FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde (/showthread.php?tid=51875)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - damooster - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 07:58 PM)columb Wrote: Do we even know of one soul in heaven through BoD? Do we mean that it's probable,/possible but just can't say for sure?

Does St. Dismas (the Good Thief) count?


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Beware_the_Ides - 12-30-2011

 
(12-29-2011, 11:27 PM)damooster Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 07:58 PM)columb Wrote: Do we even know of one soul in heaven through BoD? Do we mean that it's probable,/possible but just can't say for sure?

Does St. Dismas (the Good Thief) count?

:w2go:

+1


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - tradne4163 - 12-30-2011

It's hard to hear him, but I believe that "Brother" Peter Dimond is speaking with the same Father Gordon I am blessed to know as the assistant pastor for the Latin Mass parish I attend. If I am right, this was the phone call that got him so fired up for his semon that Sunday on sedevacantism. I remember Father mentioned talking to Peter Dimond. Anyway, that's my contribution.


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Gerard - 12-30-2011

(12-29-2011, 11:27 PM)damooster Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 07:58 PM)columb Wrote: Do we even know of one soul in heaven through BoD? Do we mean that it's probable,/possible but just can't say for sure?

Does St. Dismas (the Good Thief) count?

According to the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism was instituted as necessary after the Resurrection.  St. Dismas was saved under the Old Law.


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - FatherCekada - 12-30-2011

(12-29-2011, 07:58 PM)columb Wrote: However, on the balance of theological evidence that I have studied thus far from both positions, I've come to the conclusion and believe that Baptism of Desire is a non doctrine and is refuted by the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church on EENS.

Sorry, but you don't have the right to form your own opinion on baptism of desire.

General Principle from Pius IX: All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

Particular Fact: Catholic theologians DO hold the teaching on baptism of desire (and baptism of blood) by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

(See the table attached to the following article:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf )

Conclusion: Therefore all Catholics are obliged to adhere to the teaching on baptism of desire (and baptism of blood).

The only issues you or I might be free to hold an opinion about would be  the degree of error on the part of someone who denies these teachings (theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy) or the gravity of the sin against the faith he commits (mortal sin indirectly against the faith, or directly against the faith).

While I fly in lots of planes, I wouldn't think of formulating my own theories about the science of aerodynamics (aircraft are held up by pixies and phlogiston, say), still less build and fly an aircraft based on them.

So too, while we are all Catholics who love the faith, we must recognize that theology is a science which operates according to rules and principles that one discards at his own peril. If the experts have commonly taught a certain doctrine for centuries and if their writings have consistenly received the approval of the magisterium, we place ourselves in grave spiritual peril if we presume to deny the doctrine they teach.



Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Phillipus Iacobus - 12-30-2011

(12-30-2011, 06:16 PM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 07:58 PM)columb Wrote: However, on the balance of theological evidence that I have studied thus far from both positions, I've come to the conclusion and believe that Baptism of Desire is a non doctrine and is refuted by the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church on EENS.

Sorry, but you don't have the right to form your own opinion on baptism of desire.

General Principle from Pius IX: All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

Particular Fact: Catholic theologians DO hold the teaching on baptism of desire (and baptism of blood) by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

(See the table attached to the following article:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf )

Conclusion: Therefore all Catholics are obliged to adhere to the teaching on baptism of desire (and baptism of blood).

The only issues you or I might be free to hold an opinion about would be  the degree of error on the part of someone who denies these teachings (theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy) or the gravity of the sin against the faith he commits (mortal sin indirectly against the faith, or directly against the faith).

While I fly in lots of planes, I wouldn't think of formulating my own theories about the science of aerodynamics (aircraft are held up by pixies and phlogiston, say), still less build and fly an aircraft based on them.

So too, while we are all Catholics who love the faith, we must recognize that theology is a science which operates according to rules and principles that one discards at his own peril. If the experts have commonly taught a certain doctrine for centuries and if their writings have consistenly received the approval of the magisterium, we place ourselves in grave spiritual peril if we presume to deny the doctrine they teach.

Hi Father. How would the Dimonds or other Feeneyites respond to what you state here? A response would be appreciated, as recently, Feeneyites writings and my own scrupulosity has had me in the dumps for a while (due to scruples on Baptisn of Desire and Blood, invincible ignorance, implicit faith, as well as scruples that the Dimonds et al. may be correct.)


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - columb - 12-30-2011

(12-30-2011, 06:16 PM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 07:58 PM)columb Wrote: However, on the balance of theological evidence that I have studied thus far from both positions, I've come to the conclusion and believe that Baptism of Desire is a non doctrine and is refuted by the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church on EENS.

Sorry, but you don't have the right to form your own opinion on baptism of desire.

General Principle from Pius IX: All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

Particular Fact: Catholic theologians DO hold the teaching on baptism of desire (and baptism of blood) by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

(See the table attached to the following article:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf )

Conclusion: Therefore all Catholics are obliged to adhere to the teaching on baptism of desire (and baptism of blood).

The only issues you or I might be free to hold an opinion about would be  the degree of error on the part of someone who denies these teachings (theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy) or the gravity of the sin against the faith he commits (mortal sin indirectly against the faith, or directly against the faith).

While I fly in lots of planes, I wouldn't think of formulating my own theories about the science of aerodynamics (aircraft are held up by pixies and phlogiston, say), still less build and fly an aircraft based on them.

So too, while we are all Catholics who love the faith, we must recognize that theology is a science which operates according to rules and principles that one discards at his own peril. If the experts have commonly taught a certain doctrine for centuries and if their writings have consistenly received the approval of the magisterium, we place ourselves in grave spiritual peril if we presume to deny the doctrine they teach.

Dear Father, out of respect for your priestly office I hesitate to reply in disagreement to your post but if one of my peers here is willing to make your words their own I will respond to that poster on each point of contention.

I see there's another BoD thread going on so maybe it would be best to contiue over there.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3447488.0.html

I think Stubborn and Jenn have highlighted the problem; that of the principle of non contradition.


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - FatherCekada - 12-30-2011

(12-30-2011, 07:06 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Hi Father. How would the Dimonds or other Feeneyites respond to what you state here? A response would be appreciated, as recently, Feeneyites writings and my own scrupulosity has had me in the dumps for a while (due to scruples on Baptisn of Desire and Blood, invincible ignorance, implicit faith, as well as scruples that the Dimonds et al. may be correct.)

I first published the linked article ten years ago, and no one in the Feeneyite camp that I know of has come up with a serious response.

The difficulty in doing so is that both points of the argument are very clear. (1) Pius IX laid down the general principle (on the categories of teaching Catholics are obliged to adhere to) and (2) the teachings of Catholic theologians on baptism of blood and baptism of desire (I cite 26, including St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus) fall into that category.

So  you need have no fear that the Dimonds, etc. may be correct, because the conclusion that flows from (1) and (2) is ironclad, and cannot be overcome except by rejecting the fundamental principles of theological science.

And if you have scruple problems, you may want to look at a short article I wrote on it a very long time ago. Many people have found it very helpful.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=4&catname=9

You are lucky to be in Philly. It's impossible to get a real Italian meal here in Cinci!


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - FatherCekada - 12-30-2011

(12-30-2011, 08:58 PM)columb Wrote: Dear Father, out of respect for your priestly office I hesitate to reply in disagreement to your post but if one of my peers here is willing to make your words their own I will respond to that poster on each point of contention.

I see there's another BoD thread going on so maybe it would be best to contiue over there.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3447488.0.html

I think Stubborn and Jenn have highlighted the problem; that of the principle of non contradition.

Thanks much!


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Eowyn - 12-30-2011

Thank you very much, Fr.Cekada.