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
« Reply #26 on: October 14, 2025, 02:12:36 PM »
Indeed, this is the conclusion I've come to.  I think that the reason so many push back against EENS is that they think some Jєωιѕн grandmother, who wasn't into any impurity, was kind and generous, and even perhaps gave her life to save her children, that she would end up standing right next to Joe Stalin in that same monolithic boiling cauldron of fire, jockeying for position there against some truly evil people, because she lacked Catholic faith.  And truly that would offend any concept of justice, so people push back against the idea of EENS ... because of this misinterpretation or misunderstanding.  Even one of the EENS definitions states within it that each one is punished according to his own sins.

But if we can continue and extend the thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas whereby he justified and promoted / taught the notion of Limbo, distinguishing between the natural punishments due to sin (poenae) and the supernatural state of the Beatific Vision, this objection can easily be made to evaporate.

I personally hold that those who lived in invincible ignorance (say in the Americas before misisonaries), could in fact have arrived after death at something that does in fact approximate their notion of a "Happy Hunting Ground", to the extent that they lived in accordance with the natural law.  But this false dichotomy between ... either you behold the Face of God in the Beatific Vision ... or else you roast in Hell, this false dichotomy has caused the massive pushback against EENS dogma.

Now, these must be taken with a huge grain of salt, but in a lot of those NDEs (Near Death Experiences), people die and go to a place that seems happy, see their relatives, etc. ... but then often report that there's some kind of gate or barrier (like the old stories of the pearly gates) that they can't get past.  In the story of the one native girl who was raised back to life and baptized by St. Peter Claver, she reported that she went to a certain point but could go no further due to lacking the wedding gown.  So, by all acounts, she was a virtuous girl, went to Mass and Communion daily, etc ... but evidently her Baptism had been invalid.  Certainly someone like that would have been a candidate for the so-called BoD, no?
In the book Gate of Heaven (attached), in Chapter 5 Sr. Catherine has a chapter about the "ignorant Native" which applies to everyone outside of the Church, including the Jєωιѕн Grandmother. To sum it up, she shows how the faith was known all over the entire world by the time of the death of the last Apostle:
Quote
"....We know, then, that long ago the Faith was held and lost, in these lands where it had flourished so gloriously. Now, loss of Faith is always culpable. It is always man’s fault, that is, when he has lost his God-given gift of Faith.  That is the clear teaching of the Church. It is by man’s sins — whether of neglect, sloth, indifference, worldliness, selfishness, vice — that he no longer believes.
And — and this is the significant fact with regard to the native — the sins of the fathers are visited upon their sons...."  


 


Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2025, 12:48:24 AM »
God says "water" is necessary. Boru says water is not necessary.

To contradict and over-rule God is тαℓмυdic.


The Koliner rebbe [17th century rabbi of Prague] states: “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.”
Jeremy Dauber, Antonio’s Devils: Writers of the Jєωιѕн Enlightenment and the Birth of Modern Hebrew and Yiddish Literature, Stanford University, 2004, ISBN-13: 978-0804749015, p. 276, also docuмented in Judaism Discovered, p. 298

“... 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

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 [Pharisaic-Rabbinic] schools believed that in heaven God and the angels studied Torah [i.e., тαℓмυd/Kabbalah] just as the rabbis did on earth. God donned phylacteries like a rabbi. He prayed in rabbinic mode ... He guided the affairs of the world according to the rules of the Torah, like the rabbi in his court. One exegesis of the Creation-legend taught that God had looked into the Torah and therefrom had created the world. Moreover, heaven was aware above of what the rabbis in particular thought, said, and did below. The myth of the Torah was multi-dimensional. It included the striking detail that whenever the most recent rabbi was destined to discover through proper exegesis of the tradition was as much of a part of the way revealed to Moses as was a sentence of Scripture itself. It was therefore possible to participate in the giving of the law, as it were, by appropriate, logical inquiry into the law. God himself, studying and living by Torah, was believed to subject himself to these same rules of logical inquiry, so if an earthly court overruled the testimony, delivered through some natural miracles, of the heavenly one, God would rejoice, crying out, ‘My sons have conquered me! My sons have conquered me!’
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


Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2025, 11:57:38 AM »


Who's the modernist?
You are the тαℓмυdic modernist.


Think about it carefully. "few are saved" Matthew 22:14, Luke 13:23).

I struggle for my own salvation with "fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12).

Meanwhile, using тαℓмυdic pilpul, you and the other sentimentalists over-rule God even though He "holds the opposite view" (John 3:5) and …Voila!… no more "fear and trembling"… no more "few are saved"… and water Baptism is optional.

Why do you let sentimentality question God's Word? …and shake your Faith in His Divine Mercy, Justice, and Providence?

While explicitly questioning the Truth of God's Word (John 3:5), you and the other the sentimentalists implicitly deny God's Mercy, Justice, and Providence.

Why don't you believe and trust God?

Why do you deny His Word (John 3:5), His Mercy, His Justice, His Providence?

Why do you deny His Extraordinary Magisterium (Councils of Florence and Trent)?

Why do you never address these fundamentals questions, even though you have been asked repeatedly?

Why did you choose the name of someone canonized by Wojtyla the Worst?

ANSWER: You are the тαℓмυdic modernist.





Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2025, 10:30:10 PM »

If I remain "obstinate" in my beliefs…

Yes…obstinate in opposing God Himself.


Quote
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:5


You deny His Word, His Divine Providence, His Omniscience, His Mercy, and His Justice… and then you bray that you follow… men.


Quote

But Peter and the apostles answering, said:
We ought to obey God, rather than men. Acts 5:29


Meanwhile you slither away.