Which is Greater?
#11
(03-06-2018, 07:55 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(03-06-2018, 07:46 PM)Luke3 Wrote:
(03-06-2018, 07:43 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Can the two be separated?

Yes.


No, they cannot.  No Mass, no Faith.  No Faith, no Mass.

They can be separated through schism or heresy, but it is sinful to do so.
Reply
#12
(03-06-2018, 09:23 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote:
(03-06-2018, 07:55 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(03-06-2018, 07:46 PM)Luke3 Wrote:
(03-06-2018, 07:43 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Can the two be separated?

Yes.


No, they cannot.  No Mass, no Faith.  No Faith, no Mass.

They can be separated through schism or heresy, but it is sinful to do so.

YES!  But can you expound upon your answer?  Support your answer, with other sources.
Reply
#13
(03-06-2018, 09:23 PM)Luke3 Wrote: I am trying to get everyone to critically think and rather not rely on what they think that they know.

Generally if one is new in any place, be it in a church, neighborhood, or even a forum, it is not the purpose of that person to educate the others, rather if it is a good place and environment, it is his duty to be formed by the others around him. If it is a bad environment, it is his duty to try to put the occasions for sin as far away as possible, and then sacrifice and pray for his neighbors.

The exception, obviously, if the good or salvation of another's soul.

This is not meant in any mean-spirited manner, but let us be frank, you are brand new here. If you want to be a part of this place, then welcome. If you don't want to be written off as a troll, then take the place of the new kid on the block and don't presume to "try to get everyone [none of whom you know from Adam] to critically think."

I say that also especially noting in your signature line what appears to be the presentation of the Feeneyite error (a rejection of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood) which has been condemned by the Church. Benefit of the doubt, I will assume you are just emphasizing the importance of Sacramental Baptism against the modern milieu which suggests all are saved.

As one of the old guard (here since nearly the beginning of this forum, and someone who has done graduate-level philosophy and theology), you are most welcome here, but you should know your place, and not put your neighbors to the test.
Reply
#14
(03-06-2018, 10:00 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(03-06-2018, 09:23 PM)Luke3 Wrote: I am trying to get everyone to critically think and rather not rely on what they think that they know.

Generally if one is new in any place, be it in a church, neighborhood, or even a forum, it is not the purpose of that person to educate the others, rather if it is a good place and environment, it is his duty to be formed by the others around him. If it is a bad environment, it is his duty to try to put the occasions for sin as far away as possible, and then sacrifice and pray for his neighbors.

The exception, obviously, if the good or salvation of another's soul.

This is not meant in any mean-spirited manner, but let us be frank, you are brand new here. If you want to be a part of this place, then welcome. If you don't want to be written off as a troll, then take the place of the new kid on the block and don't presume to "try to get everyone [none of whom you know from Adam] to critically think."

I say that also especially noting in your signature line what appears to be the presentation of the Feeneyite error (a rejection of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood) which has been condemned by the Church. Benefit of the doubt, I will assume you are just emphasizing the importance of Sacramental Baptism against the modern milieu which suggests all are saved.

As one of the old guard (here since nearly the beginning of this forum, and someone who has done graduate-level philosophy and theology), you are most welcome here, but you should know your place, and not put your neighbors to the test.

Point taken but necessarily time does not signify the level of a man's knowledge i.e. man's efforts, because all good things come from God.  Regarding your first and third paragraph, I don't agree at all.  Its about all members sharing the truth, whether you are new or not.  

Maybe someone new who comes along and has truth that not many people know, should it be put in the closet because he is new?  That principle is ridiculous.  Quite honestly, I do sense a bit of pride on your part because I am new here.  Because I am new does that mean I am stupid or ignorant of the Catholic faith?  Lol.  

Truth is truth, whether it comes from someone new or someone who has been around for a long time.

You mentioned that the church infallibly condemned the rejection of baptism of desire and blood?  Could you give me the Council that condemned this error as you say.  Please?
Reply
#15
(03-06-2018, 08:02 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(03-06-2018, 07:43 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Can the two be separated?

Perhaps we can make a theological distinction, but practically speaking, No.

"Faith without works is dead" (Ja 2.17). But the highest work is Sacrifice. And the supreme Sacrifice is the Sacrifice of Christ on Mt. Calvary. But the Mass is the exact same Sacrifice, sacramentally re-enacted.

To be a true Sacrifice, which is the offering and destruction of a sensible thing to God by a priest to show the His dominion and our subjection, one has to have a Faith in such a God, one needs a priest and one has to offer such a sacrifice as God wants. All of which require, first, Faith.

The essential practical expression of the Catholic Faith is the Mass.

Quote:Without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass there can be no Catholic spirituality, no Christian life, and all that has been the life of the Church through the ages will simply wither and cease to exist. We, then, do have a vital requirement for the true Sacrifice of the Mass, and this is of fundamental importance to us as Catholics. (Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre, Address in Ottawa, Canada Nov. 1975)

MagisterMusicae Wrote: "But the highest work is Sacrifice."

Actually, that is not true.  The highest work, is obedience!

The answer to the question of the thread; the Catholic Faith is greater than the Holy Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass.

1 Kings [1 Samuel] 15:22  And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams.

Hebrews 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please God.  

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

The sacrifice is the remedy for the disobedience against the commandments of God!  If there was no disobedience on the part of Adam, there would be no sacrifice.

This scriptural truth is infallible.  The Council of Trent has declared that the bible is infallible.

The Council of Trent Pope Paul III; CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES 

FIRST DECREE

Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546. 

… the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.

Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

Pertaining to all the condemned souls that are in hell, they are there because of one reason only, they wanted to live their lives, their way.  The cafeteria way, pick and choose.  Which equates to disobedience against God's laws, the Catholic Faith.
Reply
#16
(03-06-2018, 10:26 PM)Luke3 Wrote: Point taken but necessarily time does not signify the level of a man's knowledge i.e. man's efforts, because all good things come from God.  Regarding your first and third paragraph, I don't agree at all.  Its about all members sharing the truth, whether you are new or not.

Maybe someone new who comes along and has truth that not many people know, should it be put in the closet because he is new?  That principle is ridiculous.  Quite honestly, I do sense a bit of pride on your part because I am new here.  Because I am new does that mean I am stupid or ignorant of the Catholic faith?  Lol.

Truth is truth, whether it comes from someone new or someone who has been around for a long time.

After you move to a new place and go to Mass for the first time, is it wise or prudent to go up to the priest and tell him all the rubrics he's violated in that Mass, and how he didn't hold his hands exactly how the Msgr Schmitz says he should in his manual for training priests to say the Mass?

Even if you're right, the very fact that you are new to a place means that you owe to the society you are joining a deference and respect.

That is partially by filling the role of a newcomer, establishing your reputation, contributing in a constructive manner, etc. Then after you have built that reputation, shown that you are trustworthy, you know your sources, you are wise (which means not just that you know the truth, but can put it into practice in a fitting way), you can act like the rest of the crowd, challenge the status quo and try to get people to go higher.

Plus, no one said you were stupid, nor ignorant of the Faith, but your prudence, I would question when you come into a new place and immediately act like you're just another one of the members.

(03-06-2018, 10:26 PM)Luke3 Wrote: You mentioned that the church infallibly condemned the rejection of baptism of desire and blood?  Could you give me the Council that condemned this error as you say.  Please?

No council has directly condemned it, but by infallibly teaching the opposite, it logically and necessarily infallibly declares the falsity of that contradictory. Those implicit, but infallible condemnations are made explicit in the Decree of the Holy Office 8 Aug, 1949 which was approved in by Pope Pius XII in forma specifica (back when the Pope's themselves were the head of the Holy Office), and later published as an official Papal Act (DS 3866-3873).

You find the opposite (that the desire for Baptism, properly understood, is salvific) infallibly defined in the Council of Trent (Dz 796/DS 1542).

St. Alphonsus in his Theologia Moralia, (lib 6., 2) taking that statement says that Baptism of Desire is de fide: "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'".

And even then, it is not as if an "infallible" definition or condemnation is necessary to say something is a grave theological error. The very fact that every major theologian from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas, to St. Robert Bellarmine, plus a dozen other magisterial references make clear that this is the teaching of the Church.
Reply
#17
(03-06-2018, 10:39 PM)Luke3 Wrote: Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

It does not suggest your good will when you are borrowing from the Dimond Brother's site in your replies ... you didn't even bother changing the font in copying it ...

(03-06-2018, 10:39 PM)Luke3 Wrote: The sacrifice is the remedy for the disobedience against the commandments of God!If there was no disobedience on the part of Adam, there would be no sacrifice.

Actually most theologians, following St. Thomas teach the opposite and say that sacrifice flows from the natural law not on account of sin, but on account of our being creatures. This is why, for instance, St. Thomas Aquinas addresses Sacrifice under the virtue of Religion (II:II q.81) as independent of sin and not under Penance (which is the virtue which desires to repair for sin.

For instance he says (ST II:II q. 81, a. 1) :

Quote:Natural reason tells man that he is subject to a higher being, on account of the defects which he perceives in himself, and in which he needs help and direction from someone above him: and whatever this superior being may be, it is known to all under the name of God. Now just as in natural things the lower are naturally subject to the higher, so too it is a dictate of natural reason in accordance with man's natural inclination that he should tender submission and honor, according to his mode, to that which is above man. Now the mode befitting to man is that he should employ sensible signs in order to signify anything, because he derives his knowledge from sensible things. Hence it is a dictate of natural reason that man should use certain sensible things, by offering them to God in sign of the subjection and honor due to Him, like those who make certain offerings to their lord in recognition of his authority. Now this is what we mean by a sacrifice, and consequently the offering of sacrifice is of the natural law.

But none of that depends on Adam's sin, nor of actual sins afterward.

(03-06-2018, 10:39 PM)Luke3 Wrote: This scriptural truth is infallible. The Council of Trent has declared that the bible is infallible.

Actually, no.

The Council of Trent defined that the original text were inspired, and therby inerrant. It also said that the Vulgate was substantially without error, and authentic (Dz 1501/DS 783)

But if you know that, then clearly you must also know that the Council of Trent in the same decree condemns those who "relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures." (Dz 785/DS 1506)

So, before we continue, might I ask about your theological training?

And, also, politely, I would ask if you are really sure you want to do down this rabbit hole? ... I promise you it won't end well.
Reply
#18
(03-06-2018, 11:19 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(03-06-2018, 10:26 PM)Luke3 Wrote: Point taken but necessarily time does not signify the level of a man's knowledge i.e. man's efforts, because all good things come from God.  Regarding your first and third paragraph, I don't agree at all.  Its about all members sharing the truth, whether you are new or not.

Maybe someone new who comes along and has truth that not many people know, should it be put in the closet because he is new?  That principle is ridiculous.  Quite honestly, I do sense a bit of pride on your part because I am new here.  Because I am new does that mean I am stupid or ignorant of the Catholic faith?  Lol.

Truth is truth, whether it comes from someone new or someone who has been around for a long time.

After you move to a new place and go to Mass for the first time, is it wise or prudent to go up to the priest and tell him all the rubrics he's violation.

Even if you're right, the very fact that you are new to a place means that you owe to the society you are joining a deference and respect.

That is partially by filling the role of a newcomer, establishing your reputation, contributing in a constructive manner, etc. Then after you have built that reputation, shown that you are trustworthy, you know your sources, you are wise (which means not just that you know the truth, but can put it into practice in a fitting way).

Plus, no one said you were stupid, nor ignorant of the Faith, but your prudence, I would question when you come into a new place and immediately act like you're just another one of the members.

(03-06-2018, 10:26 PM)Luke3 Wrote: You mentioned that the church infallibly condemned the rejection of baptism of desire and blood?  Could you give me the Council that condemned this error as you say.  Please?

No council has directly condemned it, but by infallibly teaching the opposite, it logically and necessarily infallibly declares the falsity of that contradictory. Those implicit, but infallible condemnations are made explicit in the Decree of the Holy Office 8 Aug, 1949 which was approved in by Pope Pius XII in forma specifica (back when the Pope's themselves were the head of the Holy Office), and later published as an official Papal Act (DS 3866-3873).

You find the opposite (that the desire for Baptism, properly understood, is salvific) infallibly defined in the Council of Trent (Dz 796/DS 1542).

St. Alphonsus in his Theologia Moralia, (lib 6., 2) taking that statement says that Baptism of Desire is de fide: "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'".

And even then, it is not as if an "infallible" definition or condemnation is necessary to say something is a grave theological error. The very fact that every major theologian from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas, to St. Robert Bellarmine, plus a dozen other magisterial references make clear that this is the teaching of the Church.
[/quote]

MagisterMusicae quote. "Even if you're right, the very fact that you are new to a place means that you owe to the society you are joining a deference and respect."

I think that it is very unfair of you to accuse me of lacking humility and disrespecting others. 

True humility is knowing the truth and from where it comes from.  And it comes from God, only.  Man can claim nothing!

And according to the answers to my thread, no one 'really' knew the answer, not even you.  And this is my point, maybe someone comes along that might have really good knowledge to offer.  I love to share the truth.  This is what I am trying to do.  

Its called perfect charity.  St. Paul even says so.  Perfect charity is not giving away food, its sharing the faith.  What good is it to have a lot of knowledge and truth and keep it to yourself i.e. not have charity??

I just sense pride and anger on your part, you thought evil of me, which is uncharitable.

1 Corinthians 13:2-6  And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.  And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.  Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up;  Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth;  

You said to me that you have a lot of experience about theology and such, so you of all people should know that respect and truth, are diametrically opposed to one another.  One or the other, has to give way.  If a man is afraid to tell the truth to another man out of respect [the fear of offending] then the truth will always be compromised, in favor of the respect of the person.

Acts 10:34  And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons.

James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory with respect of persons.

Colossians 3:25  For he that doth wrong, shall receive for that which he hath done wrongfully: and there is no respect of persons with God."

You didn't even acknowledge that the answer to the thread was correct.  There is even more that I could have offered in charity.

I don't want to fight with you, I am sharing, giving and I am being slapped for it.  I really don't understand. :(

I digress, yes, you are right there is no council that has infallibly condemned the rejection of baptism of desire or blood.  You rely on fallible statements of saints that have made mistakes in good faith.  There are also saints that reject baptism of blood and desire i.e. St. Gregory Nazianzen.  

The fact that I have John 1:12-13 below, that is proof alone, that baptism of blood and desire, is erroneous.  The bible is infallible.  And the text of St. John is clear.

In fact, the Council of Trent, never said that desire alone, justified anyone, its just the opposite, thats why it states faith alone is profitless. Desire is just a disposition.  Desire is not listed as one of the causes of justification, only the laver of regeneration.
Reply
#19
(03-06-2018, 11:19 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(03-06-2018, 10:26 PM)Luke3 Wrote: Point taken but necessarily time does not signify the level of a man's knowledge i.e. man's efforts, because all good things come from God.  Regarding your first and third paragraph, I don't agree at all.  Its about all members sharing the truth, whether you are new or not.

Maybe someone new who comes along and has truth that not many people know, should it be put in the closet because he is new?  That principle is ridiculous.  Quite honestly, I do sense a bit of pride on your part because I am new here.  Because I am new does that mean I am stupid or ignorant of the Catholic faith?  Lol.

Truth is truth, whether it comes from someone new or someone who has been around for a long time.

After you move to a new place and go to Mass for the first time, is it wise or prudent to go up to the priest and tell him all the rubrics he's violated in that Mass, and how he didn't hold his hands exactly how the Msgr Schmitz says he should in his manual for training priests to say the Mass?

Even if you're right, the very fact that you are new to a place means that you owe to the society you are joining a deference and respect.

That is partially by filling the role of a newcomer, establishing your reputation, contributing in a constructive manner, etc. Then after you have built that reputation, shown that you are trustworthy, you know your sources, you are wise (which means not just that you know the truth, but can put it into practice in a fitting way), you can act like the rest of the crowd, challenge the status quo and try to get people to go higher.

Plus, no one said you were stupid, nor ignorant of the Faith, but your prudence, I would question when you come into a new place and immediately act like you're just another one of the members.

(03-06-2018, 10:26 PM)Luke3 Wrote: You mentioned that the church infallibly condemned the rejection of baptism of desire and blood?  Could you give me the Council that condemned this error as you say.  Please?

No council has directly condemned it, but by infallibly teaching the opposite, it logically and necessarily infallibly declares the falsity of that contradictory. Those implicit, but infallible condemnations are made explicit in the Decree of the Holy Office 8 Aug, 1949 which was approved in by Pope Pius XII in forma specifica (back when the Pope's themselves were the head of the Holy Office), and later published as an official Papal Act (DS 3866-3873).

You find the opposite (that the desire for Baptism, properly understood, is salvific) infallibly defined in the Council of Trent (Dz 796/DS 1542).

St. Alphonsus in his Theologia Moralia, (lib 6., 2) taking that statement says that Baptism of Desire is de fide: "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'".

And even then, it is not as if an "infallible" definition or condemnation is necessary to say something is a grave theological error. The very fact that every major theologian from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas, to St. Robert Bellarmine, plus a dozen other magisterial references make clear that this is the teaching of the Church.

(03-06-2018, 11:44 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(03-06-2018, 10:39 PM)Luke3 Wrote: Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

It does not suggest your good will when you are borrowing from the Dimond Brother's site in your replies ... you didn't even bother changing the font in copying it ...

(03-06-2018, 10:39 PM)Luke3 Wrote: The sacrifice is the remedy for the disobedience against the commandments of God!If there was no disobedience on the part of Adam, there would be no sacrifice.

Actually most theologians, following St. Thomas teach the opposite and say that sacrifice flows from the natural law not on account of sin, but on account of our being creatures. This is why, for instance, St. Thomas Aquinas addresses Sacrifice under the virtue of Religion (II:II q.81) as independent of sin and not under Penance (which is the virtue which desires to repair for sin.

For instance he says (ST II:II q. 81, a. 1) :

Quote:Natural reason tells man that he is subject to a higher being, on account of the defects which he perceives in himself, and in which he needs help and direction from someone above him: and whatever this superior being may be, it is known to all under the name of God. Now just as in natural things the lower are naturally subject to the higher, so too it is a dictate of natural reason in accordance with man's natural inclination that he should tender submission and honor, according to his mode, to that which is above man. Now the mode befitting to man is that he should employ sensible signs in order to signify anything, because he derives his knowledge from sensible things. Hence it is a dictate of natural reason that man should use certain sensible things, by offering them to God in sign of the subjection and honor due to Him, like those who make certain offerings to their lord in recognition of his authority. Now this is what we mean by a sacrifice, and consequently the offering of sacrifice is of the natural law.

But none of that depends on Adam's sin, nor of actual sins afterward.

(03-06-2018, 10:39 PM)Luke3 Wrote: This scriptural truth is infallible. The Council of Trent has declared that the bible is infallible.

Actually, no.

The Council of Trent defined that the original text were inspired, and therby inerrant. It also said that the Vulgate was substantially without error, and authentic (Dz 1501/DS 783)

But if you know that, then clearly you must also know that the Council of Trent in the same decree condemns those who "relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures." (Dz 785/DS 1506)

So, before we continue, might I ask about your theological training?

And, also, politely, I would ask if you are really sure you want to do down this rabbit hole? ... I promise you it won't end well.


You provided this quote from the Summa and perverted it.  You even say 
"But none of that depends on Adam's sin, nor of actual sins afterward."  

For instance he says (ST II:II q. 81, a. 1) :

Quote:Natural reason tells man that he is subject to a higher being, on account of the defects which he perceives in himself, and in which he needs help and direction from someone above him: and whatever this superior being may be, it is known to all under the name of God. Now just as in natural things the lower are naturally subject to the higher, so too it is a dictate of natural reason in accordance with man's natural inclination that he should tender submission and honor, according to his mode, to that which is above man. Now the mode befitting to man is that he should employ sensible signs in order to signify anything, because he derives his knowledge from sensible things. Hence it is a dictate of natural reason that man should use certain sensible things, by offering them to God in sign of the subjection and honor due to Him, like those who make certain offerings to their lord in recognition of his authority. Now this is what we mean by a sacrifice, and consequently the offering of sacrifice is of the natural law.

"
Natural reason tells man that he is subject to a higher being, on account of the defects …"

You twist and pervert what St. Thomas is saying here.  He is speaking from the point of fallen man.  Why would I say that?  Because God did not make man with defects.  In fact, God made man to the image and likeness of God.  Adam and Eve were perfect and immaculate before the fall.

Genesis 1:26-27, 31 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: ... And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. … And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

God provided everything for them.  God demanded but one thing from Adam and Eve, OBEDIENCE!  Nothing more.  Obedience is perfect love.  Better than sacrifices!!!!

John 14:15  If you love me, keep my commandments.

And so it is, the highest work, is obedience!!!

I hope that you are not going to start calling me names, when all else fails, attempting to destroy my character, when you cannot destroy the truth?  Please don't do that?  That is very uncharitable.
Reply
#20
(03-07-2018, 12:11 AM)Luke3 Wrote: MagisterMusicae quote. "Even if you're right, the very fact that you are new to a place means that you owe to the society you are joining a deference and respect."

I think that it is very unfair of you to accuse me of lacking humility and disrespecting others. 

True humility is knowing the truth and from where it comes from.  And it comes from God, only.  Man can claim nothing!

I did not say you lacked humility or disrespected others.

Part of playing a role at a forum is the duty to read the replies and reply to what the person has said, not a caricature of what the person has said.

(03-07-2018, 12:11 AM)Luke3 Wrote: And according to the answers to my thread, no one 'really' knew the answer, not even you.  And this is my point, maybe someone comes along that might have really good knowledge to offer.  I love to share the truth.  This is what I am trying to do.

But you didn't share the truth ... as I pointed out you were incorrect with regard to at least one of your claims about Sacrifice.

So at least a fundamental tenant of your hypothesis is demonstrably false. Perhaps that is why no one got the answer : it was wrong.

(03-07-2018, 12:11 AM)Luke3 Wrote: Its called perfect charity.  St. Paul even says so.  Perfect charity is not giving away food, its sharing the faith.  What good is it to have a lot of knowledge and truth and keep it to yourself i.e. not have charity??

Were you not just waxing eloquent about humility ...

(03-07-2018, 12:11 AM)Luke3 Wrote: I just sense pride and anger on your part, you thought evil of me, which is uncharitable.

I didn't think evil of you. I just did exactly what you suggested was "perfect charity"—I performed a spiritual work of Mercy by correcting your error about Sacrifice.

That's part of being a member of such a forum ... charitably giving correction, and humbly taking it.

(03-07-2018, 12:11 AM)Luke3 Wrote: You said to me that you have a lot of experience about theology and such, so you of all people should know that respect and truth, are diametrically opposed to one another. One or the other, has to give way.  If a man is afraid to tell the truth to another man out of respect [the fear of offending] then the truth will always be compromised, in favor of the respect of the person.

Your point?

(03-07-2018, 12:11 AM)Luke3 Wrote: You didn't even acknowledge that the answer to the thread was correct.  There is even more that I could have offered in charity.

Because it was wrong.

(03-07-2018, 12:11 AM)Luke3 Wrote: I digress, yes, you are right there is no council that has infallibly condemned the rejection of baptism of desire or blood.  You rely on fallible statements of saints that have made mistakes in good faith.  There are also saints that reject baptism of blood and desire i.e. St. Gregory Nazianzen.  

The fact that I have John 1:12-13 below, that is proof alone, that baptism of blood and desire, is erroneous.  The bible is infallible.  And the text of St. John is clear.

In fact, the Council of Trent, never said that desire alone, justified anyone, its just the opposite, thats why it states faith alone is profitless. Desire is just a disposition.  Desire is not listed as one of the causes of justification, only the laver of regeneration.

We don't need an infallible statement to determine what is the Faith. Limbo is not infallibly defined, but rejecting it would be an horrific error, yet would you say the same about Limbo? Our Lady as Mediatrix is not defined, but most theologians hold it could be, and certainly is virtually de fide, but because we do not have an infallible statement, are we free to reject it?

I think you misunderstand what theologians mean by "Baptism of Desire".

Baptism of Desire is not a mere wishful hope for Baptism. That is a disposition, but does nothing for anyone.

Baptism of Desire according to theologians is the a supernatural actual grace (or series of graces) which one freely accepts and cooperates with coalescing to produce in a soul the effects of Baptism without the Sacrament of Baptism.

Those graces would in the following order give a man the virtue of Faith, by which he then has the Catholic Faith and makes an act of Faith; Hope, by which he trusts that God will do what He promises, and thus he makes an act of Hope; Perfect Contrition, by which he hates all of his sins, which brings with it Charity, where he loves God above all things and also wants to do whatever God would demand of him because of that Love.

That is certainly possible without Baptism, because most of it must happen before Baptism of an Adult. An Adult must profess the Faith (thus have Faith) before the Church will allow his Baptism. The Sacrament of Baptism also requires at least imperfect contrition, like confession, which is supernatural, and means that God had to give a grace. But if God can freely give the grace to be imperfectly contrite, then He could give the greater grace to be perfectly so.

But Perfect Contrition, Charity and Sanctifying Grace go together, one cannot have the one without the other, so such a soul (rare as it may be) would be in Sanctifying Grace if all that coalesced. That is "Baptism of Desire" ... not just a "yeah, I'd like to be Baptized."

No theologian has ever asserted that a mere wishful hope for Baptism was in any way sufficient for Sanctifying Grace. Every theologian who speaks about it rightly understands that "Baptism of Desire" means Faith, Hope, Perfect Contrition and Charity, and thus Sanctifying Grace. Which is why some theologians prefer the term "Baptism of Repentance" or "Baptism of Perfect Charity."

Secondly, the Bible must be interpreted by the Church, not you. And as regards the whole subject of Baptism of Desire, the Church has spoken through the Popes, Councils, Canon Law and dozens of Saints, nearly every one of the Doctors of the Church, the greatest of those Western Doctor-theologians (St. Thomas Aquinas), and other theologians.

Finally, St. Gregory Nazienzen did not reject Baptism of Blood or Desire (Oration 39, XVII) :

Quote:“…let us speak about the different kinds of Baptism, that we may come out thence purified. Moses baptized (Lev. 9) but it was in water, and before that in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor 10.2). This was typical as Paul says; the Sea of the water, and the Cloud of the Spirit; the Manna, of the Bread of Life; the Drink, of the Divine Drink. John also baptized; but this was not like the baptism of the Jews, for it was not only in water, but also unto repentance. Still it was not wholly spiritual, for he does not add And in the Spirit. Jesus also baptized, but in the Spirit. This is the perfect Baptism. And how is He not God, if I may digress a little, by whom you too are made God? I know also a Fourth Baptism— that by Martyrdom and blood, which also Christ himself underwent—and this one is far more august than all the others, inasmuch as it cannot be defiled by after-stains. Yes, and I know of a Fifth also, which is that of tears, and is much more laborious, received by him who washes his bed every night and his couch with tears; whose bruises stink through his wickedness; and who goes mourning and of a sad countenance; who imitates the repentance of Manasseh Ninevites (Jonas 3.7-10) upon which God had mercy; who utters the words of the Publican in the Temple, and is justified rather than the stiff-necked Pharisee; (Lk 18.13) who like the Canaanite woman bends down and asks for mercy and crumbs, the food of a dog that is very hungry. (Mt 15.27)

That Fifth Way is what is called Baptism of Desire, if we rightly understand what is meant by that term.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)