Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Feeneyism Ghetto / Re: EENS for baptized Christians
« Last post by Ladislaus on Today at 10:18:43 AM »
Yes, I see why you would say that the age of reason (7) is the age in which baptized Protestant children would still be considered members of the Church. I also believed this to be the case until about 15 years ago when I read in some theology manual that the Church still considers them Catholic until the age of 14 (at least I think so). Father Collins and I discussed this years ago and confirmed what I had read.

14?  That's interesting.  I'd love to see the rationale/explanation for this.
3
I would love to be there to see if he is incorrupt, or whether an odor of sanctity can be detected.

So would most Traditional Catholics.
4
Health and Nutrition / Re: Killer Carona Virus now in United States
« Last post by Ladislaus on Today at 09:54:44 AM »
Yeah, it's probably worth stocking up on non-perishables even if you aren't afraid of the virus itself. Better safe than sorry.

No doubt.  I'm incurring some debt to do so.  The economic impact is already a foregone conclusion due to the Chinese supply chain interruptions.
5
Politics and World Leaders / Re: Trump Flips the 9th Circuit Court
« Last post by XavierSem on Today at 09:52:16 AM »
Then there's the Supreme Court. It's only a matter of time before pro-life Catholic Judge Amy Barrett is appointed by President Trump. https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-trump-judge-amy-barrett-ruth-bader-ginsburg-11d25276-a92e-4094-8958-eb2d197707c8.html


Scoop: Trump "saving" Judge Amy Barrett for Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat


Illustration: Lazaro Gamio/Axios

As he was deliberating last year over replacing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, President Trump told confidants he had big plans for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

"I'm saving her for Ginsburg," Trump said of Barrett, according to three sources familiar with the president's private comments. Trump used that exact line with a number of people, including in a private conversation with an adviser two days before announcing Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.

Barrett is a favorite among conservative activists, many of whom wanted her to take Kennedy’s spot.

But Trump chose to wait.

Yes, but: There's no guarantee Trump will get another Supreme Court pick. It's very unlikely Ginsburg will retire while he’s in office. And though she's 86 and has had 3 bouts with cancer, she's on the bench now and appears healthy.

Between the lines: Trump changes his mind all the time, and Barrett would need to undergo a fresh round of vetting to review the rulings and public comments she's made since confirmed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.

Barrett's education didn't appeal to Trump, according to sources familiar with his thinking. She went to law school at Notre Dame, and Trump prefers candidates with Harvard and Yale on their resumes.

Why it matters: Trump has already pulled the court well to the right. If he gets to replace Ginsburg, especially with Barrett, he would cement a young, reliably conservative majority that could last for decades.

6
Politics and World Leaders / Re: Trump Flips the 9th Circuit Court
« Last post by XavierSem on Today at 09:50:19 AM »
Yes. This makes it, imo, a mortal sin of omission to fail to support President Trump's bid for re-election in 2020. The reason being that abortion is sure to be outlawed if President Trump wins another term. The facts on federal judges alone make it statistically certain. A young, conservative, pro-life majority that will shape the American Judiciary for decades to come is being formed. Vote for and support it and be a part of the coming pro-life victory.

Another Article from Axios: https://www.axios.com/trump-mcconnell-judge-confirmations-senate-8b5087fd-5fd1-4846-8a1c-cadf888bf18b.html

Trump and McConnell continue to transform the federal judiciary


Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

After three years in office, President Trump and the Republican-held Senate have installed a total of 187 judges to the federal bench, with Trump nominees now making up one in four U.S. circuit court judges, according to an analysis by the Washington Post.
Why it matters: Trump's transformation of the federal judiciary will ensure that it maintains a conservative tilt for decades, likely affecting future progressive legislation and priorities no matter the outcome of next November’s election.
By the numbers: Trump has so far appointed two Supreme Court justices and 50 judges on the 13 U.S. circuit courts. By comparison, Obama appointed two Supreme Court justices and 55 circuit judges during the entirety of his two terms.

Between the lines: The president and Senate Republicans selected younger conservatives for lifetime appointments to ensure that their impact is felt years after the Trump administration, according to the Washington Post.
Of note: While the House voted to impeach the president last week, the Senate confirmed an additional 13 district court judges.
What's next: Trump and Senate Republicans have only one circuit court vacancy left to fill this year. More could open up next year, and there will certainly be vacancies in Trump's second term if he wins in November.


7
The Feeneyism Ghetto / Re: EENS for baptized Christians
« Last post by Pax Vobis on Today at 09:48:13 AM »
Quote
It's an anti-Catholic term, but Pius IX used it. Yeah right.
Again, you're missing the point.  His use of the term caused confusion, which he regretted, and it caused him to re-clarify.
.
Quote
Your first paragraph asks complex issues.
It's not complex, it's directly from Scripture. 
Scripture = God enlightens all men who come into the world. 
Doctrine = God's existence is provable, to all men, by way of human reason. 
Scripture = All men have the natural law written on their hearts.  Ergo, no one is invincibly ignorant of God, nor of the 10 commandments. 
Doctrine = If they co-operate with grace, and follow the natural law, then any ignorance of the Faith will be enlightened.
Scripture = God does not "cast pearls before swine" and will not enlighten those who, due to their sinful lives, will not appreciate spiritual things.
Ergo, no one is created in invincible ignorance of God or their requirements due to Him and their neighbor.  There are only those who are ignorant of the Faith, which ignorance God will cure, if they follow the 10 commandments and seek the truth.  Such ignorance of the Faith is temporary, or permanent, depending on the person's cooperation with actual graces (i.e. following of the natural law).
.
For the 2nd time...you have not admitted that Bl Pius IX was quoted out-of-context in his statement where he mentions it.  He later clarified his view, but the modernists who surrounded him had already spread the original mistake far and wide.  Do you or do you not accept Bl Pius IX's correction?
8
The Feeneyism Ghetto / Re: EENS for baptized Christians
« Last post by Quo vadis Domine on Today at 09:33:32 AM »
I will try to find the reference for what I said above.
9
The Feeneyism Ghetto / Re: EENS for baptized Christians
« Last post by Quo vadis Domine on Today at 09:32:28 AM »
I agree with these thoughts Quo.   Btw, I think the age is the age of reason, 7.
Yes, I see why you would say that the age of reason (7) is the age in which baptized Protestant children would still be considered members of the Church. I also believed this to be the case until about 15 years ago when I read in some theology manual that the Church still considers them Catholic until the age of 14 (at least I think so). Father Collins and I discussed this years ago and confirmed what I had read.
10
The Feeneyism Ghetto / Re: EENS for baptized Christians
« Last post by Stanley N on Today at 09:20:01 AM »
You define "invincibly ignorant" as a permanent state, while I would define it as a temporary state.  How can anyone be invincibly ignorant forever?  Does not Christ "enlighten every man who comes into the world" (John 1)?  Is God unable to conquer invincible ignorance?
.
Secondly, where does the Church give us a definition for invincible ignorance?  Oh right, there is none.  So it's an abstract idea which everyone can interpret their own way.  What madness!  If the Church hasn't defined it, so all catholics can understand it the same way, then it's not a catholic term and shouldn't be used when discussing theology.
.
Finally, you keep using this anti-Catholic term, yet you have not admitted that Bl Pius IX was quoted out-of-context in his statement where he mentions it.  He later clarified his view, but the modernists who surrounded him had already spread the original mistake far and wide.  Do you or do you not accept Bl Pius IX's correction?
It's an anti-Catholic term, but Pius IX used it. Yeah right.

Your first paragraph asks complex issues. I'm not going to write a thesis on this, so don't make a fuss that I haven't included all the distinctions. But yes, I think God could overcome invincible ignorance by way of a miracle. This is not meant to be a statement about the relationship between grace and free will.

Has the Church defined "blood", "outside", "without"? No. We are capable of understanding ordinary words.

I am not aware of any statement of the Church prior to V2 that I do not accept. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10