Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:34 pm by MRyan

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Padre Pio told Fr.Gabriel Amorth," It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church" -Bishop Richard Williamson
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Mons. Brunero Gherardini misled the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and many traditionalists
Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Cantate Domino and Sedeism

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  MRyan on Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:51 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
You have not answered the question of how your species doctrine can be reconciled with the infallible dogmatic pronouncement that declares that “our Lord Jesus Christ” who “lives, presides and judges to this day” IN the “successors” (i.e., the validly elected successors) of “Blessed Peter”, “the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church”, who “abiding in the rock’s strength which he received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church.”
Mike. in this quote from your reply to Bernadette, you ask how her views can be reconciled with the infalible dogmatic pronouncement. Are you now wearing the "take the dogma as it's written cap?"

Was it not you who told us that we must understand the dogmas as the Church interprets them and not as they're written?
No, you appear to be confusing me with someone else since I never said any such thing. In fact, I often wonder who this other “MRyan” is you so often respond to since this phantom double is most definitely not me.

Let’s get this straight: We understand dogmas as they are written AND as they have always been understood by the Church. In other words, there can be no conflict between the meaning of the definitive words of a dogma and the Church’s understanding of the same. That is why the Church has proclaimed time and again that the true interpretation of Holy Scripture and the Church’s doctrines (revealed or not) was not given to laymen or to anyone else to determine, it was given exclusively to the Magisterium of the Church.

columba wrote: Compare,

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
and tell me, where do you find the ambiguity in this? If it is ambiguous how comes your quote is not?
First of all; who said its ambiguous? The fact that you do not understand it as the Church understands it does not mean it is ambiguous; it only means that your Pharisaical understanding is wrong.

For example, “unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives” is not ambiguous when it is understood as the Church has always understood it since it does not preclude anyone who does not know of his obligation to join the Church, or does not obstinately refuse to enter her (as opposed to the “Arians, Monophystes, Ebionites”) from being “joined to the Church before the end of their lives” through the bonds of faith, charity and intention.

You say “unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives” requires no interpretation other than what the words declare, that no one may be united to the Church before the end of their lives except through formal incorporation in the sacrament of baptism, yet nowhere do the words state this. In other words, you have imposed your private interpretation over that of the Church’s own, and over tradition and the saints.

Said another way, you do not understand the dogma "...with the same sense and the same understanding — in eodem sensu eademque sentential" (VCI) — as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning.

Proof of this is your insistence that “nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” is a solemnly defined dogma that absolutely precludes the traditional doctrine of baptism of blood, and confirms the “dogma” that no one can be saved who has not been joined to the Church in water Baptism.

In fact, as you know (we’ve gone over this before), the dogmatic citation from Cantate Domino is from a book written by Saint Fulgentius, and reads as follows:

“Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”
This is the same Fulgentius of Ruspe who wrote in the very same book:

From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).
So tell us columba, do you really believe it was the intention of Pope Eugene IV and the Council Fathers to “reject baptism of blood” by citing St. Fulgentius on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus when this very same Saint and Father explicitly taught baptism of blood in the same book from which the Council took its solemn declaration? I would say, rather, that Council Fathers would never quote a Father of the Church against the mind of the same Father and the mind of tradition – the "true understanding" of which began with St. Cyprian and has been taught and embraced by the Church ever since.

This is why the Council of Florence declared:

the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.
Only a twisted ecclesiology and pure Pharisaical hyperbole can turn this around by saying that the Council Fathers assembled at Florence and Basel affirmed that baptism of blood was never universally taught or accepted and embraced by the Church “according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”. In fact, you suggest, the Council of Florence, in order to “correct” St. Fulgentius and the Church Fathers, cited him word for word on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and then “defined” precisely the opposite of what he wrote on baptism of blood (which belongs to the same dogma).

The Council had a wicked sense of humor, don’t you think? And I wonder if the Church knows about this little joke played out at the Council of Florence and how the entire Church and all of her saints, Doctors and theologians, and even the living authoritative Magisterium, have been “duped” into believing that her universal teaching on baptism of blood is true, when it has been solemnly “defined” that it is false?

In fact, your ecclesiology is no different from bernadette’s who actually believes that the infallible doctrine that solemnly declares that “our Lord Jesus Christ” who “lives, presides and judges to this day” IN the “successors” (i.e., the “validly elected” successors) of “Blessed Peter” (“the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church”); who, “abiding in the rock’s strength which he received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church” … actually means that the validly elected successor to St. Peter may in fact be “An apostate” who “can sit in the Chair...a heretic can be a pope”.

In other words, the bernadette doctrine declares it is not an infallible truth that “our Lord Jesus Christ … lives, presides and judges to this day” IN His validly elected successors; it declares it is not infallibly true that the validly elected pope is “the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church”; it is not infallibly true that Blessed Peter abides “to this day” and “always … in the rock’s strength which he received” (because as an “apostate” he never received it?); and finally, it is not infallibly true the “validly elected” successor to “Blessed Peter … has not abandoned the direction of the Church”.

In fact, she says, the Church the validly elected pope presides over does not even exist (it ended with VCII, don't you know).

And how does Bernadette know all of this is true? Well, because that’s what the “evidence” tells her, so it must be true; Cogito ergo sum!

This is no different from your version of Cogito ergo sum which tells you Cantate Domino “defined” that no one may be joined to the Church except by water baptism ... and because your fallible mind tells you this, it must be true.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Jehanne on Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:39 pm

We accept Baptism of Blood, Mike. But, that's not the point, is it:

At the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: “Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam.”

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/right-wing-liberals-and-big-3.html
http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/right-wing-liberals-and-unam-sanctam.html
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Guest on Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:51 pm

Hi to all,

I don’t be on the forum much anymore, so to all the new comers to the site that doesn’t know me, a big hello to you all!

If I may I would just like to state my case concerning the above post. This issue of “interpretation” was addressed before on this forum. However, here is an additional point that is extremely important in this regard. In its Decree on the Sacrament of Order, the Council of Trent solemnly declared that the dogmatic canons of Trent are for the use of all the faithful!

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.” (Denz. 960)

The word “canon" (in Greek: kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure. The Council of Trent is infallibly declaring that its canons are measuring rods for “all” so that they, making use of these rules of Faith (the meaning of the word “canon”), may be able to recognize and defend the truth in the midst of darkness! This very important statement blows away the claim of those who say that using dogmas to prove points is “private interpretation.” This canon teaches exactly the opposite of what they assert: that all cannot make use of these rules of Faith! This is a very important statement not only for the salvation/baptism controversy, but also for the sedevacantist issue.

The point of the dogmas is so that the faithful know what they must believe and reject, so that they are independent of the mere opinions of men, and are following the infallible truth of Christ. If the faithful have to rely on someone else giving their version or understanding of the dogmatic definition, then that (fallible) person becomes the rule of faith, and not the infallible dogmatic definition.

St. Francis De Sales explained it well against the Protestants.

St. Francis De Sales (Doctor of the Church), The Catholic Controversy, c. 1602, p. 228: “The Councils… decide and define some article. If after all this another test has to be tried before their [the Council’s] determination is received, will not another also be wanted? Who will not want to apply his test, and whenever will the matter be settled?... And why not a third to know if the second is faithful? – and then a fourth, to test the third? Everything must be done over again, and posterity will never trust antiquity but will go ever turning upside down the holiest articles of faith in the wheel of their understandings… what we say is that when a Council has applied this test, our brains have not now to revise but to believe.”

The “interpretation” ends with the words of the dogma itself! If it doesn’t, then it never ends, as we saw above – you just have fallible interpretation after fallible interpretation after fallible interpretation after fallible interpretation. If the buck doesn’t stop with the infallible definition (the Chair of Peter), then it never stops. This fact was pointed out to a somewhat well-known “apologist” for the Vatican II sect in a telephone conversation with the Dimond bro’s. He was arguing that our usage of Catholic dogmatic teaching (the teaching of the Chair of Peter) is like Protestant “private interpretation.” He was saying this in an attempt to defend some of his heretical beliefs which contradict dogma, such as his belief that non-Catholics can be saved. One of the bro’s said to him, “then who interprets the dogma? And who interprets the interpretation of the dogma?” After one of the Dimond bro’s said “who interprets the interpretation of the dogma… and who interprets the interpretation of the interpretation… and who interprets the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation…” he remained deadly silent for the first time in the conversation. He obviously had no response to the factual point that was made, simply because there is no response. In the heretical view of dogmatic teaching that he espoused, the Catholic Faith is nothing more than Protestantism – fallible, private, human interpretation with no Chair of Peter to give one the final word. The following quotation also illustrates this point very well.

“Why did Athanasius know he was right? Because he clung to the infallible definition, no matter what everyone else said. Not all the learning in the world, nor all the rank of office, can substitute for the truth of one infallibly defined Catholic teaching. Even the simplest member of the faithful, clinging to an infallible definition, will know more than the most ‘learned’ theologian who denies or undermines the definition. That is the whole purpose of the Church’s infallibly defined teaching – to make us independent of the mere opinions of men, however learned, however high their rank.” (The Devil’s Final Battle, p.183.)

That is why in adhering to exactly what the dogma “has once declared” (Vatican I), one is not engaging in Protestant “private interpretation,” but is rather being most faithful to the infallible truth of Christ and the directly infallible way of knowing it (the dogmatic definitions of the Church).

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” (Denz. 1800)

Those who depart from the actual declaration of the dogma, and the actual meaning of its words, are the ones who engage in condemned, sinful, fallible and private interpretation, against the direct words of the dogma (against the infallible definitions) and thus destroy all faith and render Papal Infallibility pointless. If one can’t go by what the dogmatic statement actually declares, then Christ would have just told us to always follow those with learning or authority; He would never have instituted an infallible Magisterium exercised by the Popes, which can clarify issues once and for all times with no possibility of error and regardless of who agrees or disagrees with the definition.

BUT CAN’T MEN MISUNDERSTAND A DOGMATIC DEFINITION?

Of course they can. Men can misunderstand or pervert anything and any form of teaching that could ever be transmitted. If Jesus Christ (the Truth Himself) were here speaking to us, many people would without doubt misunderstand or pervert what He said, just as many did when He came the first time. Likewise, just because some can and do misunderstand what the Chair of Peter is declaring, it does not mean that those who faithfully adhere to and make use of its definitions are engaging in Protestant “private interpretation.” It is just the opposite, as is clear from the Council of Trent above. And once again that is why the Magisterium has condemned the idea that dogmas are just “interpretations”!

Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned (Denz. 2022)


Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned (Denz. 2054)


Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (#7), Aug. 15, 1832: “… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”

Hi Simple Faith, sorry I havn’t got back to you yet, I intend to very soon. Hang in there.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Guest on Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:11 pm

I apologize if the above highlighted writings in my post are hard to read, I won't make that mistake next time by choosing Impact... sorry.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  MRyan on Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:41 pm

Why don't you stick around, Fatima for our times, and we'll expose the true legacy of Protestant private interpretation as we explore the expressed meaning of certain dogmatic prescriptions, one infallible canon at a time.

Are you ready?

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Guest on Sat Oct 01, 2011 1:59 pm

Why don't you stick around, Fatima for our times, and we'll expose the true legacy of Protestant private interpretation as we explore the expressed meaning of certain dogmatic prescriptions, one infallible canon at a time.

Are you ready?

I appreciate the invitation MRyan, but I think I’ll give it a pass. Your brain works a lot faster than mine doe’s and judging from your previous posts I would say you are a lot older than me thus have a lot more debating skills, knowledge and experience (I’m not trying to make excuses) pirat . However, there is one man on this forum that is well up for you and that’s Columba. He is a lot more humble and he’s got a lot more patience than I do when dealing with you.

I enjoy reading the posts on different threads and from time to time I will stick my nose in and give a brief explanation of what I think the Church teaches on the issue. That’s all I can give at the moment as I am busy with work and other things but hopefully in the future when I have more time we can “expose the true legacy of Protestant private interpretation as we explore the expressed meaning of certain dogmatic prescriptions, one infallible canon at a time.”

In the mean time I will do as St. Athanasius did and cling to the infallible definition, no matter what everyone else says. Smile


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Catholic_Truth on Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:52 pm

MRyan wrote:Why don't you stick around, Fatima for our times, and we'll expose the true legacy of Protestant private interpretation as we explore the expressed meaning of certain dogmatic prescriptions, one infallible canon at a time.

Are you ready?


This is nothing more than bravado and grandstanding from MRyan. When I was on this forum earlier this year, I posted the infallible statements from the Church to which MRyan attempted to reinterpret practically each and every statement from its original meaning, all in the name of a "deeper understanding". Modernists like MRyan are exactly what the first Vatican Council had warned us against. Also, when Mryan's opponent is clearly winning the argument, then MRyan resorts to ad hominem attacks, and when that tactic doesn't work, then he threatens to leave the Forum.

Grow up MRyan. You attack the Dimond brothers behind their backs, but you're too afraid to confront them, one on one, in a recorded phone debate.

Notice everyone that the Dimond brothers have an open debate challenge for individuals like MRyan, yet MRyan refuses to call them toll-free at 1-800-275-1126. The reason MRyan hides behind his keyboard in this forum is because he knows that if he was to debate the Dimond brothers, then his arguments would be easily refuted.

Watch everyone as MRyan will now resort to ad hominem attacks against the Dimond brothers in an attempt to discredit them, so that he can say he won't waste his time debating them. This is how individuals who don't have the truth try to get out of a debate. Keep hiding from the Dimond Brothers MRyan, while you throw insults at them from afar.
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  columba on Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:29 pm

Ya know what?.. I wouldn't like to verbally (assuming I disagreed with them) debate the Dimonds either as they would probably tie me up in knots. It could be the case that Mike may not be as adept verbally as he is in the written word. If that be the case then how about an exchange via email? What you say Mike? I for one would follow it.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  George Brenner on Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:01 pm

And if we dismiss many of our Popes where will that leave Christ's Promise?
Many are prone to attack the very core beliefs of Our Catholic Faith and Our Pope due to the worldliness, scandal, abuses and weakness in teaching that is so rampant in the last fifty years. Throughout the centuries these atrocities have been with us; but much more so today! The crisis of faith of today has been brought on by all of us due to our weakness in our Faith and the defense thereof. We must stay in the church and be a good Christian soldiers.

Listed below is but a glimse :

IV. Magisterial Pronouncements and Early Popes



Pope Innocent II - To your inquiry we respond thus, we assert without hesitation on the authority of the Holy Father's Augustine and Ambrose, that the priest whom you indicated in your letter had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the church and the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly father land... Question concerning the dead, you should hold the opinion of the learned fathers, and in your church, you should join in prayers, you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned. Denzinger


Pope St. Innocent III - A certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water, while saying I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.. We respond that since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as clearly gathered from the words of the Lord when said "Go baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit." The Jew must be baptized again by another. If however such a one had died immediately he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament although not because of the sacrament of faith. Denzinger section 413


Pius IX, By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into, will perish in the flood. NEVERTHELESS equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. (Denzinger, 1647)


Pius IX 7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.
Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]


9. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.


POPE PIUS IX, SINGULARI QUIDEM, 1856.

4. You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children. There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God


7. The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH, NOBODY CAN HOPE FOR LIFE OR SALVATION UNLESS HE IS EXCUSED THROUGH IGNORANCE BEYOND HIS CONTROL. The Church teaches and proclaims that if sometimes we can use human wisdom to study the divine word, our wisdom should not for that reason proudly usurp to itself the right of master. Rather, it should act as an obedient and submissive servant, afraid of erring if it goes first and afraid of losing the light of interior virtue and the straight path of truth by following the consequences of exterior words.[18]


8. We should not conclude that religion does not progress in the Church of Christ. There is great progress! But it is truly the progress of faith, which is not change. The intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge of everybody should grow and progress, like that of the whole Church of the ages. In this way we might understand more clearly what we used to believe obscurely; in this way posterity might have joy of understanding what used to be revered without understanding. In this way the precious stones of divine dogma might be worked, adapted exactly and wisely decorated, so that they increase in grace, splendor, and beauty--but always in the same fashion and doctrine, in the same meaning and judgment, so that we can speak of a new manner rather than new substance.[19]
Notice what Pius says. Back in section 4 he says outside the church, no salvation. However, he says that it specifically refers to those who have abandoned the church. Similarly, as in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, where he says those people who obstinately fight the pope have no hope of salvation. He writes in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore that one who is invincibly ignorant can achieve eternal life. Likewise, in this encyclical, in section 7 he writes "nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.". So therefore, those who are ignorant beyond their control CAN hope for salvation


Pope St. Pius X Catechism, Question 132 - Will a person outside the Church be saved? It is a most serious loss to be outside the Church, because outside one does not have either the means which have been established or the secure guidance which has been set up for eternal salvation, which is the one thing truly necessary for man. A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church.


Pope St. Pius X Catechism, Question 280 - If Baptism is necessary for all men, is no one saved without Baptism? - Without Baptism no one can be saved. However, when it is impossible to receive Baptism of water, the Baptism of blood suffices, that is, martyrdom suffered for Jesus Christ; and also the Baptism of desire suffices, which is the love of God by charity, desiring to make use of the means of salvation instituted by God.


Pope Pius XII, (1943: DS 3821): "They who do not belong to the visible bond of the Catholic Church... [we ask them to] strive to take themselves from that state in which they cannot be sure of their own eternal salvation; for even though THEY ARE ORDERED TO THE MYSTICAL BODY OF THE REDEEMER BY A CERTAIN DESIRE AND WISH of which they are not aware [implicit in the general wish to do what God wills], yet they lack so many and so great heavenly gifts and helps which can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church."


Vatican II, #16: (1964 AD) For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation." .


Pope Paul VI - 1968 - THE CREDO OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD - 23 -We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ, who is the sole mediator and way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church.[33] But the divine design of salvation embraces all men, and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.


John Paul II, #10 (Dec. 7, 1990): "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the church... . For such people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the church, does not make them formally a part of the church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation."


Pope St. Gregory the Great, . 15: (540-604 AD): "When He descended to the underworld, the Lord delivered from the prison only those who while they lived in the flesh He had kept through His grace in faith and good works."


Pope St. Clement I, 7.5-7 (c. 95 AD): "Let us go through all generations, and learn that in generation and generation the Master has given a place of repentance to those willing to turn to Him. Noah preached repentance, and those who heard him were saved. Jonah preached repentance to the Ninevites; those who repented for their sins appeased God in praying, and received salvation, even though they were aliens [allotrioi] of God."

Pope St. Gregory the Great : (540-604 AD ) 2.3: "The passion of the Church began already with Abel, and there is one Church of the elect, of those who precede, and of those who follow.. They were, then, OUTSIDE, BUT YET NOT DIVIDED FROM THE HOLY CHURCH, because in mind, in work, in preaching, they already held the sacraments of faith, and saw that loftiness of Holy Church."


Pope St. Leo the Great, 23.4: (440-61 AD): "So God did not take care of human affairs by a new plan, or by late mercy, but from the foundation of the world He established one and the same cause of salvation for all. For the grace of God by which the totality of the saints always had been justified was increased when Christ was born, but did not begin [then]."



In addition to this caution against naively interpreting a particular passage from the body of writings of the Fathers of the Church, Fr. Most points also to a number of other passages among the writings of the Early Fathers which give a much broader conception of membership in the Church.

It should be obvious from this statement that the Church is being portrayed as a mystery, with much more to it than meets the eye. A door has been opened for a sense of real, though perhaps unacknowledged, membership in this saving body. This notion of the pre-existence of the Church is also apparent in the so-called Second Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, which has been dated to the mid-second century. The anonymous author states that the Books [Old Testament writings] and the Apostles [New Testament writings] declare that the Church belongs not to the present, but has existed from the beginning. She was spiritual, just as was our Jesus; but He was manifested in the last days so that He might save us. And the Church, being spiritual, was manifested in the flesh of Christ (Jurgens, vol. 1, p. 43).


This statement seems to be a very clear example of what St. Paul must have meant when writing to the Romans a century earlier: For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works through Christ Jesus (Romans 2:14-16).


Thus, according to the thought of St. Paul, if a person obeys the law of God written on his heart, he is obeying Christ the Logos and is essentially accepting the Spirit of Christ, even if he is not fully aware of this. Following Romans 8:9 ("you are in the spirit, if only the Spirit of God dwells in you. Who ever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."), it seems reasonable to conclude that a "just pagan" like Socrates belongs to Christ and in some way shares in the membership of His Body, the Church, even without a formal awareness or an outward, visible manifestation of this fact.

avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  MRyan on Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:42 pm

columba wrote:Ya know what?.. I wouldn't like to verbally (assuming I disagreed with them) debate the Dimonds either as they would probably tie me up in knots. It could be the case that Mike may not be as adept verbally as he is in the written word. If that be the case then how about an exchange via email? What you say Mike? I for one would follow it.
Sure. Better yet, and with Rasha's permission, this Forum is a good forum for such a debate. Its not that I am not adept at verbal exchanges (I think I can hold my own), it's that I have neither the time nor the inclination to amass all of the data I would need to have at the ready in a rapid-fire live telephone exchange.

I am a father and have another life outside of this forum, which takes up enough of my time as it is. I do not have time for these extracurricular activities, and never pretended to be a professional or even a self-proclaimed public apologist who engages others in controlled telephone or open-air debates; and I don't exactly relish the idea of contributing to the financial rewards and/or publicity such debates bring to certain protagonists.

If anyone outside of this forum wants to debate me, here I am ... the forum is open to anyone.


avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  MRyan on Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:48 pm

George Brenner wrote:And if we dismiss many of our Popes where will that leave Christ's Promise?
George,

Very nice post. Thanks.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  MRyan on Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:59 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:
MRyan wrote:Why don't you stick around, Fatima for our times, and we'll expose the true legacy of Protestant private interpretation as we explore the expressed meaning of certain dogmatic prescriptions, one infallible canon at a time.

Are you ready?
This is nothing more than bravado and grandstanding from MRyan. When I was on this forum earlier this year, I posted the infallible statements from the Church to which MRyan attempted to reinterpret practically each and every statement from its original meaning, all in the name of a "deeper understanding". Modernists like MRyan are exactly what the first Vatican Council had warned us against. Also, when Mryan's opponent is clearly winning the argument, then MRyan resorts to ad hominem attacks, and when that tactic doesn't work, then he threatens to leave the Forum.
Come now, C-T, we both know that's not true. I clearly exposed your errors and you have no reply except to copy and paste the same misinterpreted proof texts. The only argument you were "winning" is the circular one you are having with yourself. It goes something like this:

All of the Revealed dogmas were Revealed to me for safekeeping "as they were written" and require no more interpretation other than my own; which happens to be the same clear interpretation as that held by the Church and tradition, whether the Church or tradition agree with my infallible interpretation or not. And if the Magisterium rescinds from the clear meaning of the dogma (like when it says through baptism of blood and baptism of desire that the sacrament of baptism is "optional"), I'm here to correct the Church and all of those modernists who refuse to accept the clear meaning of the dogmatic Canon "as it is written".
That about sums it up.

Among your other errors, I also clearly exposed your particular error with respect to a "deeper understanding" and demonstrated precisely where and how you took it completely out of context.

You have no reply, because you lost the argument, hands down.

Catholic_Truth wrote:Grow up MRyan. You attack the Dimond brothers behind their backs, but you're too afraid to confront them, one on one, in a recorded phone debate.
I can assure you that I am very much an adult (well, my wife might not agree), and if anyone wants to debate me, here I am.

Furthermore, when someone copies from the work of the Dimonds and pastes it here, it is not going "behind their backs" when their errors are refuted and exposed for what they are.

So take your silly complaint to the forum complaint department.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Catholic_Truth on Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:06 am

George Brenner, take a look at this...
Pius IX said, "that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man, will, in His infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault."7

Pius IX teaches that God will not have them remain invincibly ignorant, one way or another they will be enlightened to the doctrines which are necessary for belief. Besides, even if Pope Pius IX said what you think he said, which he didn't, then it's still not an infallible statement. In fact, everything you posted was fallible statements, and to top it off, MRyan congratulated you for doing so. At least when true traditional Catholics like Fatima for Our Times, Jehanne and Columba post statements, then they use infallible statements. Gee, I wonder why they don't get congratulated by MRyan for doing so.

As for you MRyan, you'd like to think you bested me in those previous debates from earlier this year, but you obviously are delusional. I'm guessing your pride won't allow you to see that you lost each and every debate, but not against me. Instead, you lost each debate against the infallible dogmatic teachings themselves. So that quote you attempted to attribute to my understanding of Church teaching better fits your modernist understanding, especially since we traditional Catholics don't interpret and/or listen to others who interpret infallible statements, but instead you modernists do that.

Oh, and just as I predicted, MRyan once again has come up with an excuse to evade debating Peter Dimond. No surprise there. What's hilarious though is to see him feel the need to scrounge up so many excuses to get out of that debate. If MRyan really had the truth on his side, then he would stand up for his faith. Deep down inside, MRyan knows that if he was to confront the Dimond's one-on-one in a recorded phone debate at 1-800-275-1126, then he would be easily refuted and seen for the modernist he truly is. MRyan knows it, and we all know it too.
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Allie on Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:25 am

Catholic_Truth wrote:
Oh, and just as I predicted, MRyan once again has come up with an excuse to evade debating Peter Dimond. No surprise there. What's hilarious though is to see him feel the need to scrounge up so many excuses to get out of that debate. If MRyan really had the truth on his side, then he would stand up for his faith. Deep down inside, MRyan knows that if he was to confront the Dimond's one-on-one in a recorded phone debate at 1-800-275-1126, then he would be easily refuted and seen for the modernist he truly is. MRyan knows it, and we all know it too.

It seems pretty clear that MRyan said he would debate them right here on the forum (unless I am reading a different thread than you C_T)...so perhaps the ball is in your court to call their 800 number and get them over here if your ultimate goal is truly for a fair debate and exposition of errors. Unless "deep down" that is not really what you want?
avatar
Allie

Posts : 100
Reputation : 116
Join date : 2010-12-20
Location : southern Ohio, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  MRyan on Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:04 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:
As for you MRyan, you'd like to think you bested me in those previous debates from earlier this year, but you obviously are delusional. I'm guessing your pride won't allow you to see that you lost each and every debate, but not against me. Instead, you lost each debate against the infallible dogmatic teachings themselves. So that quote you attempted to attribute to my understanding of Church teaching better fits your modernist understanding, especially since we traditional Catholics don't interpret and/or listen to others who interpret infallible statements, but instead you modernists do that.
Then perhaps a trip down memory lane is in order.

C_T wrote:
My point is this, that Paul VI’s promulgation of the documents of Vatican II fulfilled all three of these requirements [for papal infallibility], which would make the documents of Vatican II infallible if he had been a true pope.

1) A Pope must act as Pastor and teacher of all Christians
2) A Pope must teach in accord with his supreme apostolic authority
3) A Pope must explain a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church

Your egregious error has already been exposed quite sufficiently, but let's review some of the basics.

A solemn “promulgation of the documents of VCII” did not fulfill all of the requirements for papal infallibility since neither in the official promulgation nor in the documents themselves did Pope Paul VI express his intention, by virtue of his supreme teaching power, to declare this or that particular doctrine on faith and morals to be a component part of the truth necessary to salvation revealed by God, and as such to be held by the whole Catholic Church, and so give a formal definition in the matter (definire).

VCII “explained” (in the form of exposition) many doctrines on faith and morals, but defined none. In his Relator, Bishop Vincent Gasser explained the proper sense of the key word "defines" to the Council Fathers before the dogma of papal infallibility was solemnly defined:

… the word "defines" signifies that the Pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain, or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff. Such then is the meaning of the word "defines".
Did Pope Paul VI intend to define any particular doctrine on faith or morals as a truth revealed by God, and as such to be held by the whole Catholic Church, and so give a formal definition in the matter (definire)?

The same Pope who promulgated the documents of VCII answered this important question in a General Audience, 12 January 1966:

“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the Authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”

It is a separate question as to whether by a unanimous nondefining act of the extraordinary Magisterium the Council set forth infallibly a common doctrine(s) of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to be held definitivelyby declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, as a truth that is divinely revealed ... or as a truth of Catholic doctrine.... Consequently … The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.”(CDF Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei).

One such truth that was an open question prior to the Council and is commonly understood to have been definitely and infallibly settled by the Council is the sacramentality of the episcopate (Lumen Gentium III, n. 21).

And of course, the general infallibility of an ecumenical council is also a separate question with its own set of guidelines and limitations; though C-T seems to conflate the various theological opinions and teachings on the limitations of general infallibility (as well as the Church’s teaching on the infallibility of the OUM) with the pope’s supreme teaching office and ex cathedra definitions.

And we see the results when private interpretations are let loose and proposed as definitive Catholic dogmas; for not even the pope who closed the Council, promulgated its documents and declared quite matter-of-factly that the Council avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility is spared the “correcting" hand of untrained lay apologists who have the hubris to suggest that Pope Paul VI obviously did not understand the definition of his own solemn prerogative of infallibility as defined by Pope Pius IX and VCI.

In other words, little did Pope Paul VI know that when he formally promulgated each and every Council document, he formally expressed his intention to define, and did so define everything contained therein as truths revealed by God, and as such, everything therein is to be held by the whole Catholic Church with the assent of divine and Catholic Faith.

Just ask C-T, after all, he "bested" me and Pope Paul VI with "the infallible dogmatic teachings themselves."

And he calls me "delusional".

Let's recall my characterization of C_Ts' private doctrine:

All of the Revealed dogmas were Revealed to me for safekeeping "as they were written" and require no more interpretation other than my own; which happens to be the same clear interpretation as that held by the Church and tradition, whether the Church and tradition agree with my infallible interpretation or not. And if the Magisterium rescinds from the clear meaning of the dogma (like when it says through baptism of blood and baptism of desire that the sacrament of baptism is "optional"), I'm here to correct the Church and all of those modernists who refuse to accept the clear meaning of the dogmatic Canon "as it is written".
Yep.


avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeeism

Post  George Brenner on Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:38 pm

To Catholic Truth,

Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863, #7: "Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching."



"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."

End of quote +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It simply states that God will not suffer such a person to be eternally punished. What does this mean, in the context of his encyclical and of Catholic dogma? The obvious answer, the ONLY answer, is that God will get that person, who stained only with original sin and has never willingly consented to actual sin, though they had the opportunity to do so, BAPTISED IN WATER, bringing him into His faith so that he may merit eternal life. The words of Pius IX are justly understood in this light, since there is no contradiction here with the Catholic dogma.

Now, about Pius IX, his words are simply not heretical as they stand, and in fact have a very important meaning. One would have to change his words to make them heretical, but this is not necessary at all for them to have a Catholic UNDERSTANDING Furthermore, Pius IX was indeed vociferous in preaching the salvation dogma and a great Pope!

I only quoted many fallable statements in my previous post to pose the question, now more specifically than before. Who and Why and When does someone decide who are legtimate Popes. That is the Duty of Holy Mother Church. If not was Pope John Paul I a true Pope , if not by whose authority? Who safeguards that list so that I may be more enlightened?

Why is it so hard to fathom that thru the mercy of God that an invincibly ignorant person or an unbaptised baby that has not been born could miraculously be baptised with water and incorporated fully into the Catholic Church.

I think that I totally share your anger at all the horrendous scandals since Vatican II and I am fighting as hard and as best I can with action and deeds. Our Faith and Doctrines are secured and protected in the very rough seas we find ourselves today in the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit will protect us. This vail of tears we find ourselves in today will be corrected with prayer and action. I much prefer to go to the Latin Mass said by the Fraternity of St. Peter. I have prayed for so many years for the return of Christ's own word "Many" to the Eucharist. If we needed to say the Mass in the vernacular, it was already on all the right hand pages of the St Joseph daily Missal. I believe tht Priest should face Jesus and the tabernacle etc etc etc... I will stay in The Catholic Church always and be thankful for all the Holy and Good and continue to write letters to those that scandalyze and mislead the faithfull, mostly from within.

Saint Michael defend Us, All Popes that were Saints please guide our souls.
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Jehanne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:09 am

George,

Everyone must become Catholic to be saved, even those who labor in "invincible ignorance." All that Pope Pius IX ever said is the following:

1) Individuals laboring in "invincible ignorance" will not be punished by the One and Triune God for that ignorance; however, they will still be condemned to Hell for original sin and their personal sins, which cannot be taken away without Baptism or "at least the desire thereof," desire which must, at the very least, be encapsulated in explicit faith in Jesus Christ, or at least implicit faith in Christ, such that if a person would have the opportunity to embrace the Gospel, he/she would, without hesitation, explicitly do so.

2) If an individual laboring in "invincible ignorance" cooperates with the graces of the Holy Spirit, then he/she will become Catholic, eventually.

What was stated in Cantate Domino is de fide: all Jews, all Protestants, all Orthodox, all Muslims, all Buddhists, all Hindus, all atheists, all agnostics, all pagans, and all Catholics who deny a single Catholic dogma are destined for the "eternal life," unless they, before the end of their lives, become fully Catholic.

It may be that Heaven will be very sparsely populated, and if that is indeed, reality, then that is something that we will all have to accept. Do not pray with heretics and/or schismatics and do not attend their blasphemousness and idolatrous worship services, but do pray for them and always proclaim the Truth to them, without hesitation, for the salvation of their eternal, immortal souls, and especially, your own soul.

Save yourself, George; "to Hell with everyone else."
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  MRyan on Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:30 am

Jehanne wrote:
1) Individuals laboring in "invincible ignorance" will not be punished by the One and Triune God for that ignorance; however, they will still be condemned to Hell for original sin and their personal sins, which cannot be taken away without Baptism or "at least the desire thereof," desire which must, at the very least, be encapsulated in explicit faith in Jesus Christ, or at least implicit faith in Christ, such that if a person would have the opportunity to embrace the Gospel, he/she would, without hesitation, explicitly do so.
What an amazing turn of events, watching Jehanne suddenly embrace the CMRI doctrine of “implicit faith”.

Following a new sect requires a new doctrine. First it was the Feeneyite doctrine, now it the CMRI doctrine, which, when it comes to the salvation dogmas, are clearly opposed. Shall we dig up Jehanne’s posts on “the absolute or you are a heretic” necessity of explicit faith?

Tell us Jehanne, what it the next Jehanne dogma to fall? How about explicit subjection to the Roman Pontiff? Let’s see, if someone can be saved who does not have an explicit faith in Christ through no fault of his own, how can he have an explicit belief in, and place himself under, the authority of the Roman Pontiff as his subject?

Just watch as the next Jehannian dogma falls by the wayside.

Gone is the “heresy” of an implicit desire that does not become explicit.

Gone is the “heresy” of an implicit faith that does not become explicit.

Gone is the “heresy” of implicit subjection to the Roman Pontiff that does not become explicit.

The next Jehannian dogma to fall:

Gone will be the “infallibility” of Augustine’s doctrine of sense suffering for unbaptized infants.

Jehanne wrote:
2) If an individual laboring in "invincible ignorance" cooperates with the graces of the Holy Spirit, then he/she will become Catholic, eventually.
This is not what you said in number one above. Note: “will become Catholic, eventually” means that a supernatural faith in God as Creator and Rewarder WILL become an explicit faith in Jesus Christ. However, “if a person would have the opportunity to embrace the Gospel, he/she would, without hesitation, explicitly do so” does not at all suggest that he “will” become Catholic by professing the divine and catholic faith, but only that he would do so if given the opportunity if the veil of inculpable and invincible ignorance is lifted by the divine light of faith; the same divine light that resulted in a supernatural faith in God.

So which is it and when “will” this supernatural faith in God become an explicit faith n our Lord? Before death, before one’s particular judgment, or before one can be allowed into the beatific vision?

Why don’t you check with the CMRI and get back with us.

Jehanne wrote:
What was stated in Cantate Domino is de fide: all Jews, all Protestants, all Orthodox, all Muslims, all Buddhists, all Hindus, all atheists, all agnostics, all pagans, and all Catholics who deny a single Catholic dogma are destined for the "eternal life [sic]," unless they, before the end of their lives, become fully Catholic.
Actually, that is not what it “stated”; this is your “private interpretation”.

But you are on the right thread for imposing your own interpretation of dogma as dogma.

Will you be checking with the CMRI?

Jehanne wrote:Save yourself, George; "to Hell with everyone else."
How can anyone save himself by following the ever-changing Church of Latter Day Jehanniasm where what's "heresy" today" is "orthodoxy" tomorrow?



avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Jehanne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:05 pm

I have not changed my beliefs:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/absurdity-of-implicit-faith-part-4.html

I have always acknowledged the salvific nature of implicit faith. It is, however, something that is transitory and temporary, and it is both heretical and absurd to say otherwise. It's like saying that a student of normal intelligence could go through K-12 education and be ignorant of the existence of North America. (That's what you believe.) Kindergarteners, yes, for some. Twelfth graders, no way!!

Implicit desire does need to become explicit -- de fide.

Implicit faith does need to become explicit -- de fide.

Implicit subjection to the Roman Pontiff does need to become explicit -- de fide.

Mike, was Giordano Bruno justly burned by the Church? Yes or No, please.

Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Saint Fulgentius, To Peter on the Faith, 533 AD)
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  MRyan on Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:48 pm

Jehanne wrote:I have not changed my beliefs:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/absurdity-of-implicit-faith-part-4.html

I have always acknowledged the salvific nature of implicit faith. It is, however, something that is transitory and temporary, and it is both heretical and absurd to say otherwise.
It is absolutely absurd to "acknowledged the salvific nature of implicit faith" and then turn right around and say implicit faith is not salvific unless it becomes explicit.

The two propositions are mutually exclusive and are condemned by the Law of Non-Contradiction. Either an implicit faith is, by its very nature, salvific; meaning, it is conducive to salvation, or it isn't. You say it is, but only "temporarily" so, such that if a salvific implicit faith does not become explicit, it is no longer salvific, which is complete and utter hypocrisy.

Again, if "the desire thereof, ... must, at the very least, be encapsulated in ... at least implicit faith in Christ, such that if a person would have the opportunity to embrace the Gospel, he/she would, without hesitation, explicitly do so" cannot be true IF, by the very fact this same person is NOT given the opportunity to embrace the Gospel (but would do so IF given the opportunity), his implicit faith would no longer be "salvific"; and it is THAT simple.

This is no different from saying that baptism of desire is salvific, but it is only temporarily salvific and will no longer be salvific unless it results in water baptism. If baptism of desire can save no one unless it is fulfilled in water baptism, then it is NOT salvific (precisely as Br. Andre argues), and it is as simple as that. Ditto for implicit faith.

I recognize the erroneous argument at play here:

"Sanctifying grace is salvific, but only temporarily so since it must find its true fulfillment in water baptism."

Of course, if sanctifying grace is salvific, the only way that it can become non-salvific is if it is LOST though grave sin. And, if the sacrament is not available through no fault of one's own, then sanctifying grace cannot for that reason be lost; and it is the same with the salvific nature of implicit faith. In both cases, the justified soul would be baptized and/or WOULD embrace an explicit faith IF given the opportunity.

Jehanne wrote:It's like saying that a student of normal intelligence could go through K-12 education and be ignorant of the existence of North America. (That's what you believe.) Kindergarteners, yes, for some. Twelfth graders, no way!!
If it is absolutely necessary for salvation that one must have an explicit knowledge of the existence N. America, then it would be ludicrous to suggest that one may be saved only by an implicit knowledge through an explicit thirst for the truth. If an implicit knowledge is salvific, then it is still salvific even if he never comes to an explicit knowledge, but has the desire for it.

Did you ever take a class in elementary logic?

Jehanne wrote:Implicit desire does need to become explicit -- de fide.

Implicit faith does need to become explicit -- de fide.

Implicit subjection to the Roman Pontiff does need to become explicit -- de fide.
And when must this implicit desire, faith and subjection need to become "explicit" before being deemed non-salvific and heretical?

Jehanne wrote:Mike, was Giordano Bruno justly burned by the Church? Yes or No, please.
What was considered "just" in one age may not be considered "just" in another. Was it "just" that Bruno lay in a Papal prison for six years? Was it just that he was probably tortured in order to elicit a confession, or that torture was a standard operating procedure? Dick Cheney would have been right at home.

Justice is a matter of prudence, so it is irrelevant whether I think it was "just" or not. The Church had the right, but I would have preferred that rather than turning heretics over to the state for the carrying out of the death penalty, that the Catholic judges themselves should have performed the executions by their own hands.

Did his anger at what he obviously believed to be an injustice cause Bruno to have allegedly pushed the Crucifix away when it was offered to him just before he was torched? Did the "divine mercy" of being burned at the stake turn into his damnation? It can work both ways.

There's a reason we don't burn heretics at the stake anymore, and the reasons are just.

Am I correct in my reading of a previous post of yours that St. Joan of Arc was justly burned at the stake for not submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff?

Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Saint Fulgentius, To Peter on the Faith, 533 AD)
Funny that your original attempt at an "interpretation" does not match this one. See my initial post of this thread.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Jehanne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:05 pm

Saint Thomas gave the infallible teaching of the Church:

"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly...even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or he would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)." (The Disputed Questions on Truth, q.14, a.11)

So, Cornelius had genuine implicit faith, and that is why the preacher (Peter) was sent to him. I do not see why this violates the "Law of Non-contradiction."

Saint Jehanne la Pucelle did submit to the Pope:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/in-defense-of-holy-inquisitions.html
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  George Brenner on Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:02 pm

Jehanne,

On your point about baptism of the invincibly ignorant:

Pope Pius IX " BAPTISED IN WATER, bringing him into His faith"

We are in complete agreement I think ?. Through a miracle God could bring such a person, as He wishes with baptism of water AND bring him or her into ' HIS FAITH' that faith being incorporated into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, The ONE and Only True Faith. Did you think I meant an Angel of the Lord would spin a Faith dial and see where it lands. I apologize if I was not clear.
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  MRyan on Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:19 pm

Pope Pius IX did NOT teach that in the ordinary course of salvation and in particular with respect to the effects of contingent secondary causes, that God MUST and therefore WILL perform miracles in order to provide the sacrament of baptism to each of His elect. He is not bound by His sacraments and Pope Pius IX certainly understood this. The Council Fathers assembled at VCI also understood this and the Committee “de fide” said so explicitly when confirming the true sense of “implicit faith” in the context of invincible ignorance.

Let us not impose “opinions” (even acceptable opinions) as dogmas by suggesting that the ONLY interpretation is one that is not shared by the Council Fathers of Vatcian I or II, and is not shared by the living and authoritative Magisterium.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  George Brenner on Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:02 pm

The mercy and love of God knows no bounds that we could ever grasp. Everything that I have read and am currently reading tells me that We can never question God and so I do not. We can ask questions of God in prayer. It is just my prayer, not official Church teaching or Dogma that those who are invincibly ignorant if that is ever truly possible , babies still in the womb, those unbaptised that have not reached the age of reason might not suffer pain in the afterlife. In any event I love God and His will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Since the Church does not know for sure the eternal outcome in these cases, I can and do have my hope and prayer.

I feel we have all discussed this subject quite a bit.
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  MRyan on Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:15 pm

It [Pope Pius IX] simply states that God will not suffer such a person to be eternally punished. What does this mean, in the context of his encyclical and of Catholic dogma? The obvious answer, the ONLY answer, is that God will get that person, who stained only with original sin and has never willingly consented to actual sin, though they had the opportunity to do so, BAPTISED IN WATER, bringing him into His faith so that he may merit eternal life. The words of Pius IX are justly understood in this light, since there is no contradiction here with the Catholic dogma.
My point is this: That is NOT the "obvious" answer, and it is NOT the ONLY answer, for it is not the answer of the Church. Its not even the answer of Bishop Hay and Fr. Mueller (explicit faith, yes; water baptism, no).

As a private opinion, its not a problem.

When we obey the Church, especially in matters of faith and salvation, we obey God. And I know we can find agreement in that.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  MRyan on Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:44 pm

Jehanne wrote:Saint Thomas gave the infallible teaching of the Church:

"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly...even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or he would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)." (The Disputed Questions on Truth, q.14, a.11)
So, Cornelius had genuine implicit faith, and that is why the preacher (Peter) was sent to him. I do not see why this violates the "Law of Non-contradiction."
St. Aquinas does not violate it, but you do. Heres’s why:

I would agree that it is “infallible” that “it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance."

I also agree that it is de fide that a supernatural faith in God as “it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Trent, Sess. VI) is necessary for salvation.

Now, as far as what defines the exact nature of supernatural faith beyond a supernatural faith in God as Creator and rewarder (with respect to absolute necessity), and the intention to believe all truths taught by the Church, this has NOT been defined, and St. Thomas is giving us his opinion as to why he believes every justified soul equipped for salvation will also receive an explicit faith in or Lord, even by inspiration. Cornelius is an example, but is not the absolute rule.

In other words, St. Thomas Aquinas did not hold that coming to an explicit faith was an absolute necessity such that without it salvation would be lost, and we know this “both because men before Christ were saved without it, and also because men after Christ can be justified, and made fit for heaven without it.” (From a previous post, citing Ludovicus).

If men are made fit for heaven without an explicit faith, then the necessity of explicit faith is NOT an absolute necessity, and is necessary only insofar as Aquinas believed “God intends that after the advent of Christ, every man who dies justified also dies with explicit knowledge of Christ.”

In other words, he believed that God would provide explicit faith as a matter of divine Providence, which in turn is fulfilled by contingent non-necessitating proximate causes (i.e., inspiration or sending a messenger). If Gods as First Cause has infallibly decreed that a certain soul will receive explicit faith, then he will. However, since it is not absolutely necessary for salvation, God may not so decree; at least not until death or immediately thereafter (there are no souls in heaven who do have an explicit faith).

St. Aquinas teaches: “But not all things subject to providence are necessary; some things happening from contingency, according to the nature of the proximate causes, which divine providence has ordained for such effects".

So it is clear that St. Aquinas does NOT, unlike you, hold explicit faith as an absolute necessity, without which salvation is absolutely lost even for a justified soul justified in a supernatural faith in God. Unlike you, he considers it a non-necessitating declaration of Divine providence that God has every intention of fulfilling.

St. Thomas might even be right (and I believe he is), but the Church teaches the doctrine of implicit faith, and holds with St. Thomas that “it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, OR he would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)."

By raising the explicit faith doctrine of Aquinas to the altar of dogmatic infallibility, you are condemning as heretical the teachings of scores of theologians (since the 16th century), the most renowned theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries, the theological schools, the approved theology manuals, the Fathers of VCI, the common consensus of the faithful, the common consensus of the Bishops and the explicit authoritative teachings of the Magisterium.

Btw, I’m curious, what year did your living authoritative Magisterium go into a coma?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Cantate Domino and sedeism

Post  George Brenner on Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:27 pm

MRyan,

I need to be more carefull when quoting, the Quote by Pius IX
was followed by Author comments and not my own as probably implied. I coppied and pasted more than what I thought I did and did not proof read properly.. OOPS.
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  MRyan on Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:39 pm

George Brenner wrote:MRyan,

I need to be more carefull when quoting, the Quote by Pius IX
was followed by Author comments and not my own as probably implied. I coppied and pasted more than what I thought I did and did not proof read properly.. OOPS.
OOPS accepted!

That didn't sound like you - I couldn't square it with your other posts.

Thanks for the clarification.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Jehanne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:47 pm

Yes, it has been defined, infallibly so, that explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/magisterial-statements-on-need-for.html

Yes, Saint Thomas held to explicit faith:

After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above ( Question 1, Article 8 ). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office." (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.7)

This is de fide; I will not stop proclaiming it (here and there) until my dying breadth. Remember, I am a sede; I do not submit to the present "Pope" nor his heretical Catechism. You can "play games" with Saint Thomas' teaching all that you want.

The living Magisterium of the Church exists; it just does not exist in Rome. You are, Mike, a prime example of a Catholic atheist; as far as I can tell, your "theology" is indistinguishable from that of the atheistic Freud. It is stupid, which is why it is heretical. According to you, there is no such thing as a victim of sexual abuse -- in a way unknown to them and in spite of their explicit desires to the contrary, they, in fact, desired the sexual encounter.

I am happy to share Heaven with the Dimond Brothers; perhaps we and the brothers of the Saint Benedict Centers (as well as some from this forum) will be the only individuals in Heaven who had reached the Age of Reason. Join "Pope" Benedict in Hell, if you wish; I will not be going there.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  George Brenner on Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:33 pm

MRyan,

You must have the patience of Job. Would a shortened repost of your 883 be in order?

Jehanne,

The vicious personal remarks or attacks are never in order or charitable. How is it that you have placed yourself in Heaven along with the others you have named and condemned to Hell others by specific name. What Catholic teaching bypasses judgement day?

My wife is a convert to the Catholic Faith, My son in law is a convert as is his brother and many others I know. I understand your passion but enough already,
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Jehanne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:52 pm

George,

They condemn themselves by their own words. Just as I can judge a man to be a traitor to his country, so, too, I can judge a man to be a traitor to the King of Heaven. Mike makes a mockery of Christ's own words:

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned." (Mark 16:16)

Peter was sent to Cornelius because Cornelius, as a human being created in the image of the One and Triune God, had human free will, something that Mike and his modernistic cronies deny. Cornelius was ready to embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ, something which he had been studying; that is why Peter was miraculously transported to him -- to complete the process. When that happened, Cornelius, as an act of his own free will, freely embraced the Gospel of Jesus Christ and was baptized, as an act of his own free will.

The One and Triune God is a Perfect Being; as such, He cannot lie, ever, which means that He will never, by His divine light and grace, lead someone who is genuinely seeking Him into a false religion. Such can never happen; to claim otherwise is to deny the Perfection of God; it is to claim that God is a liar, that He would lead someone who is seeking Him to embrace false beliefs.

Pope Pius IX understood this -- Individuals who sincerely seek God will find Him through His Son Jesus Christ, which means being fully incorporated through Baptism, into His Mystical Body, which is the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  George Brenner on Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:24 pm

Jehanne,

I had no reason to look before but have you been on the Link below. I have not even begun to read it yet due to the late hour but will read tommorrow and like to know your thoughts.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.todayscatholicworld.com%2Fdims-refuted.htm&ei=CLyLTvrnDMffsQKtifWeBA&usg=AFQjCNHTI8IPFPF45yTx_SLHJzi97DeTUQ

Also in my library, I have a Book dated 1860 from Father Faber a convert from the Anglican church to Catholicism and will quote some of the text tommorrow. Have you heard of him?

Thanks,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Jehanne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:52 pm

I have heard of him, but I doubt very much that I will be "impressed." Catholic modernism began in the 18th-century, a product of the Enlightenment which over swept the Academy with Sir Issac Newton's Principia and its clockwork Universe. Naturally, the influence of deism (which its successor, modern atheism) began to have an influence on Catholic (sic) scholars, who, up until the time of Newton, dominated the universities of Europe. Many of these scholars sought to merge the ideas of the Enlightenment with Roman Catholic theology, which spawned Catholic liberalism which began to show its influence in the late 18th-century. We know this to be so because Popes of that era began to issue condemnations, which the Second Vatican Council more or less went on to embrace, spawning, of course, the Traditional Catholic movement.

That Catholic liberalism would be present at the First Vatican Council should surprise no one, as is evident by the fact that many of the Church Fathers at that Council openly denied the dogma of Papal infallibility, just as openly as they denied the dogma of explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Today, there are very few Catholics which profess and believe in the dogmas set forth in the Athanasian Creed, which means that there are simply very few Catholics alive today.

I believe that we live in the End Times. For proof of this, you can watch the very secular movie, "The Age of Stupid," available on Netflix. This is how the World will end:

1) Human beings will continue to pump greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere, which, of course, include carbon dioxide, but especially, methane, which has 20 times the radiative forcing of CO2.

2) After a 2 to 3 degree Celsius rise in temperature over the pre-industrial levels (we're just shy of 1 degree Celsius right now), a very large quantity of trapped methane (perhaps, trillions of tons) will be released from the permafrost, creating a mini-runaway greenhouse effect, raising the surface temperature of the Earth between 6 and 8 degrees Celsius over per-industrial levels.

3) Our World will no longer be able to sustain life; either Christ will come again or we will all die.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Saviorsheart on Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:40 pm

I agree with mryan and George Brenner. The catholic church has finally realized that one does not have to be a member of it to get to heaven, nor does one need to have knowledge of Jesus either. Its just too bad that it took the church so long to become enlightened to that knowledge. There are many paths to heaven because many ppl acknowledge the Christ consciousness without ever hearing about Christ. They worship the Christ consciousness without knowing it because they are following their own conscience and are sincere in their beliefs. They all have a particular good in their religions and are therefore united to the Church through that. We can't condemn protestants, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus and others just because they don't have the fullness of the truth.

There will be many ppl of other religions in heaven. Jesus said there are many rooms in heaven. You sedes and feeneyites are just holding to ancient teachings of the church which were wrong all along. The church today is finally getting things right.

Saviorsheart

Posts : 8
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2011-02-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  columba on Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:58 pm

Saviorsheart wrote:I agree with mryan and George Brenner. The catholic church has finally realized that one does not have to be a member of it to get to heaven, nor does one need to have knowledge of Jesus either. Its just too bad that it took the church so long to become enlightened to that knowledge. There are many paths to heaven because many ppl acknowledge the Christ consciousness without ever hearing about Christ. They worship the Christ consciousness without knowing it because they are following their own conscience and are sincere in their beliefs. They all have a particular good in their religions and are therefore united to the Church through that. We can't condemn protestants, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus and others just because they don't have the fullness of the truth.

There will be many ppl of other religions in heaven. Jesus said there are many rooms in heaven. You sedes and feeneyites are just holding to ancient teachings of the church which were wrong all along. The church today is finally getting things right.

So how can we be sure that the Church has finally got it right this time?
If she was wrong then, what's to prevent her from being wrong now?
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Cantate Domino and Sedeism

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum