BENEDICT XVI SAYS THAT PROTESTANTISM IS NOT HERESY

George Brenner wrote:
Trust in MRyan.

Trust in no man, but test and see if my words (and of others) are consistent with the teachings of the sole authority into which our trust is placed - the authentic living and authoritative Magisteium of the Church.

Thanks, George; I know that's what you meant!

Mike,

Columba's position is that of Saint Augustine, which is also that of many modern-day "Feeneyites", that all of the One and Triune God's Elect whom He has predestined to everlasting life have, without exception, also been predestined by Him to receive sacramental Baptism in Water. It is de fide that a faith-filled martyr who dies within the "bosom and unity" of the Catholic Church will go straight to Paradise; it is not de fide that such individuals will die without Baptism. We're back to trying to "prove negatives" again.

Pascendi's assumption that most to all of the Orthodox are in a state of grace is the height of presumptuous arrogance. How he or anyone else could ever know or claim to know if someone obstinately doubted a dogma of the Catholic faith is beyond me.

columba wrote:Hi Deacon Agustine.

Always liked your posts and hope you call by more often.

Deacon Agustine wrote:
And I think some of the things the Pope has said are unwise, inopportune, unclear, misleading and occasionally downright erroneous.

Glad it was you who said that DA and not me. I've said similar before but Mike didn't take kindly but to see him now agree, well, what can I say?

Columba, your selective memory has once again gone into "selective" mode; for surely you can recall that I have not shied away from saying and even giving examples of "unwise, inopportune, unclear, [or] misleading" statements of the popes.

With respect to "downright erroneous", I'm almost certain that Deacon Augustine is referring to any perceived misstatement of the Pope in his capacity as private theologian. So I have absolutely no objection to anyone holding that view. The pope is human, after all. However, I have challenged anyone on this forum to provide a single "erroneous" teaching in any matter of faith or morals in the context of an official magisterial document of the Church - throughout her entire history.

There have been no takers. You have tried (e.g., the CCC), but have come up woefully short.

For example, I disagree with any pope who says that "evolution is more than just a theory", but its the context that he meant it that that may prove to be a misread on my part, and that there is no real disagreement after all, even as we remain free to disagree on what science has actually "proven".

columba wrote:
Maybe Mike you could give a few examples from the quoted categories especially the last one; "erroneous." It seems to be the case that one can get away with generalities but if something specific be quoted, all hell breaks loose with much verbositatem being deployed to bring what was once in the "erroneous" category to the "acceptable."

It would go a long way in reconciling extremes if acknowledgement was given that not all papal statements are in accord with revealed truth.

You obviously meant to say "Deacon Augustine", not "Mike", but I appreciate the fact that you are always thinking of me.

The challenge remains, provide a single instance of an erroneous "papal statement" made by the pope in his official capacity as the Roman Pontiff, and in whatever mode of transmission he chose to transmit the alleged erroneous "papal statement" on a matter of truth or morals.

Remember, the condemnation of Pope Honorius I as a "heretic" was not the result of heresy per se, but for appearing to want to appease Sergius, and for not squashing the heresy when he had the opportunity (as successive Popes made clear).

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Columba's position is that of Saint Augustine, which is also that of many modern-day "Feeneyites", that all of the One and Triune God's Elect whom He has predestined to everlasting life have, without exception, also been predestined by Him to receive sacramental Baptism in Water. It is de fide that a faith-filled martyr who dies within the "bosom and unity" of the Catholic Church will go straight to Paradise; it is not de fide that such individuals will die without Baptism. We're back to trying to "prove negatives" again.

Jehanne,

Sorry, but if baptism of blood, as the common doctrine teaches (the one that you say is “de dide”) is salvific in and of itself because it supplies the regenerative grace of baptism without actual ablution, than the doctrine cannot otherwise be false by asserting that no one who is regenerated and saved in this manner can actually be saved without water Baptism. It would be a complete and utter contradiction.

I understand that is not what you are actually saying, but that is what is certainly implied (as you have in the past by citing Cantate Domino), otherwise, what's the point?

If water baptism is provided in each and every instance because God so ordains it; not out of “necessity”, but because “He can”, even to those who die in martyrdom without it, this is superfluous to the doctrine of baptism of blood itself -- and cannot take away from its truth which says baptism of blood is intrinsically salvific without water baptism.

In other words, the fact that I cannot “prove” that all such individuals enter heaven without water baptism is about as relevant as the fact that you cannot prove that all such individuals enter heaven with water baptism; for neither assertion has anything to do with the truth of the doctrine itself.

And nowhere does St. Augustine suggest that baptism of blood is not salvific (just the contrary); and neither is it in any way conclusive that he taught that each and every one of the elect is predestined to water baptism. That he did a complete reversal to his life-long consistent doctrinal positions relative to baptism of blood is the opinion of certain late theologians like Karl Rahner – but it is not the opinion of the Doctors and Scholars who were just as (and probably more) familiar with the teachings of St. Augustine. Even if it were true, it is hardly relevant to the Church's universal common teaching.

If baptism of blood cannot take the place of water baptism as a mean of salvation, than it is not true, let alone “de fide”.

In fact, the “modern day Feeneyites” at the St. Benedict Center NH hold as their official position that not only is baptism of blood not “de fide”, it cannot provide the grace of adoptive divine son-ship – the very definition of the translation to justification. You are the odd Feeneyite out on this for Columba is in agreement with the “modern day 'Feeneyites'” at the St. Benedict Center NH, and he goes even further by saying that a state of grace is impossible without the sacrament of Baptism.

So there's three distinct and opposing positions on baptism of blood by three "modern day 'Feeneyites'"; and you're going to tell me what "modern day 'Feeneyites'" believe?

I’m sorry Jehanne, but your statement that “it is not de fide that such individuals will die without Baptism” is about as relevant to the doctrine of baptism of blood as the statement which says “it is not de fide that such individuals will die without Confirmation”, or that “it is not de fide that such baptized adults will die without the sacrament of Penance”.

You can hold each and every one of these positions, but none of them is relevant to the subject at hand - in this case, the truth of the doctrine of baptism of blood. So my question to you is: “So what; what does not being able to prove a negative have to do with the doctrine of baptism of blood”?

Jehanne wrote:
Pascendi's assumption that most to all of the Orthodox are in a state of grace is the height of presumptuous arrogance. How he or anyone else could ever know or claim to know if someone obstinately doubted a dogma of the Catholic faith is beyond me.

Pascendi can speak for himself, but he said no such thing. Rather, he said “lots of those people are arguably very much in the Church, very much right with God.” But it is quite funny when you say “How he or anyone else could ever know or claim to know if someone obstinately doubted a dogma of the Catholic faith is beyond me”, for that is precisely his point --- that it would be the height of presumptuous arrogance to assume that “most to all of the Orthodox” have “obstinately doubted a dogma of the Catholic faith.”

Mike,

I can assert that Baptism of Blood is completely salvific, while at the same time asserting that such does not confer the indelible mark on the soul, and for that reason alone, simply assert that the One and Triune God, in His infinite Majesty over His Creation, will provide that for each and every one of His worthy martyrs without exception.

As for the Orthodox, I only know what they tell me, and what they tell me is that they do not believe in the dogmatic definitions given at the First Vatican Council. Call such what you will -- theological error, material heresy, or formal heresy. Such is impossible for any of us to prove, and so the Dimonds are free to assert formal heresy whereas others are free to assert theological error. That the Church would see fit to lift the excommunications is hardly proof that any of the Orthodox beyond the Age of Reason are in a state of grace.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

I can assert that Baptism of Blood is completely salvific, while at the same time asserting that such does not confer the indelible mark on the soul, and for that reason alone, simply assert that the One and Triune God, in His infinite Majesty over His Creation, will provide that for each and every one of His worthy martyrs without exception.

Yes, you can assert that, but what is the point? Are you suggesting that it is a binding infallible doctine of the Church that since baptism of blood does not provide the indelible seal of baptism (that equips one to participate in the life of sacraments), that the lack of the seal prevents one from entering heaven? If so, than, as the St. Benedict Center says, the Church teaches error on a matter of salvation; and baptism of blood is in fact non-salvific and can save absolutely no one without the sacrament. Columba agrees.

If you are not saying that, what is the point?

You interjected yourself into this by telling me what columba believes with respect to baptism of blood and St. Augustine, and I showed you that columba agrees with neither you nor the St. Benedict Center, NH. In other words, you are taking some sort of exception to my remarks towards columba who rejects the salvific efficacy of baptism of desire, and who rejects the teaching of the Church on the same, by telling me what you believe when it has NOTHING to do with my disagreement with columba (though I'm never quite certain of what you really believe).

Jehanne wrote:
As for the Orthodox, I only know what they tell me, and what they tell me is that they do not believe in the dogmatic definitions given at the First Vatican Council. Call such what you will -- theological error, material heresy, or formal heresy. Such is impossible for any of us to prove, and so the Dimonds are free to assert formal heresy whereas others are free to assert theological error. That the Church would see fit to lift the excommunications is hardly proof that any of the Orthodox beyond the Age of Reason are in a state of grace.

I don't care what the Dimonds believe, and anyone who follows their teaching in this matter refuses to be moderated by the Church.

As Pope Pius IX said, every schismatic fabricates a heresy to justify his schism, and the example you reference is living proof of this truth. If you want to follow that, be my guest, but do so at your own peril.

Mike,

I don't know what you believe, either. I am sure that there is no doubt of that in your mind, bur here you come across as being confusing and contradictory. As for what I believe, it's right here at the bottom and has been for over a year. Have you ever read it? It's clear to me, perhaps not to you.

At my peril? What peril? For saying that the Orthodox could be guilty of formal heresy? Seems reasonable. Heresy, after all, means choice, and the Orthodox have free will, don't they? What sin do you think that I am committing that would place me (or my immortal soul) "in peril" for claiming that the Orthodox have not all been brainwashed?

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

I don't know what you believe, either. I am sure that there is no doubt of that in your mind, bur here you come across as being confusing and contradictory. As for what I believe, it's right here at the bottom and has been for over a year. Have you ever read it? It's clear to me, perhaps not to you.

If you don’t know what I believe, try asking columba, Duckbill, simple Faith, Allie or George; I doubt if they see the alleged confusion and self-contradictions that you do, even if we are not in uniform agreement.

Your contradictions are legendary, and your posts are as consistent as your announcements that you are in fact a sede of the CMRI persuasion, and are now a material sedevacantist who will submit to the pope when he finally renounces his errors and begins to act like a true pope; while next telling us that you are also a third order MICM tertiary who has vowed to remain in communion with the pope.

No confusion and no contradiction there - perfectly consistent; and as consistent as your "heretical and absurd" allegation against "implicit desire"; a doctrine you actually accept, unless the implicit desire to enter the Church and be subject to the Roman Pontiff does not turn "explicit".

And there is absolutely no confusion or contradiction with your "null set" doctrines of the Church.

Jehanne wrote:
At my peril? What peril? For saying that the Orthodox could be guilty of formal heresy? Seems reasonable. Heresy, after all, means choice, and the Orthodox have free will, don't they? What sin do you think that I am committing that would place me (or my immortal soul) "in peril" for claiming that the Orthodox have not all been brainwashed?

This is a nice (and usual) game you are playing by changing the context of the question and by posing innocent as if anyone has suggested that none of the Orthodox "could be guilty of formal heresy". You simply twisted Pascendi's words and attacked a straw-man of your own creation.

But, I'll let you once again answer your own objection:

How he [Pascendi] or anyone else [including you] could ever know or claim to know if someone obstinately doubted a dogma of the Catholic faith is beyond me.

It is beyond me, as well.

Mike,

My religious beliefs are really none of your business. Let's just get that straight, okay? People can read my blog, if this wish, and decide for themselves. As far as I can tell, Mike, you're a "nobody". No offense, but the "shoe fits". The Dimonds are, however, somebody:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mostholyfamilymonastery.com

So is my order:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/catholicism.org

Likewise, so is Traditio & the SSPX:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/traditio.com
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/sspx.org

Where are you, Mike? What I find amazing about you is your "amazement" that other individuals do not agree with you! Just so we're clear, Mike, most "Catholics" do not believe in any of it; for them, it's a "Christmas/Easter" thing. The true Universal Church is only a remnant. See the article on the St. Benedict Center's website -- apostasy within the universal "Church" is, well, universal.

As for my blog, I get 200 to 300 hits per month from all over the World, so I am happy with that. Remember, Mike, it's (still) a "free country" and people can make-up their own minds. I simply do not agree with you, and you should be okay with that!

Jehanne said:

Mike,

My religious beliefs are really none of your business. Let's just get that straight, okay? People can read my blog, if this wish, and decide for themselves. As far as I can tell, Mike, you're a "nobody". No offense, but the "shoe fits". The Dimonds are, however, somebody:

Jehanne,

Is that really the type of language, you want to post the day before Lent begins?
The way a forum works is you post a question and then it gets answered and so on and so forth. If beliefs are really none of someones business , you sure do post a lot of your beliefs. Do you not realize that most of your beliefs would be dismissed by the "Somebody" Dimonds as wrong or worse; you know the "H word.

JMJ,


George

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

My religious beliefs are really none of your business. Let's just get that straight, okay? People can read my blog, if this wish, and decide for themselves. As far as I can tell, Mike, you're a "nobody". No offense, but the "shoe fits". The Dimonds are, however, somebody

No offense taken. I am a nobody, and no truer words were ever said. And, if the Dimonds are a "somebody", there is something to be said for being a "nobody".

When you publicly post your religious views over the internet, especially on this forum and especially in the provocative way you challenge my posts with your stated beliefs, than please don't tell me that your beliefs are only your business, so let's get that straight, okay?

Don't enter the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.

George,

According to the Dimonds, Mike was, upon a time, a sede, and a former member of this forum, before he left, sent me a number of Mike's emails from his "Fenneyite" days. I am happy to talk about theological ideas, but when one "goes a digging" for "some dirt," I think that individual has "crossed the line." Since coming to this board a year ago in December, I have never considered myself to be in "the full communion with Rome" category, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that my position on the recent Popes can come across as being somewhat ambiguous. Mike, on the other, has mis-characterized and misrepresented my position (as if such even matters to anyone.) I have always admitted a certain level of agnosticism on the question.

What I am not an agnostic on is Pope Boniface's Papal Bull, Unam Sanctam, which, I think, "speaks for itself."

Jehanne,

I fully accept that you are passionate and in pursuit of the Truth. I am personally not too interested on anyone on this forums past life and beliefs, whether true or fabricated. The past is spent, the present is now and the future is not promised. A co worker of mine was killed instantly walking to work by an automobile this morning. Life is very fragile and eternity is forever.

Look at one of the greatest Saints in the Church namely Saint Augustine. I am sure he has given due to credit, praise and love to his Mom while on Earth and now in Heaven. What matters is your spiritual condition at the time of your death, so we should live today as death may be immenient.

Monica had at least three children who survived infancy. The oldest, Augustine, is the most famous. At the time of his father’s death, Augustine was 17 and a rhetoric student in Carthage. Monica was distressed to learn that her son had accepted the Manichean heresy and was living an immoral life. For a while, she refused to let him eat or sleep in her house. Then one night she had a vision that assured her Augustine would return to the faith. From that time on she stayed close to her son, praying and fasting for him. In fact, she often stayed much closer than Augustine wanted.

George,

I am sorry to hear of the death of your friend. I will pray for the repose of his immortal soul.

Don