Which is Greater?
#21
(03-07-2018, 01:17 AM)Luke3 Wrote: Natural reason tells man that he is subject to a higher being, [color=#ff3333]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.

Again, St. Thomas addresses this matter under the virtue of religion, not penance. The virtue of religion is not directly concerned with our sinful state. The virtue of penance concerns our sinful state.

Adam and Eve, even before the fall were creatures, this meant that they were defective secundum quid, in that they were ab alio. Even with the Præternatural Gifts, Adam and Eve still remained in need of demonstration their subjection to God, as you yourself suggest. Demonstration of subjection is the virtue of religion. Repairing for sins is the virtue of penance.

While sacrifice can be both an act of penance and religion, it is principally an act of religion.

Further, even if you reject all of that, the fact that St. Thomas argues that it is natural for man, means that it existed before the fall, because man's nature did not change between Creation and the Fall. That is the heretical and blasphemous Protestant notion of the Fall.

The Catholic understanding is that man was punished by losing the Præternatural gifts, so returned to his natural state by which he would eventually die and could be harmed. He was no longer protected by Integrity, so his Passions could rebel, and because of the sin, he disturbed the order in his soul, which caused the four wounds of Original Sin (Blindness, Malice, Weakness and Concupiscence).

But if it were natural, strictly speaking, to man after the fall (like child bearing), then it must have been so also before the fall, but St. Thomas says sacrifice is a demand of the natural law. That means it is not due to sin.

(03-07-2018, 01:17 AM)Luke3 Wrote: God provided everything for them.

Apparently not : (Gn 2.15) Tulit ergo Dominus Deus hominem, et posuit eum in paradiso voluptatis, ut operaretur, et custodiret illum ("So the Lord God took the man and put him in his garden of delight, to cultivate and tend it.")

If "Scripture is infallible" then how is man supposed to cultivate and keep something that doesn't need cultivating or keeping, since man has everything?
Reply
#22
(03-07-2018, 01:37 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(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.


MagisterMusicae quote.  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?

Luke3 response.  Wow.  I am flabbergasted that you say we don't need the Holy Ghost to determine what the faith is!  Lol!  Really!?  By the way, Limbo is infallibly defined.  And souls who die in original sin only means those who did not reach the age of reason!!! [Infants and little children]  And so it is, in charity, you are either lying or you don't know what you are talking about.  

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli, July 6, 1439 ex cathedra: [De novissimis] 2 It has likewise defined, … Moreover, the souls of those who departin original sin alone, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds [see n. 464].  Denzinger 693 Pgs. 219-220

Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274, ex cathedra:  We believe that the true church is holy, Catholic, apostolic, and one, in which is given one holy baptism and true remission of all sins. … The souls of those who die inoriginal sin only, however, immediately descend into Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.  Denzinger 464 Pg. 184

Pope John XXII, Nequaquam Sine Dolore, to the Armenians, Nov. 21, 1321  ex cathedra:  The Roman Church teachesthat the soulsof those who departwith only original sin descend immediately to hell, nevertheless to be punished with different punishments and in different places.  Denzinger 493a Pg. 193

Pope St. Innocent, 414: But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic. [9] William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers: Vol. 3; 2016, Pg. 182

MagisterMusicae quote.  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.

Luke3 response.  MM, look at your reply #14, you said this; "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.  You are saying that I lack humble submission and respect to you, among others.  Therefore, you accuse me of lacking humility and the respect of others.  You are very dishonest and showing bad will.

MagisterMusicae quote.  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.  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.

Luke3 response.  My answer to my thread was spot on.


[quote pid='1364696' dateline='1520395901']
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.
[/quote]

Your point?

Luke3 response.  With you being a theologian as you say, aren't you going to acknowledge the truth that respect and truth are opposed, just as God said!?


I am becoming convinced that you will not admit to the truth but rather you choose your own ideas and ways, which is very dangerous. 



Proverbs 16:25  There is a way that seemeth to a man right: and the ends thereof lead to death.

You prefer the doctrines of men and rather not the infallible teachings of the Catholic church.
Reply
#23
(03-07-2018, 03:44 AM)Luke3 Wrote: I am flabbergasted that you say we don't need the Holy Ghost to determine what the faith is!

You're inventing words. I did not say that.

(03-07-2018, 03:44 AM)Luke3 Wrote: By the way, Limbo is infallibly defined.  And souls who die in original sin only means those who did not reach the age of reason!!! [Infants and little children]  And so it is, in charity, you are either lying or you don't know what you are talking about.  

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli, July 6, 1439 ex cathedra: [De novissimis] 2 It has likewise defined, … Moreover, the souls of those who departin original sin alone, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds [see n. 464].  Denzinger 693 Pgs. 219-220

Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274, ex cathedra:  We believe that the true church is holy, Catholic, apostolic, and one, in which is given one holy baptism and true remission of all sins. … The souls of those who die inoriginal sin only, however, immediately descend into Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.  Denzinger 464 Pg. 184

Pope John XXII, Nequaquam Sine Dolore, to the Armenians, Nov. 21, 1321  ex cathedra:  The Roman Church teachesthat the soulsof those who departwith only original sin descend immediately to hell, nevertheless to be punished with different punishments and in different places.  Denzinger 493a Pg. 193

Pope St. Innocent, 414: But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic. [9] William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers: Vol. 3; 2016, Pg. 182

First, I see you've again plagarized straight from the Dimond Brother's website again. If you're going to steal quotes at least make them look like your own. Better yet, make the logical arguments and comments that show you know what you are talking about.

Secondly, and understandably since you're quote grabbing, none of those mention Limbo. They speak of Hell and it's differing punishments. You overstate your case.

Sadly, because you've just quote grabbed from the Dimond Brothers you've implied that I was arguing that the unbaptized infants go to heaven.

The question is not whether infants dying without Baptism go to Heaven. That would be near-heretical and certainly illogical. The question is whether they suffer in Hell.

The doctrine of Limbo asserts that they do not suffer, but have a natural happiness (but not a supernatural happiness), but are "in Hell" because not in Heaven and eternally prevented from being in Heaven.

St. Augustine and the Council of Carthage along with most of the African Fathers of that time asserted that such infants actually did suffer in the fires of Hell, but in only a very minimal way.

St. Thomas (and pretty much everyone except the Jansenists) rejected the Augustinian view (which was a over-reaction to Pelagianism), and held what is the present common teaching on Limbo. But that is all it is, a common teaching, and no Ecumenical Council or Pope has defined the matter in this regard.

(03-07-2018, 03:44 AM)Luke3 Wrote: MagisterMusicae quote. 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.

Luke3 response.  MM, look at your reply #14, you said this; "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. You are saying that I lack humble submission and respect to you, among others.  Therefore, you accuse me of lacking humility and the respect of others.  You are very dishonest and showing bad will.

No. I am not saying that. I am explaining your duties.

Would me telling you that there are forum rules mean I was accusing you of violating them?

Again, you're overstating your case. You are reading into what is written here what you want to read, and taking every last word in response to you as a personal offense, when I have gone to great lengths not to engage in any personal attack or comment.

You need to learn, however, to read what is written, and not read into what is written, if you don't want to be booted from here as a troll. I know Vox (the owner) well. I know she will probably not take kindly to such accusations. I have no sway with her, so that is in no way meant as a threat. Still, jumping in and on the same day posting nearly 20 times mostly taking offense and being argumentative is not a good start.

You accuse me of having bad will, lacking charity ... how is such accusations at every new post the basis of a good conversation?

(03-07-2018, 03:44 AM)Luke3 Wrote: MagisterMusicae quote.  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.  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.

Luke3 response. My answer to my thread was spot on.

You've taken my quotes out of context, but quod gratis affirmatur gratis negatur, thus : No. You were wrong.

(03-07-2018, 03:44 AM)Luke3 Wrote: I am becoming convinced that you will not admit to the truth but rather you choose your own ideas and ways, which is very dangerous. 

You don't say ...
Reply
#24
MagisterMusicae
(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.


Luke3 response.  No, wrong again!  Here is what St. Gregory Nazianzen had to say about baptism of desire.

The Oration on Holy Baptism.

Preached at Constantinople Jan. 6, 381, being the day following the delivery of that on the Holy Lights.

XXII. But then, you say, is not God merciful, and since He knows our thoughts and searches out our desires, will He not take the desire of Baptism instead of Baptism? You are speaking in riddles, if what you mean is that because of God's mercy the unenlightened is enlightened in His sight; and he is within the kingdom of heaven who merely desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom. I will, however, speak out boldly my opinion on these matters; and I think that all other sensible men will range themselves on my side. Of those who have received the gift, some were altogether alien from God and from salvation, both addicted to all manner of sin, and desirous to be bad; others were semivicious, and in a kind of mean state between good and bad; others again, while they did that which was evil, yet did not approve their own action, just as men in a fever are not pleased with their own sickness. And others even before they were illuminated were worthy of praise; partly by nature, and partly by the care with which they prepared themselves for Baptism. These after their initiation became evidently better, and less liable to fall; in the one case with a view to procuring good, and in the other in order to preserve it. And among these, those who gave in to some evil are better than those who were altogether bad; and better still than those who yielded a little, are those who were more zealous, and broke up their fallow ground before Baptism; they have the advantage over the others of having already laboured; for the font does not do away with good deeds as it does with sins. But better even than these are they who are also cultivating the Gift, and are polishing themselves to the utmost possible beauty.

XXIII. And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift — to be acquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. These are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished. And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:— If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?

XXIV. Therefore since you have heard these words, come forward to it, and be enlightened, and your faces shall not be ashamed through missing the Grace. Receive then the Enlightenment in due season, that darkness pursue you not, and catch you, and sever you from the Illumining. … http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm

**By the way, for readers who might not know, St. Gregory Nazianzen, presided at the Council of Constantinople in 381. It is interesting that St. Gregory wrote his oration on Holy Baptism, destroying baptism of desire, in January of 381 and then the Council is called in May 381 and it is declared that there is one baptism for the remission of sins, not 2,3 or 5 different baptisms. Lol!

Council of Constantinople 381: Nicene Creed;  one baptism for the remission of sins.

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, The Council of Chalcedon, 451: “Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 63: On the Passion (+ c. 460 A.D.): “… from the birth of baptism an unending multitude are born to God, of whom it is said: Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (Jn. 1:13).” (The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 151.)

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.  Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:5  Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Now regarding Moses baptism, that was a prototype of water baptism i.e. water and the spirit, it had no power.  The power at the time was circumcision.  St. John the Baptist, was another prototype with no power.  Why do I say this?  Because St. Paul meets certain men at Ephesus and asks them if they received the Holy Ghost in confirmation and they said that they didn't even know if the Holy Ghost existed.  St. Paul says In what then were you baptized?  They said John's baptism.  Which had no power.  St. Paul baptized them on the spot!

Acts 19:1-5  And it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples.  And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost.  And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism.  Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus.  Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Regarding baptism of blood, St. Gregory Nazianzen was speaking about baptized martyrs who were in mortal sin, gave their lives for the faith, thereby they were washed with the blood of Jesus.  After Jesus was baptized by John, later Jesus talked about another baptism which related to his death on the Holy Cross.

Truth comes from the Holy Ghost, through the office of St. Peter, period!
Reply
#25
[Image: troll.jpg]
Reply
#26
(03-07-2018, 04:44 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(03-07-2018, 03:44 AM)Luke3 Wrote: I am flabbergasted that you say we don't need the Holy Ghost to determine what the faith is!

You're inventing words. I did not say that.

Here are your words: "We don't need an infallible statement to determine what is the Faith."

If you are not going to rely on infallible statements to arrive at the conclusion, then the only other option for you, is to rely on fallible men called theologians, in whom, have no power of infallibility!  The HOLY GHOST, determines the Faith, not fallible men!!!

(03-07-2018, 03:44 AM)Luke3 Wrote: By the way, Limbo is infallibly defined.  And souls who die in original sin only means those who did not reach the age of reason!!! [Infants and little children]  And so it is, in charity, you are either lying or you don't know what you are talking about.  

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli, July 6, 1439 ex cathedra: [De novissimis] 2 It has likewise defined, … Moreover, the souls of those who departin original sin alone, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds [see n. 464].  Denzinger 693 Pgs. 219-220

Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274, ex cathedra:  We believe that the true church is holy, Catholic, apostolic, and one, in which is given one holy baptism and true remission of all sins. … The souls of those who die inoriginal sin only, however, immediately descend into Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.  Denzinger 464 Pg. 184

Pope John XXII, Nequaquam Sine Dolore, to the Armenians, Nov. 21, 1321  ex cathedra:  The Roman Church teachesthat the soulsof those who departwith only original sin descend immediately to hell, nevertheless to be punished with different punishments and in different places.  Denzinger 493a Pg. 193

Pope St. Innocent, 414: But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic. [9] William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers: Vol. 3; 2016, Pg. 182

First, I see you've again plagarized straight from the Dimond Brother's website again. If you're going to steal quotes at least make them look like your own. Better yet, make the logical arguments and comments that show you know what you are talking about.

Response.  Lol!  You are to funny, I own these books and I left nothing out as to where I got them from, page number included.  All you have done, is expose yourself as to your contempt and hatred for two Catholic men.  You are a mean spirited man, M&M.  You accuse me of not knowing anything but in fact just like the Pharisees, it is you, who doesn't know.  They accused Jesus of being the devil.  And so, you also use the reverse tactic.

Secondly, and understandably since you're quote grabbing, none of those mention Limbo. They speak of Hell and it's differing punishments. You overstate your case.

Response.  Whats interesting, on the one hand you disparage protestants but when you need to, you act just like them, "if it literally doesn't use the word that I want, I will not believe"!  There are various places in the one hell, hellfire for the damned, hell [limbo] where the unbaptized in original sin only suffer other things, they do not suffer hellfire, hell where the old testament saints waited for Jesus.

Sadly, because you've just quote grabbed from the Dimond Brothers you've implied that I was arguing that the unbaptized infants go to heaven.

Response.  You will notice that I have taken from "Papal Encyclicals online" and give the link for it, does that make the truth not the truth anymore.  Can't you see that you are grasping at straws.  You have no arguments.  And by the way, because you have no arguments, you now attempt to run away by changing the subject.  The reason why I brought out the infallibility of Limbo, was because you said that it is not taught infallibly.  And because you were refuted, you are trying to change the subject.  Not going to happen!

The question is not whether infants dying without Baptism go to Heaven. That would be near-heretical and certainly illogical. The question is whether they suffer in Hell.

The doctrine of Limbo asserts that they do not suffer, but have a natural happiness (but not a supernatural happiness), but are "in Hell" because not in Heaven and eternally prevented from being in Heaven.

St. Augustine and the Council of Carthage along with most of the African Fathers of that time asserted that such infants actually did suffer in the fires of Hell, but in only a very minimal way.

St. Thomas (and pretty much everyone except the Jansenists) rejected the Augustinian view (which was a over-reaction to Pelagianism), and held what is the present common teaching on Limbo. But that is all it is, a common teaching, and no Ecumenical Council or Pope has defined the matter in this regard.

Response.  Wow!, thank you for making my point about theologians, their opinions vary, quite often there is no unity among them on certain matters and this is my point and thats why you don't rely on theologians per se because they can be wrong in good faith!  Again, thank you!  Even Pope Benedict XIV, brought this point out about theologians, bickering and fighting about what things are and what they aren't.  And in paragraph [6] he concluded by saying that the churches judgement is preferable to that of a theologian.  Here is paragraph #6 of "Apostolica".

Pope Benedict XIV; Apostolica constitution 1749
6. We also know well the two little works of St. Gregory of Nyssa, one de iis, qui adeunt Jerosolymam and the other ad Eustatiam, Ambrosiam, et Basilissam (Operum, tome 3, pp. 651ff, Paris, 1638), which the heterodox often misuse to deride and condemn the journeys of the faithful to holy places. We realize too that a serious dispute has arisen among scholars as to the authenticity of these works. Lippomano, Baronius, Natalis, Alexander, Tillemont, and Ceillerus believe them to be genuine. On the other hand, Cardinal Bellarmine considers them of doubtful authenticity. Gretserus even condemns them as forgeries and apocryphal and attempts to prove this by many arguments in his precise annotations on p. 71ff in tome 3 of the above edition. But let us leave the dispute to one side; grant the works to be genuine and grant that St. Gregory inveighed against the abuses which had infected pilgrimages to the holy places of Jerusalem. Let us condemn the ridiculous opinion of those who say that these pilgrimages are altogether necessary for the attainment of eternal salvation. All of this does not weaken or destroy the truth We put forward at the start. For We do not insist on the necessity of sacred journeys, but simply recommend them as beneficial. We do not defend the nonsense which sometimes develops in the course of long journeys, but as will later be clear, We prevent scandals from arising by applying timely remedies. Even if the over-zealous holy Doctor at times uses a vehement style to attack the holy pilgrimages to Jerusalem, either some harsh opinions are to be believed about the inferior morals of pilgrims or about the general sense and custom of the Church. It considers the holy journeys of Christians to be pious and devout works, provided that they are organized with proper modesty and discipline. The Church’s judgment is preferable even to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14apost.htm

And concerning your error that infants are naturally happy in hell [Limbo] being in a state of death, is not a state of being naturally happy.  These babies die in mortal sin, children of wrath!

Genesis 2:17  But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

Infants that die in original sin, are children of wrath.  Regarding the wrath of God, there is no happiness in that!

Ephesians 2:3 … and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:"

For someone who claims to be a theologian and a philosopher, you lack the ability to figure things out.


(03-07-2018, 03:44 AM)Luke3 Wrote: MagisterMusicae quote. 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.

Luke3 response.  MM, look at your reply #14, you said this; "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. You are saying that I lack humble submission and respect to you, among others.  Therefore, you accuse me of lacking humility and the respect of others.  You are very dishonest and showing bad will.

No. I am not saying that. I am explaining your duties.

Would me telling you that there are forum rules mean I was accusing you of violating them?

Again, you're overstating your case. You are reading into what is written here what you want to read, and taking every last word in response to you as a personal offense, when I have gone to great lengths not to engage in any personal attack or comment.

You need to learn, however, to read what is written, and not read into what is written, if you don't want to be booted from here as a troll. I know Vox (the owner) well. I know she will probably not take kindly to such accusations. I have no sway with her, so that is in no way meant as a threat. Still, jumping in and on the same day posting nearly 20 times mostly taking offense and being argumentative is not a good start.

You accuse me of having bad will, lacking charity ... how is such accusations at every new post the basis of a good conversation?

(03-07-2018, 03:44 AM)Luke3 Wrote: MagisterMusicae quote.  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.  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.

Luke3 response. My answer to my thread was spot on.

You've taken my quotes out of context, but quod gratis affirmatur gratis negatur, thus : No. You were wrong.

Response.  At the end of the day, you don't have any arguments, so the only thing that you attempt to grasp at, is misquote, misunderstand, taken out of context etc.  Thats it.

(03-07-2018, 03:44 AM)Luke3 Wrote: I am becoming convinced that you will not admit to the truth but rather you choose your own ideas and ways, which is very dangerous. 

You don't say ...

Yes, its called an observation in your responses, its not hard to figure out.
Reply
#27
Ah, the ol' "suppose oneself to be the only one privy to some special, hidden knowledge about reality and thereby to act superior to everyone else who, not being 'in the know,' must wallow in ignorance" routine: an internet forum classic.
Reply
#28
Weird how a certain type of poster who doesn't know how
   
Quote:to format posts
 
 always uses a sprinkling of HUGE FONTS, an inordinate amount of underlined and/or bolded text, and flashes of red in strange places when posting walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text walls of text from other websites. E-v-e-r-y  d-a-m-n-e-d  t-i-m-e.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#29
[Image: troll%201.png]
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • Fontevrault
Reply
#30
(03-07-2018, 11:37 AM)Luke3 Wrote: Pope Benedict XIV; Apostolica constitution 1749
6. We also know well the two little works of St. Gregory of Nyssa, one de iis, qui adeunt Jerosolymam and the other ad Eustatiam, Ambrosiam, et Basilissam (Operum, tome 3, pp. 651ff, Paris, 1638), which the heterodox often misuse to deride and condemn the journeys of the faithful to holy places. We realize too that a serious dispute has arisen among scholars as to the authenticity of these works. Lippomano, Baronius, Natalis, Alexander, Tillemont, and Ceillerus believe them to be genuine. On the other hand, Cardinal Bellarmine considers them of doubtful authenticity. Gretserus even condemns them as forgeries and apocryphal and attempts to prove this by many arguments in his precise annotations on p. 71ff in tome 3 of the above edition. But let us leave the dispute to one side; grant the works to be genuine and grant that St. Gregory inveighed against the abuses which had infected pilgrimages to the holy places of Jerusalem. Let us condemn the ridiculous opinion of those who say that these pilgrimages are altogether necessary for the attainment of eternal salvation. All of this does not weaken or destroy the truth We put forward at the start. For We do not insist on the necessity of sacred journeys, but simply recommend them as beneficial. We do not defend the nonsense which sometimes develops in the course of long journeys, but as will later be clear, We prevent scandals from arising by applying timely remedies. Even if the over-zealous holy Doctor at times uses a vehement style to attack the holy pilgrimages to Jerusalem, either some harsh opinions are to be believed about the inferior morals of pilgrims or about the general sense and custom of the Church. It considers the holy journeys of Christians to be pious and devout works, provided that they are organized with proper modesty and discipline. The Church’s judgment is preferable even to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14apost.htm

You earlier defended the rejection of Baptism of Desire which you say is rejected by St. Gregory Nazianzen

In fact you said (and then quoted Oration 40) :

Luke3 Wrote: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 point is not the he clearly did not, but rather you can't have it both ways.

Either theologians including the Fathers of the Church are worthless or they are not. You assert the former in this last post, but then run to defend Feeneyism by misquoting St. Gregory.

But if he's fallible, what's the point?

Then, even more important, how do one determine what is infallible? Who decides?

If you are willing to quote Benedict XVI as infallible in every word he says, why do you reject Pius XII (who condemned Feeneyism)? Why not also quote John Paul II or Pope Francis, who being Popes would have that same charism.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)