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

Author Topic: Crazy beliefs of some Catholics  (Read 13283 times)

1 Member and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 48500
  • Reputation: +28619/-5358
  • Gender: Male
Re: Crazy beliefs of some Catholics
« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2026, 01:00:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • :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.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48500
    • Reputation: +28619/-5358
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crazy beliefs of some Catholics
    « Reply #16 on: February 05, 2026, 01:09:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline Lazarus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 22
    • Reputation: +6/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crazy beliefs of some Catholics
    « Reply #17 on: Today at 04:09:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.
    I remember quite clearly in debates I had with Dimondites that they told me that a catechumen, with the Catholic faith but who didn't get baptized yet and who died as a martyr was not saved. That has nothing to do with teaching that infidels or atheists can be saved. 

    It is not merely a theological speculation, since at least 2 Popes agreed with baptism of desire, and I don't mean Vatican II false popes.