Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Emile on October 19, 2025, 05:28:00 PM
-
Hi, my name of Matthew of the Joseph Family. I am checking this board to find if there are any other like minded Catholics who recognize that Rome fell spiritually in 1566, when Pius V promulgated the Catechismus Romanus, which heretically taught baptism of desire and heretically taught God is the Father of all. Of course, true Catholics recognize that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation per the Council of Florence and that only baptized Catholics who hold the Faith whole and inviolate are children of the Almighty God. Also, I do not recognize the so-called SSPX as Catholic nor do I recognize Pius X as a pope, even less a saint. I hope to find some like-minded people here, as I found a discussion from more than 10 years ago talking about how Pius V lost his papacy when he promulgated the heretical Catechismus Romanus. I agree with this. I hope these people are still around.
Please tell us more.
-
heretically taught God is the Father of all.
Isn't that an Islamic heresy? How can God not be the Father of all?
-
Hi, my name of Matthew of the Joseph Family. I am checking this board to find if there are any other like minded Catholics who recognize that Rome fell spiritually in 1566, when Pius V promulgated the Catechismus Romanus, which heretically taught baptism of desire and heretically taught God is the Father of all. Of course, true Catholics recognize that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation per the Council of Florence and that only baptized Catholics who hold the Faith whole and inviolate are children of the Almighty God. Also, I do not recognize the so-called SSPX as Catholic nor do I recognize Pius X as a pope, even less a saint. I hope to find some like-minded people here, as I found a discussion from more than 10 years ago talking about how Pius V lost his papacy when he promulgated the heretical Catechismus Romanus. I agree with this. I hope these people are still around.
Seems to be the wrong thread to put this question in.
Roman Catechism did not teach Baptism of Desire ... that's just propaganda by the BoDers. What it taught was that delays in adult Baptism are not as risky as for Infant Baptism, and can be justified for the sake of proper Catechesis, since those delays can be offset the an adult's intention to receive the Sacrament, i.e., as St. Fulgentius said, because God would make sure to keep such a one alive until he could receive the Sacrament.
No, Baptism of Desire is not heretical, but is rather a mistaken piece of speculative theology, and it's more the EXTENSION of BoD to possibly include non-Catholics (rather than just Catechumens) that leads to the rejection of EENS dogma and the modern Vatican II ecclesiology. If one held, as, say, St. Robert Bellarmine did, that it only applied to Catechumens, there's no real impact to the Church being a Visible Society, and does not lead to Protestant ecclesiology. Nevertheless, it was quickly exploited to that end.
Yes, God has allowed the error/mistake of BoD to go uncondemned by the Church precisely so as to set up this current Crisis, which is a necessary sifting of the faithful from the unfaithful. Without BoD, Vatican II simply could not have happened.
You're in incredibly dark and dangerous waters if you're rejecting the papacy of St. Pius X and St. Pius V even, based on your (false) armchair conclusion that the Roman Catechism even taught BoD and that it is heretical and that St. Pius V is responsible personally for every word in the entire thing.
This is precisely the pernicious nonsense that had me back away from SVism, since there's no principle in Totalist SVism to prevent this horror, people engaged in "Pope-Sifting" (the title of that "article" that The Angelus published all those years ago). Back then the guy in question, similar to you, claimed that Pius IX was a non-pope due to some heresy this theological light had discovered in his teaching ... which happened to be yet another slanderous distortion made by the BoDers, creating propaganda around a distortion of Pius IX's teaching that would make him into an open Pelagian.
This thinking represents a shipwreck of your faith, since for you no dogma is dogma, no dogma certain with the certainty of faith, since if you decide, with your armchair theological skills, that it's error, you simply decide that a Pope was a non-Pope and ... problem solved. This makes you your own rule of faith no less than if you were a Protestant.
Please pray hard over this, because you've basically lost your faith ... as this thinking is radically incompatible with supernatural faith. I'll pray for you too.
-
Cite the passage on God being the "Father of all", but he most certainly is ... since he has brought all into being and begotten all. He's not the SUPERNATURAL Father of any other than those who have the supernatural life of the Holy Trinity and bear the (Baptismal) character of His Son. Here's another place where it's your own ignorance at work imputing heresy to propositions that you simply do not understand.
-
Hi, my name of Matthew of the Joseph Family. I am checking this board to find if there are any other like minded Catholics who recognize that Rome fell spiritually in 1566, when Pius V promulgated the Catechismus Romanus, which heretically taught baptism of desire and heretically taught God is the Father of all. Of course, true Catholics recognize that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation per the Council of Florence and that only baptized Catholics who hold the Faith whole and inviolate are children of the Almighty God. Also, I do not recognize the so-called SSPX as Catholic nor do I recognize Pius X as a pope, even less a saint. I hope to find some like-minded people here, as I found a discussion from more than 10 years ago talking about how Pius V lost his papacy when he promulgated the heretical Catechismus Romanus. I agree with this. I hope these people are still around.
MHFM has a good article on the Catechism of Trent: schismatic-home-aloner[dot]com/catechism-of-trent-baptism-of-desire/
It is not infallible and was never purported to be, and was not promulgated to all the faithful
-
Found it ... as is precisely as I said, and the Catechism itself explains the distinction quite clearly:
God created man to his own image and likeness, an image and likeness which he impressed not on other creatures; and, on account of this peculiar privilege with which he adorned man, he is appropriately designated in Scripture the Father of all men, the Father not alone of the faithful but of all mankind.
This refers to the creation of man in His image and likeness, and therefore in a natural sense is correctly referred to as Father of all (men).
That is in fact the essence of the Gospel, the "Good News", that are are not limited to this natural life, but God has given us the possibility of being reborn into another life, the SUPERnatural life. This distinction between the natural and supernatural is at the essence of God's Revelation to man in Christ.
-
MHFM has a good article on the Catechism of Trent: schismatic-home-aloner[dot]com/catechism-of-trent-baptism-of-desire/
It is not infallible and was never purported to be, and was not promulgated to all the faithful
1) not Infallble
2) St. Pius V did not endorse every word in that monumental work (if he even had the time to read it all)
3) does NOT teach Baptism of Desire, as the BoD propagandists claim (I have an analysis of the Latin somewhere here on CI, though haven't found it again since then) ... and the languages is almost directly quoting St. Fulgentius (who use the word "avail" or "prevail' to mean that people with the true dispositions will be kept alive until they receive the Sacrament)
BoD propagandists also have that bogus "except through" translation of Trent on justificaiton that distorsts what Trent is teaching also.
-
So, next guess is that he's deposed St. Pius X for the passage in his (allegedly his) Catechism.
People here have found the earliest prints of that Catechism and the reference to BoD is not in there, and nobody could track down when it was first added. It underwent multiple revisions by many hands, including after his death. Finally, even if he did believe in BoD, BoD itself is not heretical, as the Church declared doctors at least three men who held that opinion: St. Thomas Aquinas, ST. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus.
-
This thinking represents a shipwreck of your faith, since for you no dogma is dogma, no dogma certain with the certainty of faith, since if you decide, with your armchair theological skills, that it's error, you simply decide that a Pope was a non-Pope and ... problem solved. This makes you your own rule of faith no less than if you were a Protestant.
Please pray hard over this, because you've basically lost your faith ... as this thinking is radically incompatible with supernatural faith. I'll pray for you too.
To this I would add: how can any of us exercise our faith and have our faith tested if there is not at least one point that causes us doubt sometime in our lives? The reward is great for perseverance in the true faith, and you will eventually understand the current matter of doubt.
We must humbly submit to God's truth and His ways. Our understanding or agreeing with them does not change what is truth. Either you want to go to heaven and humbly submit and conform to God's truth, or let your pride (even if you don't perceive it) get in the way and put your salvation at risk.
Remain at peace at all times, and pray frequently for truth and the true faith, and the grace to convert from any falsehood. Pray to your Guardian Angel for this as well.
-
I thought this was a good topic to post this under..
I couldn't find anywhere in the system to disable my own account. (That is a common, standard feature.)
:facepalm: This forum is SO CRINGE it's unbelievable. It's an embarrassment to be a member.
What's so cringe? Frankly many of the beliefs on this forum are tame compared to what I've seen elsewhere.
-
According to Dimondites, St Thomas Aquinas is wrong, the catechism of the council of Trent is wrong, people who taught baptism of desire for centuries are wrong...
But the nail in the coffin for me is that they keep predicting the end of the world, and I do not think the end of the world is coming any soon.
Totalist sedevacantists think the apocalypse is soon. Instead, I think sedeprivationism has more credibility, and it also offers a possible solution to the problem at hand.
Doing nothing and waiting for God to sort it out will not work. I think God wants us to act, not merely passively react. The state of the West is extremely worrying, and I cannot fathom how true Catholics let the events of Vatican II happen without... Going berserk and killing the fakes.
Maybe the last valid Pope is the one that was αssαssιnαtҽd by the mafia.
-
So, after 1566, few, if any souls have been saved. I guess we should all just eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die?
-
According to Dimondites, St Thomas Aquinas is wrong, the catechism of the council of Trent is wrong, people who taught baptism of desire for centuries are wrong...
But the nail in the coffin for me is that they keep predicting the end of the world, and I do not think the end of the world is coming any soon.
Totalist sedevacantists think the apocalypse is soon. Instead, I think sedeprivationism has more credibility, and it also offers a possible solution to the problem at hand.
Doing nothing and waiting for God to sort it out will not work. I think God wants us to act, not merely passively react. The state of the West is extremely worrying, and I cannot fathom how true Catholics let the events of Vatican II happen without... Going berserk and killing the fakes.
Maybe the last valid Pope is the one that was αssαssιnαtҽd by the mafia.
:facepalm: there are so many fallacies here, strawmans and false equivalencies.
-
1) not Infallble
2) St. Pius V did not endorse every word in that monumental work (if he even had the time to read it all)
3) does NOT teach Baptism of Desire, as the BoD propagandists claim (I have an analysis of the Latin somewhere here on CI, though haven't found it again since then) ... and the languages is almost directly quoting St. Fulgentius (who use the word "avail" or "prevail' to mean that people with the true dispositions will be kept alive until they receive the Sacrament)
BoD propagandists also have that bogus "except through" translation of Trent on justificaiton that distorsts what Trent is teaching also.
Point 3) is absolute nonsense.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/msg878473/#msg878473
And for all our members, notice how big mouth did not respond to my post above in that thread. Silence. He's got nothing but wind.
-
who recognize that Rome fell spiritually in 1566
:jester:
-
:facepalm: there are so many fallacies here, strawmans and false equivalencies.
That's their tactic ... where they pile so many layers of crap on top of shit, that it takes a yoeman's effort to merely clean up.
It's the old throwing handfuls of crap at the wall technique.
We really shouldn't dignify posts like this with any kind of response.
-
According to Dimondites, St Thomas Aquinas is wrong, the catechism of the council of Trent is wrong, people who taught baptism of desire for centuries are wrong...
Ridiculous gaslighting. This is what you get from those who've already pre-decided that they want to reject EENS.
Yes, in our opinion, St. Thomas got this one wrong ... as he did with some other things, such as the Immculate Conception (thank you, Duns Scotus). You misinterpret the Catechism of Trent, as this has been dealt with, but there are dozens of errors in the 800+ page catechism, which is not protected by infallibility ... even if you claim that it is teaching BoD. Melchior Cano, OP, an approved and respected theologian, writing after Trent, made the justification vs. salvation distinction, the same one that Father Feeney makes, where he said that infidels can be justified but not saved. Trent actually teaches about justificaiton, not about salvation.
According to BoDites, aka Cushingites, the majority of Church Fathers who rejected BoD were "wrong", but BoDites know better. BoDites also invariably believe that those without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation can be saved ... meaning they consider St. Thomas wrong on THAT point. They only care about St. Thomas when he happens to agree with their position, but ignore him otherwise, using him merely as a weapon.
For about 700 years, theologians universally taught and believed that infants who die without Baptism suffer (at least mildly) in Hell. So, FOR CENTURIES they held this belief, but then St. Thomas (after Abelard) argued that they were wrong, and now the OPPOSITE believe is almost universal, that they go to Limbo and experience perfect happiness.
Despite the fabrications of a Father Cekada, a consensus among theologians is not some kind of rule of faith. If it were, he'd be in trouble, since theologians unanimously agreed that Vatican II is Catholic and the New Mass is Catholic.
If anyone looks at the history of BoD objectively, you immediately realize that it's nothing more than theological speculation ... but then it got extended to the point of completely gutting EENS dogma, which is precisely why the extended it.