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 1343441 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 13618
  • Reputation: +8896/-1627
  • Gender: Male
Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
« on: October 11, 2025, 01:38:14 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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:


    Quote
    In Hebrew thought, to cloth [sic] a priest in righteousness is to declare them holy unto the works of God.


    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":


    Quote
    You really are a ninny.  You see ONE word and pounce without rhyme or reason. Christ was Hebrew. Old Testament was Hebrew. The Joos of today have no connection - neither religiously nor ethnically - to the Hebrews pre-Christ.


    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. (see attached file)

    So… step back and view Boru's bizarre "Hebrew thought" non-sequitur.

    What has Boru's mode of debate been?

    • demote the authority of Extraordinary Magisterium
    • promote non-Magisterial "pull quotes" as "Magisterium"
    • though repeatedly called out for that error, Boru flees from addressing the central problem, the hierarchy of authority
    • Each time that verifiable, definitive un-rebuttable evidence exposes Boru, it evades the central argument, and instead seizes on some side note, offering a tangential digression
    • and now "Hebrew thought" is invoked.

    Question: Where do we observe exactly those tactics?

    Answer: The damned rabbis!

    The damned rabbis demote the Word of God and claim authority for their man-made тαℓмυd. The damned rabbis flee from criticism. The damned rabbis drown critics with nugatory sidelights.

    Yes, Boru exemplifies "Hebrew thought" as expressed in an unbroken lineage from the Pharisees under the Old Law to today's тαℓмυdic Jews.

    Boru revealed more than it intended when it invoked "Hebrew thought." Boru revealed that it exemplifies the "Hebrew thought" and behavior of the Pharisees to overthrow the Word of God (John 3:5) and the Magisterium of His Church.

    Q.E.D.

    More on the "Jesus was a Jew" ploy: https://archive.is/XefAD

    Offline Boru

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 472
    • Reputation: +185/-282
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
    « Reply #1 on: October 11, 2025, 05:03:54 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.


    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.




    Online WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1203
    • Reputation: +861/-123
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
    « Reply #2 on: October 11, 2025, 05:48:39 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13618
    • Reputation: +8896/-1627
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
    « Reply #3 on: October 11, 2025, 06:02:39 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Please read my response…
    Your post is NON-responsive.

    Your post neither responds to your rabbinical style of deceit nor responds to the fundamental flaws in your claims.

    You simply repeated what has already been debunked.

    You said this:


    Quote
    Christ was Hebrew. Old Testament was Hebrew. The Joos of today have no connection - neither religiously nor ethnically - to the Hebrews pre-Christ.

    None of that deals with righteousness.

    You made a declarative statement that denied the existence of the Pharisees "pre-Christ" [devceitful nonsense!] and their "Hebrew thought." Jesus damned them; He was not one of them.

    All your red print word salad claiming that you were only saying that Hebrew is a synonym for righteous is (1) a lie and (2) rubbish.

    And still you evade all this:

    Lest it go on another digression to escape the criticism of its fundamental deceit… reposting to holds its feet to the fire:


    Quote
    Quote from: Boru on Yesterday at 02:21:07 PM

    You really are a ninny.  You see ONE word and pounce without rhyme or reason. Christ was Hebrew. Old Testament was Hebrew. The Joos of today have no connection - neither religiously nor ethnically - to the Hebrews pre-Christ.…

    Really??? I found fault with only "ONE" word?


    Quote
    Part Two:

    "Yes, the Ordinary Magisterium is part of the deposit of faith, as it includes teachings that the Church proposes for belief based on Scripture and Tradition." AI answer.

    Anything that contradicts Extraordinary Magisterium cannot be "Ordinary Magisterium." The simple fact that there are conflicting commentaries from non-Magisterial sources means BOD cannot be "what has always, everywhere, and unanimously taught," hence BOD cannot be "Ordinary Magisterium."


    Quote
    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."

    Contradiction of Extraordinary Magisterium is neither "tradition" nor Extraordinary Magisterium.


    Quote
    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.


    Contradiction of Extraordinary Magisterium is neither "in union with the Holy See," "teaching authority of the Church," "tradition" nor Extraordinary Magisterium.


    Quote
    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 Extraordinary Magisterium taught the Truth that "water and the spirit are necessary for Salvation. It is not necessary for the Church to condemn the entire universe of errors.

    "In other words"? Those "other" words are your words: illogical, self-serving, and without any authority.


    Quote
    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."

    In English and Latin, "or" and "aut" may be used inclusively as "or without the desire of them" must be used in this instance, since otherwise it would contradict other Extraordinary Magisterium. Extraordinary magisterium can refine earlier teaching, but it cannot "refine" a dogma into its exact opposite. It is impossible for The Council to turn a dogma that "water and the spirit" are necessary for Salvation into "Well… you don't really need water anymore."


    Quote
    The Council of Trent: Decree on Justification, Session VI, Chapter 4: …

    In this thread the differences between justification and salvation have been explained to you repeatedly. Instead of just repeating your error, you should re-read and submit to the difference.


    Quote
    In Hebrew thought, …

    "In Hebrew thought…". So much for Catholic dogma, eh?


    Quote
    St. Cyprian, Church  [et al.]

    An infinite number of "Hebrew" thoughts and non-Magisterial commentary cannot overturn Extraordinary Magisterium.

    As we predicted, your self-vaunted "Part 2" has proven to be more of your repetitious nugatory bullshit.

    So much for your magnum opus.


    Online WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1203
    • Reputation: +861/-123
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
    « Reply #4 on: October 11, 2025, 07:25:35 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • "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:
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.


    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13618
    • Reputation: +8896/-1627
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
    « Reply #5 on: October 11, 2025, 07:41:57 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • To elaborate on the point of this thread, Boru's invocation of "Hebrew thought"…

    Boru:


    Quote
    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:

    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.


    **

    Quote
    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.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15140
    • Reputation: +6238/-923
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
    « Reply #6 on: October 12, 2025, 05:43:02 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Boru

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 472
    • Reputation: +185/-282
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
    « Reply #7 on: October 14, 2025, 07:30:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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:
    Quote
    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).




    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15140
    • Reputation: +6238/-923
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
    « Reply #8 on: October 14, 2025, 07:59:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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).
    It only stands to your reason.

    In his Bull Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII declared to the Universal Church that "We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins."

    So a perfect act of contrition, were such a thing even possible for anyone outside of the Church, does not forgive sin.

    You can take it up with Pope Boniface VIII when you meet him and let him know that he and Fr. Feeney screwed up. 
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47717
    • Reputation: +28211/-5287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
    « Reply #9 on: October 14, 2025, 07:59:50 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47717
    • Reputation: +28211/-5287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
    « Reply #10 on: October 14, 2025, 08:07:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I find that it takes a certain special kind of depravity to go on a crusade for BoD, i.e. a crusade to establish that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation.  That's really what their motivation is, since if the actual reception of the Sacrament were necessary for salvation, then non-Catholics could never be saved.  It's one thing to simply hold that it's possible, but the amount of effort and zeal that goes into promoting this super-dogma of BoD, where they're more devoted to this than to, say, Our Lady's Immaculate Conception, and spend more time defending and promoting it than promoting the latter ... that speaks to some bad will.


    Offline Justinian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 220
    • Reputation: +84/-68
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
    « Reply #11 on: October 14, 2025, 08:24:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I wanted to share something a friend sent me on BOD, may be if interest in the discussion.

    “#6303 BOD from cathen
    https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
    From Cathollic encyclopaedia
    =
    Substitutes for the sacrament
    The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
    ==
    The baptism of desire
    The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism.
    The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate".
    .
    The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him."
    .
    And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him."
    .
    Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received.
    .
    In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto).
    .
    The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.
    .
    We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it."
    .
    St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire.
    .
    Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives.
    .
    Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.


    This is all I have on the topic, I think!  I am in fb contact with a couple of Feenyites who deny Baptism of Desire.  But more recently, one of them has gone quiet.  I only hope that he has digested these words.  AndFr Feeny was being attacked by other priests in his diocese, and reported to Rome, out of jealousy, because he was getting people from other parishes (and their plate contributions)!  I believe that the whole Baptism of Desire thing was a complete red herring.”

    I note his comments on Fr Feeney.. the church has not ever condemned BOD so we as Catholics are feee to believe it.

    Online WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1203
    • Reputation: +861/-123
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
    « Reply #12 on: October 14, 2025, 08:47:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I find that it takes a certain special kind of depravity to go on a crusade for BoD, i.e. a crusade to establish that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation.  That's really what their motivation is, since if the actual reception of the Sacrament were necessary for salvation, then non-Catholics could never be saved.  It's one thing to simply hold that it's possible, but the amount of effort and zeal that goes into promoting this super-dogma of BoD, where they're more devoted to this than to, say, Our Lady's Immaculate Conception, and spend more time defending and promoting it than promoting the latter ... that speaks to some bad will.
    Speaking of bad will, Boru has displayed an undeniable pattern of "pick and choose" when it comes to what exactly she will respond to in these threads. The infallible teachings of popes and councils has been ignored, the numerous quotes from Church Fathers regarding the Sacrament of Baptism as necessary for salvation has been ignored, the continual reminders that no Pope or council has ever taught BOD has been ignored, the fact that there is no "universal and constant" teaching regarding BOD has been ignored.

    I'm fine with someone holding the "traditional" view of BOD (i.e. catechumens preparing for baptism with an explicit desire for the sacrament) as an opinion, but the people who hold it as a dogmatic teaching that must be submitted to under pain of mortal sin and "heresy" are highly suspicious
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13025
    • Reputation: +8243/-2561
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
    « Reply #13 on: October 14, 2025, 09:41:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Exactly right. 

    Quote
    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? 
    Here's where these BOD-nut-jobs get it wrong - they don't distinguish between the sacramental character and grace and Original Sin.  Which is the same distinguishing we keep telling them about - salvation vs justification.  Which is the same distinguishment that Trent made - because "BOD" was discussed in the chapter on justification, not baptism.

    Here are 2 examples which clarify it:
    1)  Unbaptized infants are guilt-free with regards to actual sin.  But they still have Original Sin and no baptismal character.  They are NOT a child of God, therefore they can't get to heaven.  They are NOT a child of God because they still have Original Sin.  They are "justified" but not saved.
    a)  Child of God - no.
    b)  Original Sin - yes.
    c)  Justified (i.e. no actual sin) - yes.
    d)  Eligible for heaven?  no.


    2)  A catholic who dies in mortal sin.  They have been baptized and have the baptismal character; they are a child of God.  But they die in sin, so they are neither justified, nor saved.  But they are a child of God.
    a)  Child of God - yes.
    b)  Original Sin - no.
    c)  Justified - no.
    d)  Eligible for heaven?  yes, but due to mortal sin, they damned themselves.


    Really, the whole BOD debate boils down to a lack of understanding of Original Sin.  Justification (i.e. contrition for sins) CANNOT REMOVE ORIGINAL SIN.  This is the error and heresy with which BODers falter.  Contrition for sins can get one justified as far as actual sins, but not Original Sin.  If one is justified but not baptized, they are like an unbaptised infant.  Guiltless before God (in regards to PERSONAL sins) but still guilty of Original Sin (Adam's sin).

    There is no Church docuмent which says that ANYTHING OTHER than baptism removes Original Sin.  Zero.

    Confession can make one justified because it removes actual sins.  A perfect act of contrition can do the same.  But neither confession/contrition can remove Original Sin.  Only Baptism can.

    People misunderstand "justification" with also removing Original Sin.  No, it does not. 

    Justification (alone) - removes actual sins.
    Justifica
    tion + baptism - removes actual + Original sin.

    When Trent is discussing justification, is it IN RELATION TO BAPTISM. 


    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47717
    • Reputation: +28211/-5287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Boru=Pharisaical "Hebrew thought"
    « Reply #14 on: October 14, 2025, 10:07:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Indeed, Pax, and there's an (at-least-semi-)Pelagianism at work here, where people think that somehow anyone might be owed Heaven, in the sense of the Beatific Vision, and that there would be some injustice in anyone not receiving that gift.  St. Gregory nαzιanzen explicitly made that argument when he rejected BoD.  He posited that there are some who "are not bad enough to be punished, but not good enough to be glorified", i.e. that there's an in between, where you can lack punishment, but at the same time to not receive the Beatific Vision, again, the "glory" or the "glorification".

    In fact, the natural vs. supernatural orders did get conflated, mostly in the West, following (what I consider to be) the mistake of St. Augustine (though his opinion is not condemned), where even unbaptized infants suffer (albeit mildly) in Hell.  St. Thomas explained clearly that distinction between natural (reward / punishment), which comes from God's justice, and supernatural (which is owed to no one and actually is not necessary for perfect human happiness).  So, for instance, the fact that a dog does not have the ability to speak (the faculty of speech), that doesn't somehow make him unhappy, since it's not a perfection of his nature and he doesn't even know what he's missing, and can't comprehend it.  Same for human beings with regard to the Beatific Vision.

    Father Feeney responded when asked what happened to unbaptized martyrs, and he responded "I don't know."  He's correct in the sense that this has not been revealed, but we can speculate that this "washing but not crowning" leads to unbaptized martyrs joining the unbaptized infants in Limbo with a perfect eternal happiness.  In some cases, of course, God intervened and did miraculously provide the means for their receiving the Sacrament.

    I think there's some aversion to this idea because, well, we've only ever heard about the pre-Christian "Limbo of the Fathers" and the post-Christian "Limbo Infantium", and so there's this notion that it's a "novelty" to think that there could be some non-infants in Limbo even in the New Economy of Salvation.  But consider that at the time many considered Limbo of the Infants a novelty, and in fact the Church condemned the proposition that Limbo is a "Pelagian fable" or Pelagian novelty, thereby greenlighting it as permissible.  There are SO MANY THINGS that God has chosen NOT to reveal about what eternity looks like, and I think I now why.  God realizes that were people not terrified of burning in Hell, where they could end up in some "Happy Hunting Ground" if they lived in natural virtue, then very few would go to the trouble of seeking the Kingdom (the supernatural life).