In response to this deconstruction of Boru's 8 fundamental errors: https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/boru-salza/msg1001939/#msg1001939 Boru singled out the word "Hebrew" to launch into its variation on the Jesus-was-a-jew theme: https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/boru-salza/msg1001960/#msg1001960
In order to avoid derailing the main thread about its several fundamental errors, I post this subsidiary thread to discuss this particular "Hebrew thought" aspect of Boru.
In the thread about Baptism of Desire (BOD), it offered this bizarre, yet revealing non-sequitur:
What does the righteousness of a priest have to do with Baptism of Desire? Nothing. …and why invoke "Hebrew thought" amidst a discussion of Catholic Magisterium? Truly a bizaare non-sequitur, but dig deeper, why invoke "Hebrew thought"?
Having been overwhelmed with a series of un-rebuttable deconstructions of 8 fundamental aspects of its BOD advocacy, it whined about "ONE word":
Really? No "rhyme or reason" to question the relevance of "Hebrew thought" to defined Catholic dogma? Really???
"The Joos of today have no connection - neither religiously nor ethnically - to the Hebrews pre-Christ."? Really??? The "Hebrew thought" of the Pharises did not exist before Christ's Incarnation??? Nonsense!
Further, to pretend that "Hebrew thought" is the Mind of Christ, utterly ignores the dozens of New Testament passages wherein Christ damned the Hebrew thought of the Pharisees.
.............................
Please read my response to this fabricated nonsense:
The infallibility of both Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium was solemnly defined by the First Vatican Council (1870) when it stated the following:
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in Solemn judgement OR in its Ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) in the article on Infallibility, states the same: "Three Organs of Infallibility: 1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See (exercised by what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church), 2. ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and 3. the pope himself separately.
In other words, both forms of the Magisterium of the Church (Solemn or Ordinary) are to be treated as infallible and must be believed, according to this General Council. So if a teaching in the Church is universal, and allowed to propagate without condemnation from the Solemn Magisterium, it is considered infallible by the First Vatican Council.
The Solemn Magisterium:
The Council of Trent: Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
The Council of Trent: Decree on Justification, Session VI, Chapter 4: "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, OR the desire (for that regeneration), as it is written (in scripture); unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
In the context of Canon Law regarding baptism, "translation" refers to the process of moving a person from the state of original sin to a state of grace, effectively making them a child of God. Thus, the above quote from Trent, clearly states that 'translation' can be effected by the desire for regeneration (the sacrament of baptism).
......................................
And this teaching of the Council of Trent was
reiterated and expounded in The Catechism of the
Council of Trent: “But the faithful are earnestly to be
exhorted, to take care that their children be brought to
the church, as soon as it can be done without danger,
and solemnly baptized; for as no other means of
salvation remains for infant children except baptism,
..........................................With regard to adults
who enjoy the perfect use of reason, namely persons
born of infidel parents, the practice of the ancient
Church points out a different manner of proceeding...
On this class of persons, however, the Church was
not accustomed to confer this sacrament immediately,
but ordained that it should be deferred to a certain
time, nor is the delay attended with the danger
already noticed in the case of infants, for, should
any unforeseen accident render it impossible for
adults to be baptised, their intention of receiving
it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail
them to grace and righteousness.”
In Hebrew thought, to cloth a priest in righteousness is to declare them holy unto the works of God.
*** 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 when the Catechism of Trent states that Baptism of Desire (the intention of receiving the sacrament of baptism) will "avail them to grace and righteousness", it means the person will be made holy as if they received the sacrament that they were prevented from receiving; that the great desire for the Sacrament will suffice for the fact.
Simply by using the singular word "Hebrew" Mark 79 writes:
"No surprise that you invoke Hebrew thought.
In тαℓмυdic Judaism, the rabbis claim that they overrule God Himself. See "Torah" https://archive.is/El82q In perfect parallel, Rabbi Boru, you claim that your non-Magisterial sources and misinterpretations can overrule defined dogma of the Extraordinary Magisterium."
As you can see, this Mark 79 likes to distort the truth and character αssαssιnαtҽ. I can categorically state that this man has twisted nearly every single point I have made, added words I did not use, and in short, he has been completely dishonest and nasty.
Remember all you people who thumb this man up, when he attacks me this way, he is also attacking His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre and His Lordship Bishop Williamson, both of which hold the same view as I.
"There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire. Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it." - His Grace, Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Confused Catholics, 1986.
"Can a man be saved outside of the Catholicism? Exceptionally yes. Normally no." - His Lordship Bishop Williamson, Bristol Conference, June 2012.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/boru-salza/317/?action=reporttm;msg=1001937)
Note: When I wrote "The Joos of today have no connection - neither religiously nor ethnically - to the Hebrews pre-Christ" I was making a distinction between the modern day Joos who hate Christ and the Old Testament Hebrews who followed and embraced Christ. Yet again Mark 79 has taken a quote of mine out of context and twisted it to mean something else.
Remember all you people who thumb this man up, when he attacks me this way, he is also attacking His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre and His Lordship Bishop Williamson, both of which hold the same view as I.
"There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire. Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it." - His Grace, Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Confused Catholics, 1986.
"Can a man be saved outside of the Catholicism? Exceptionally yes. Normally no." - His Lordship Bishop Williamson, Bristol Conference, June 2012.
Again with the "attacking" ::) You can criticize someone's actions or words, even harshly, without "attacking" their person.
Both of those statements from +Lefebvre and +Williamson are 100% heretical. That's a fact, jack. That doesn't mean they were terrible people, they were actually valiant defenders of the True Mass and Faith...but they happened to be very, very wrong on this one subject.
The EENS frog had been boiling for hundreds of years by the time they made these statements. +Lefebvre was taught a false EENS belief by another who was taught the same by another. +Williamson was taught this false belief by +Lefebvre, and then +Williamson taught the next. And on and on
"There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire. Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it." - His Grace, Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Confused Catholics, 1986
Boru,
After Catechumens are "catechized" regarding "Baptism of Desire", would they, if they knew they were going to die without the Sacrament of Baptism, have the "Desire for Baptism"...or the "Desire for Baptism of Desire"? Does that suffice for salvation as well? Is there actually a fourth baptism that we do not know about? The "Baptism of Desire of Baptism of Desire" :laugh2: What if someone ends up focusing their desire on having sufficient desire for Baptism of Desire rather than desiring the Sacrament of Baptism, now that they know of the existence of Baptism of Desire? What happens then :confused:
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 (https://archive.is/o/El82q/https://truthfulhistory.blogspot.com/2016/02/judaica-books-and-resources.html), 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